GH5 4:3 vs 16:9?

[A-Furry-Peanut]

I read somewhere that 16:9 is just a cropped version of 4:3, however I do not know the validity of that statement or if it even applies to the GH5. However that made me wonder, which ratio will give me more information to work with? If 16:9 is truly a cropped version of 4:3 on the GH5, would shooting in 4:3 give me more room to work with in post? I understand that the point of 4:3 is for anamorphic lens, but I was just wondering if there could be other uses for it. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

19 minutes ago, A-Furry-Peanut said:

I read somewhere that 16:9 is just a cropped version of 4:3, however I do not know the validity of that statement or if it even applies to the GH5. However that made me wonder, which ratio will give me more information to work with? If 16:9 is truly a cropped version of 4:3 on the GH5, would shooting in 4:3 give me more room to work with in post? I understand that the point of 4:3 is for anamorphic lens, but I was just wondering if there could be other uses for it. 

Photo camera sensors are usually 3:2 ratio.  Recording video using 16:9 or 4:3 is always a crop of the sensor.  Looking at the specs on B&H, the GH5 offers DCI (17:9) and UHD 4K filming and also 4:3 ratio filming at a resolution of 3328 x 2496 which is taller than 2160 but narrower than 4096 or 3840.

 

Neither 16:9 or 4:3 gives you more or less data, they just offer different dimensions for framing the scene.

[AkiraDaarkst]

I see the article that talks about 6K anamorphic 4:3 mode for the GH5 but by 6K they refer to the number of pixels (width x height) rather than horizontal pixel width of the image.  And it's not a released feature yet so until I see a sample I'm not sure how the image will look like out of the box.  

[c8h10o2n4]

It comes down to framing preference. The long time photographer in me looks down on either ratio though j/k. But 3:2 is where it's at honestly imo, it is a very nice balance and if you learn anything about laying out in ratios (..) you will see how good of a balance it is

Aside from that ... choose the ratio not by the image data, but by the image quality, Forums used to be and i am sure still are full of how you generally should trust a good lens more than a good body (yadda yadda)

[AkiraDaarkst]

57 minutes ago, cluelessart said:

It comes down to framing preference. The long time photographer in me looks down on either ratio though j/k. But 3:2 is where it's at honestly imo, it is a very nice balance and if you learn anything about laying out in ratios (..) you will see how good of a balance it is

Aside from that ... choose the ratio not by the image data, but by the image quality, Forums used to be and i am sure still are full of how you generally should trust a good lens more than a good body (yadda yadda)

I think the OP is talking about video mode, not photo.  For photo, shoot raw and you don't have to worry about aspect ratio and cropping done by the camera until post.

[c8h10o2n4]

4 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I think the OP is talking about video mode, not photo.  For photo, shoot raw and you don't have to worry about aspect ratio and cropping done by the camera until post.

I thought so, which makes me wonder tho how much in video is done in term of cropping in post, i mean it must be one of the reasons for crazy high res video ... hmmm would that make it also ture to just shoot as big as you can to give you the freedom to crop more to your liking afterwards? i am sort of bad in this regard anyway, never touching up other than getting some chromatic aberration out form a cheap kit zoom and such i dont even crop. guess i am one of "those" people lol. well anyway, didnt mean to blow up the thread. so i guess i will withdraw from this corner.

[AkiraDaarkst]

7 hours ago, cluelessart said:

I thought so, which makes me wonder tho how much in video is done in term of cropping in post, i mean it must be one of the reasons for crazy high res video ... hmmm would that make it also ture to just shoot as big as you can to give you the freedom to crop more to your liking afterwards? i am sort of bad in this regard anyway, never touching up other than getting some chromatic aberration out form a cheap kit zoom and such i dont even crop. guess i am one of "those" people lol. well anyway, didnt mean to blow up the thread. so i guess i will withdraw from this corner.

For photography, as you said, 3:2 is quite flexible.   For video, even camera with super high MP count just scale the resolution down.  4K video is roughly 8mp, so a camera with a 24mp sensor has to do some scaling.

 

You didn't blow things up, you just gave a different view.

[.spider.]

On 5/30/2017 at 11:11 AM, AkiraDaarkst said:

Photo camera sensors are usually 3:2 ratio.  Recording video using 16:9 or 4:3 is always a crop of the sensor.  

And micro four thirds are commonly 4:3

[ThreepE0]

On 5/30/2017 at 5:11 AM, AkiraDaarkst said:

Photo camera sensors are usually 3:2 ratio.  Recording video using 16:9 or 4:3 is always a crop of the sensor.  Looking at the specs on B&H, the GH5 offers DCI (17:9) and UHD 4K filming and also 4:3 ratio filming at a resolution of 3328 x 2496 which is taller than 2160 but narrower than 4096 or 3840.

 

Neither 16:9 or 4:3 gives you more or less data, they just offer different dimensions for framing the scene.

I think this is misleading. 4:3 WILL give you more data on the GH4 and GH5, as you're using more of the sensor and can crop to 16:9 in post. The OP was on the right track, and I think stating that you don't get more data on either aspect ratio could lead people down the wrong path.