# Aspect Ratio ?? 3:2 or 16:9 ??



## LokoTripper (Aug 13, 2009)

Whaasup you guys . . . 

Ok so I got another question for you guys , how come my pictures are a lot different than the ones taken with my point and shoot Canon SD630 ??

I mean on my Sony's A200 pics it looks like they are a widescreen tv , and with my Canon's pics they look like regular TV , do I make any sense ?? 

Which format do you guys use and why ??

How come when I try to resize (in order to cut down the size) I can not get 800x600 , I get 800x536 ?? when I take a pic with my Canon I can get 1024x768 , 800x600 , 640x480 but with my A200 I get a whole different set of sizes ?? 

Any input will be highly appreciated , and if you can explain it in simple non-photography expert english will be even better


----------



## iflynething (Aug 13, 2009)

The size and shape of your sensor. If you were to look at the Sony's sensor (what captures the image) it looks wider than it is long...more like a rectangle and a widescreen TV.

The Canon one (along with most point and shoots) are more square in size. That's why when you print DSLR pictures, the image is not cropped becuase it's already formatted to the 4x6 or proportional size print whereas the Canon point and shoot is more square and some gets chopped off


~Michael~

~Michael~


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 13, 2009)

Your title answers all of your questions.

They are different aspect ratios.

My camera doesn't have the option to shoot in different aspect ratios (it's 2:3).


----------



## LokoTripper (Aug 13, 2009)

iflynething said:


> The size and shape of your sensor. If you were to look at the Sony's sensor (what captures the image) it looks wider than it is long...more like a rectangle and a widescreen TV.
> 
> The Canon one (along with most point and shoots) are more square in size. That's why when you print DSLR pictures, the image is not cropped becuase it's already formatted to the 4x6 or proportional size print whereas the Canon point and shoot is more square and some gets chopped off
> 
> ...


Thank you . . . 



O|||||||O said:


> Your title answers all of your questions.
> 
> They are different aspect ratios.
> 
> My camera doesn't have the option to shoot in different aspect ratios (it's 2:3).


Dude . . . If I knew what I was talking about , I wouldn't ask  don't really know what kind of camera you have , all I know is that mine does have those aspect ratios , and I have no idea what to do with either one . . . 

*Can anybody else give me some detail on this ?? *


----------



## iflynething (Aug 13, 2009)

I personally have have not need to change the aspect ratios. your 3:2 would print with no cropping as a 4x6 or proportionally larger. 

As far as I know, the A200 will not have the option to shoot in different aspect ratios (if you didn't know that already) but you can just change the file size and quality but the aspect ratio will stay the same no matter what. 

A quick Wikipedia search revealed more results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)Aspect ratio (image) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAspect ratio (image) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at the 16:9 for instance, that would be good for a panoramic shot. The 4:3 would be good for 8x10....well it's the same format size as an 8x10. If you set your camera to the 4:3 then you could take a picture, and without cropping at all, print an 8x10.

Is there something else in particular you're looking for an answer?

~Michael~


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 13, 2009)

LokoTripper said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Your title answers all of your questions.
> ...



2:3 most likely uses more of the sensor than 16:9.
Other than that, one isn't necessarily "better" than the other...

Though, if you plan on printing 4x6's, 2:3 will probably be the better choice since it won't require cropping.

It's just a ratio to tell you the shape of the picture.

2:3= 4x6, 6x9, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, etc...  (Are you seeing the pattern?)

If the short side was 25 inches, the long side would be 37.5 inches.
(25 is 12.5x2, 37.5 is 12.5x3)

With 16:9 you could get non-cropped sizes like 8x4.5, 12x6.75, or the obvious - 16x9.

It's just a ratio...a comparison of one side to the other.


----------



## LokoTripper (Aug 14, 2009)

iflynething said:


> I personally have have not need to change the aspect ratios. your 3:2 would print with no cropping as a 4x6 or proportionally larger.
> 
> As far as I know, the A200 will not have the option to shoot in different aspect ratios (if you didn't know that already) but you can just change the file size and quality but the aspect ratio will stay the same no matter what.
> 
> ...


Thanks dude . . . that was exactly what I was looking for :thumbup:



O|||||||O said:


> LokoTripper said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...


Thanks . . . I plan on printing 8x12 or 6x9 , so I guess they will work , thank you dude !!


----------



## iflynething (Aug 14, 2009)

Glad we could help

~Michael~


----------



## Plato (Aug 14, 2009)

LokoTripper said:


> iflynething said:
> 
> 
> > The size and shape of your sensor. If you were to look at the Sony's sensor (what captures the image) it looks wider than it is long...more like a rectangle and a widescreen TV.
> ...



The simplest example is a 1:1 ratio, which is a square image.  If you print that image on 4X6 paper, the image will be 4X4 and you will need to cut off the white space.  Alternately, you could enlarge the image to 6X6 but then you couldn't print the entire image.

The 2:3 ratio means that the physical size of the image is two units by three units.  Pick any unit that you want to enlarge or shrink the photo.  For example, if I pick one unit = 2 inches, then this ratio will print perfectly on borderless 4X6 paper.  However, if you print it on borderless 5X7, you would either have white bars on the sides or, if you enlarge, you will have to cut off a half inch from the height (that ratio would need 5X7.5 paper).


----------

