Gotcha, I appreciate the info!If you are going to use it for web display only, it won't probably matter unless you desire a specific aspect ratio for some reason.
Gotcha, I appreciate the info!If you are going to use it for web display only, it won't probably matter unless you desire a specific aspect ratio for some reason.
It's about preserving your options.So if I'm not making prints, just using stills for real estate listings, it's not really going to matter?
Thanks for that! Can I get your opinion? So if I shoot with full resolution in mind, I can make my edits and still crop to 16:9 for full HD displays, right?It's about preserving your options.
By shooting the larger size, you have a little wiggle room to fix the horizon and can choose whether to crop to show more sky or foreground with a photo like this.
![]()
And end up with something like this:
![]()
But if you shoot 16:9 you've given up your options before you start shooting and there's a lot less you can do with the image.
If you set your camera to 3:2 format, you will get jpg files that measure 5472 × 3648 = 19,961,856 pixels - near enough to 20MP.The JPEG output is only really ~18-19 megapixels from what I can discern. The 20MP you see is only possible by stretching/upsizing the image.
This I what I was meaning. I posted in a new thread since it is abit OT to this thread:If you set your camera to 3:2 format, you will get jpg files that measure 5472 × 3648 = 19,961,856 pixels - near enough to 20MP.
If you have your camera set to 4:3 or 16:9, you will get less resolution.
So if I'm not making prints, just using stills for real estate listings, it's not really going to matter?
Just verified - the aspect ration of 3:2 renders the full 20MP size.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.