Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by colonelpurple, Nov 21, 2014.
Which aspect ratio do you find yourself using the most of the LX100 ?
This is quite an interesting topic. There is a theory that our judgment of what is our favorite aspect is tied to a certain ratio - I am sure people have heard of the 'golden ratio' 'golden spiral' or 'golden rectangle' 'phi' etc.. Actually it turns out that most of this stuff is total nonsense - just a popular myth. For anyone who is particularly interested in this I recommend this rather long lecture.
By far the most likely explanation is that our preferred 'aspect ratio' or even 'aspect size' is determined by what we see most commonly.
Let me give you 2 examples.
1) When I grew up in the 1970s I spent a lot of time watching TV. At the time the TV standard was 4:3. At the time this looked totally natural to me. Since then TVs have moved on to 16:9. Take a look at a 4:3 TV show now and it looks positively weird.
2) When I first got a computer, its screen was 15". I remember I got a 17" screen and it looked positively huge. I then got a 22" screen and wondered for a day or two whether it was actually too big - would I strain my neck from looking from one side to another. Same with the 27"....but now it looks positively small.
Actually the same applies to TV screen sizes. 36" TV seemed huge. Then a 42" inch TV seemed big. I got a 60" inch TV and wondered if I would ever get a bigger screen but a couple of days ago someone said that I should replace my TV.
The reality is that up until 2003 we all had 4:3 screens. From 2003 onwards 16:10 screens became popular. 16:10 being reasonably close to the golden rectangle. By 2008 80% of computer screens were 16:10. But then the economics of LCD screens made 16:9 screens more economical and by 2015 their will be no 16:10 computer screens available. 16:10 still lives on with tablets like the ipad.
4:3 is good for portraits.
for landscape orientation i generally prefer 16:9 as it better matches our wide field of view. 4:3 horizontal and sometimes even 3:2 feel a bit cropped on the sides.
that said, sometimes 1:1 works depending on composition - if there isnt much of itnerest on the sides
Mostly 4:3 for me.
It's a bit of a mixture for me, but over 70% is 4:3, so I guess that's my preference.
Interesting topic. I don't have a LX100 but I'd like to jump in anyway. For vertically oriented shots I find I prefer either 4:3 or square. Horizontal ones I tend to crop toward the wide end 16:9 etc..or square.
Having said that I recently had a few of my pieces printed, matted and framed. Man is that expensive if it's not the standard sizes of 8x10, 11x14 etc...
What difference does it make? Micro four thirds, by definition, locks you into a 4/3 ratio if you are shooting RAW. The other options are just crops of jpegs.
I shoot the native format, and crop as needed. Usually, there is a need to "clean up", the edges somewhat, anyway.
Not with the LX100. It has a multi-aspect ratio sensor. If you choose 16:9, your RAW file will be 4480x2520 pixels and in 4x3, it is 4112x3088. So making the choice at the moment you click makes a small difference in the pixels you will have.
Still 3:2 for most things, but 4:3 for portraits is growing on me. Landscapes I prefer to stitch anyway..
I've been shooting 4:3 for awhile but for some reason I still like 16:9 for landscapes and 3:2 for portraits.
Doesn't help that my monitor is 16:9 so 4:3 looks really strange when I edit on it.
Separate names with a comma.