PDA

View Full Version : 4/3 sensor crop size vs 35mm



tspore
05-17-2006, 05:48 PM
I found this at some point. It shows the difference of cropping between 35mm and 4/3 sensor, in common print size.
1559
(Click for bigger size)

Bojan Volcansek
05-18-2006, 05:30 AM
I found this at some point. It shows the difference of cropping between 35mm and 4/3 sensor, in common print size.


That's nice. I would like to see also larger sizes. If ever I have a little spare time these days, I'll try to add additional sizes.

Yours Bojan

Knight Palm
05-25-2006, 03:56 AM
Here is a drawing I made some time ago, showing various sensor sizes in absolute scale to each other.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/sundvis/sensorsL.gif

Rfinley33
10-01-2008, 07:48 AM
I really appreciate your information.

Johannes
10-01-2008, 05:15 PM
I found this (http://img.danawa.com/cms/img/2008/08/13/isvsedt%281%29.jpg) at a Korean site. :)

Don Kondra
10-01-2008, 06:01 PM
You know, I've always wondered why people make such a big deal about this...

There is an image you wish to capture, you decide which lens to use. You zoom in or out or walk closer or back up.

Who cares what the "numbers" are if you capture what you want?

Just curious :D

Cheers, Don

DoubleDAZ
10-01-2008, 06:10 PM
I could be wrong, but I think the point might be to reinforce the idea that folks new to digital and new to 4/3 need to consider standard print sizes when composing their shots. I know I didn't think about this when I first got my E-510 and wanted to print a standard 4x6 or display a 16x9 on my notebook. Now I back off a bit to allow for cropping to print sizes for family photos, etc.

lendur2
10-01-2008, 06:42 PM
I know I didn't think about this when I first got my E-510 and wanted to print a standard 4x6 or display a 16x9 on my notebook. Now I back off a bit to allow for cropping to print sizes for family photos, etc.

I don't understand. If you print yourself, you can control the aspect ratios of the prints. If you have them printed commercially, you can select one that prints full-frame. I believe it was Kaiser Soze who stated that a certain company (Wolf?) printed the correct sizes for the 4/3 aspect ratio. Was it 4.5" x 6"? and I forgot the other. But using 4", the length is 5.3; using 5", the length is 6.6"; using 8", the length is 10.6". Didn't check, but someone told me Walgreen prints to 4/3 aspect ratios.

DoubleDAZ
10-01-2008, 07:51 PM
First of all, I know I can print in 4/3 aspect and I can crop an image to fill any size paper. However, for this discussion, let's just assume that I need/want a standard 4x6 photo. Other than adding borders and such, there are only 2 ways I know of to get a 4/3 image to fill a 4x6 sheet. One is to crop off the top and/or bottom, leaving the sides intact (as the chart shows). The other is to shrink the image to leave the top/bottom intact, but short one side or the other or both. Obviously, shorting the sides is not an option. But, if I don't compose an image leaving room at the top and/or bottom, neither is cropping.

Let's say I take a photo of an airplane with the canopy all the way to the top, the wheels all the way to the bottom, and the front/rear all the way to either side of the frame. I don't know of any way to convert that to 4x6 without cropping something out or leaving blanks on the sides. By backing off just a bit, I could lower the canopy and raise the wheels enough to crop the top/bottom to fit the image on a 4x6 sheet without cutting anything out. This is exactly what I did with some static displays I shot shortly after getting my E-510. I've since reshot them so I could fill a standard 4x6 sheet without cutting out any part of the airplane.

The other situation where this sometimes poses a problem for me is converting a 4/3 image for use as wallpaper or a screensaver on my 16x9 widescreen monitor. Oftentimes, the sky in a landscape shot is cut and it throws the image off. Other times, like with a herd of horses or deer, etc., some parts of the animals are cut off, also making for a poor image.

The point is that by considering print and/or display aspects, one can avoid ruining photos when converting them for other aspect uses.

lendur2
10-01-2008, 08:04 PM
I read somewhere that the 4/3 sensor (perhaps only new ones?) is engineered to output 2:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios. Maybe it was regarding the new Panasonic sensor used in the Lumix G? I'm not saying that or some other camera has the controls to change aspect; only that if I recall correctly what I read, that the potential is there by virtue of original engineering (or specifications?) for the 4/3 format (or maybe only new models of 4/3).

4/3 isn't really your problem. I know of no solution but to compromise. With the plane (motionless) you of course can do a panorama of two frames. That should net you a 4" x 6" or even 4" x 8" (if my math is correct). Or have real fun and do a 2 x 4 frame one and have a real wall-paper on your monitor. :)

DoubleDAZ
10-01-2008, 08:21 PM
4/3 isn't really your problem. I know of no solution but to compromise. With the plane (motionless) you of course can do a panorama of two frames. That should net you a 4" x 6" or even 4" x 8" (if my math is correct). Or have real fun and do a 2 x 4 frame one and have a real wall-paper on your monitor. :)
I think you might have misunderstood the intent of my original and subsequent post. I have no problem with 4/3 at all. It's just that initially I didn't understand the dynamics of how it related to film (other than focal length) and standard printing/display aspects. I didn't buy the E-510 because it was 4/3. I bought it because of in-camera IS and previous experience with Olympus via an OM-10 I inherited. Before I saw the IS, I was planning on getting a Nikon just like my daughter has, a D40 I think. Anyway, for better or worse, I like my E-510 much better and am glad it was released before I replaced my OM-10. :)

lendur2
10-01-2008, 08:38 PM
I think you might have misunderstood the intent of my original and subsequent post. I have no problem with 4/3 at all. It's just that initially I didn't understand the dynamics of how it related to film (other than focal length) and standard printing/display aspects. I didn't buy the E-510 because it was 4/3. I bought it because of in-camera IS and previous experience with Olympus via an OM-10 I inherited. Before I saw the IS, I was planning on getting a Nikon just like my daughter has, a D40 I think. Anyway, for better or worse, I like my E-510 much better and am glad it was released before I replaced my OM-10. :)

Maybe I did read too much into it. But you have said you're happy; therefore I am happy for you. It is a good little camera. I had an E-410 for all of 3 days. Oh well, I've now bought an E-510 and it may arrive in less than two weeks. I like the abbreviated format (as opposed to 3:2). When doing landscape-type shots, the longer frame is actually nicer; but turn it vertical... Oh, my. And I'm glad you didn't get a D40; not even D40X. Actually I'm a bit underwhelmed by the D60 now that I'm conversant with Olys. Not a one has Live View, though not fatal, for sure. But it is nice; kind of reminds me of focusing on ground glass. Nice to have when you'd care to use it. People are fond of touting the various performances of other brands, but I have found that little Oly has a little of everything and with terrific glassware thrown in. Put it all in the balance (and barring special, exceptional requirements of one's work), Oly has a great balance, and promise of even better to come. I can't wait to see what the E-4 will be like.

photo_owl
10-02-2008, 11:28 AM
I think you might have misunderstood the intent of my original and subsequent post. I have no problem with 4/3 at all. It's just that initially I didn't understand the dynamics of how it related to film (other than focal length) and standard printing/display aspects. I didn't buy the E-510 because it was 4/3. I bought it because of in-camera IS and previous experience with Olympus via an OM-10 I inherited. Before I saw the IS, I was planning on getting a Nikon just like my daughter has, a D40 I think. Anyway, for better or worse, I like my E-510 much better and am glad it was released before I replaced my OM-10. :)

not trying to confuse things - and happy that misunderstandings are resolved

but

10 x 8 has been a 'standard print' for as long as I remember but would be a crop for your om10.

everyone has, and has had, to 'deal with' such choices.

personally 43 works for me as I only print 20 x 16 using the 'spare inch' for a title prior to framing.

Howi
10-02-2008, 12:54 PM
In reply to lendur2 the 2/3 and 16:9 ratios are done by in camera cropping, the Panasonic DMC-L1 has this option but you DO lose pixels, just the same as cropping post processing.

DoubleDAZ
10-02-2008, 04:34 PM
I guess the "real" difference is that we don't just take a roll of film to a developer anymore and accept what we get back. Everything we do is a crop of some sort. Lenses are round, therefore something is lost in the "conversion" to any rectangular/square format and I think there was a separate thread on that at one time. :)

I simply didn't think about the amount of image I would lose when I printed my first 4x6. I filled the viewfinder and then said, "Oops". The original question was why the chart was posted and I just thought it was intended to show what gets cropped for the various photo sheets. I thought it was good information to post for folks, like me, who didn't note the difference in format. I have no problem moving a 4x6 crop frame around my photos to select the best composition to print. I just hadn't thought of that when I printed my first photo.

saichiez
10-03-2008, 08:09 AM
What's the hubbub?

110 film frame size was 17x13. 4/3 sensor size is 17.3X13.

I shot some wonderful photos with my Auto 110 Pentax, as well as some nice half frame 35mm cameras. The Pen Ft shot awfully close to 4/3 sensor size.

The size of the 4/3 sensor in aspect ratio is nothing new. It's been around for about 40 years... perhaps more.

Why do people act as if this is something that Olympus and Panasonic just sprung on us?

tspore
10-03-2008, 10:12 AM
Really as a person who prints a lot - probably 4000+ pictures this summer alone. (some with a traditional DSLR and the great majority with my E-3) I will say that 4/3 aspect is better for any print size except 4x6 for cropping that I do. for a tradition 2x3 you really have to throw a lot away, and if you shoot and crop tight you may loose an elbow. This you are throwing a lot less away.

DonR
10-12-2008, 09:00 PM
I've never been able to figure out how to crop ans resize a photo so all sizes will work. Is it better to resize to A4 and not crop quite so tight? It seems that all sizes from 8x12 down would work with that.

tspore
10-12-2008, 11:25 PM
I've never been able to figure out how to crop ans resize a photo so all sizes will work. Is it better to resize to A4 and not crop quite so tight? It seems that all sizes from 8x12 down would work with that.

Well unfortunately it just doesn't work like that -
4x6 - is a way different aspect ratio than everything else. 2x3
vs 8x10 - 4x5


Proof's I send out are usually uncropped - 4x5.3 Than they can order on paper, or via a site. Such as smugmug. Really over the last couple of years I have come to respect the photo ordering system at smugmug. It makes it very easy to get a very good preview of the photo. For the 4/3 aspect ratio of the system cameras all standard photo sizes have very little cropping except 4x6 photos.

Johnbear
09-23-2009, 08:34 PM
There is an image you wish to capture, you decide which lens to use. You zoom in or out or walk closer or back up.











-

Vandy
09-23-2009, 10:10 PM
I'd have to agree with Tspore. My cropping is not affected to much unless I want to crop for a four by six. I seem to not play the four by six crop factor into my framing while shooting. All other formats I usually give myself enough freedom. It is interesting with the four thirds sensor that even though we have double the mm output for our lenses, we seem to have to take more mm off for cropping reasons while we shoot. Still like my gear though, I strive to get those "posters" whenever I shoot. I prefer five by sevens over four by sixes any day.

Yes Jonbear, but your also dealing with pixels here. The more you crop the more your loose when sizing your larger images. Later.

dwig
09-28-2009, 04:13 PM
...
Why do people act as if this is something that Olympus and Panasonic just sprung on us?

Because they are inexperienced in the wider world of photography, being themselves limited to only 35mm and APS-c, film or digital. 2:3 isn't magic. Almost no popular "professional" medium format camera has used a 2:3 format for a half century. Formats closer to 4:3 has been dominant (e.g. 6x7 & 6x4.5). Also, almost all P&S camera shoot roughly 4:3 and you don't here the "noise" about that.

Personally, the vast majority of my work is done as fine art. The subject determines the image shape, not the printer. My images are always printed on standard size paper, most often 8x10 or 13x19, but with wide borders custom sized for each image to produce the best image shape for that subject. Even though I shot 35mm film for many decades, along with medium format and 4x5, my brain tends to compose (or perhaps out of the infinite options it just tends to "see" the squarer possibilities) images that are either somewhat squarer than 2:3 and closer to 4:3 or vastly wider, wider even than 16:9.

dwig
09-28-2009, 04:20 PM
In reply to lendur2 the 2/3 and 16:9 ratios are done by in camera cropping, ...

Except in the Pana GH-1. Its a horse of a different color. It has an oversized sensor with photosites not used in 4:3 but used in the other formats. When you select 2:3 or 16:9 the image diagonal remains constant. The camera uses fewer pixels along the short dimension but more along the long. A G-1 and GH-1 produce images with the same number of pixels when shooting in 4:3, but the GH-1 images have more pixels than the G-1, and other 12mp 4/3rd and m4/3 bodies, when shooting in at the other aspect ratios.

Check out Panasonic's website. There's a neat little interactive explanation here: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh1/high_image.html