16:9 is horrendous, please stop buying them

Aspect ratio of choice

  • 16:9 (more wide)

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • 4:3 (more square)

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • Total voters
    15

adamg

Pulling my weight
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
250
Reaction score
129
Are you with me or against me?

I strongly prefer 5 MP (2592 x 1944) over 8 MP (3840 x 2160), to use current Dahua options as examples of the type.

The reason is that the additional vertical field of view angle makes for a more useful CCTV video.

And don't get me started on putting a 16:9 camera in a long narrow hallway.
 

xyvyx

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
40
Reaction score
44
I and most of my stereoscopic compatriots prefer wide aspect ratios that complement the orientation of our ocular perception... but I understand if you pirates and others who identify as cyclops would prefer the square orientation.
 

Mike

Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
2,981
Reaction score
2,725
Location
New York
Ok so I can admit when I think I know something but maybe dont as well as I thought :confused:

After some quick edumacation on the Interwebs, it seems there is some logic to 4:3

From 2012
Aspect Ratio 16:9 vs 4:3 Shootout

Dont have a subscription but this would be interesting and much newer
16:9 vs 4:3 Video Aspect Ratio Statistics
It all depends on preference and what you're covering. In my garage I run 1920 so it's wider but on the same camera outside it's 4:3. Just depends on the area IMO
 

J Sigmo

Known around here
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
997
Reaction score
1,335
I like 2:3, due to many years of conditioning with 35mm SLRs. ;)

But then you try to make prints, and most camera aspect ratios do not match standard paper sizes! It's a conspiracy, like hot dog buns coming in a different quantity than the hot dogs!
 

TonyR

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
16,746
Reaction score
38,991
Location
Alabama
It's a conspiracy, like hot dog buns coming in a different quantity than the hot dogs!
I KNEW it! I can just see execs from the meat companies and from the bread companies, huddled in a dark, secret room, covertly plotting their little scheme upon the consumer masses.

I am hoping this thread will NOT progress into debating the merits / preference of putting the roll of toilet paper with sheets on the outside of the roll or behind the roll....

:idk:
 

archedraft

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Sep 11, 2018
Messages
138
Reaction score
91
Location
USA
I am hoping this thread will NOT progress into debating the merits / preference of putting the roll of toilet paper with sheets on the outside of the roll or behind the roll....

:idk:
 

Mike

Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
2,981
Reaction score
2,725
Location
New York
I KNEW it! I can just see execs from the meat companies and from the bread companies, huddled in a dark, secret room, covertly plotting their little scheme upon the consumer masses.

I am hoping this thread will NOT progress into debating the merits / preference of putting the roll of toilet paper with sheets on the outside of the roll or behind the roll....

:idk:
Yeah, because obviously the right way is with the sheets on the outside. Do you brush your teeth first then put the toothpaste on the brush? :rofl::idk: :screwy:
 

bp2008

Staff member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
12,676
Reaction score
14,023
Location
USA
In my opinion 4:3 is a more useful aspect ratio indoors, but only slightly. I have one of each in my garage and the 4:3 cam is able to see what is underneath it better. Better still might be 1:1 since this should allow a >= 90° FOV camera to see an entire square-cornered room from wall to wall, ceiling to floor, when mounted in an upper corner. Nonetheless the practical difference is not huge.



Outdoors, distances are much greater and I think you often don't need more height that could be offered by a taller sensor, but more width is almost always appreciated.

There's also the argument that most displays are built 16:9 or wider these days, making that aspect ratio a better fit for full-screen video.
 

Mr_D

Getting comfortable
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
596
Reaction score
527
Location
Southern California
In my opinion 4:3 is a more useful aspect ratio indoors, but only slightly. I have one of each in my garage and the 4:3 cam is able to see what is underneath it better. Better still might be 1:1 since this should allow a >= 90° FOV camera to see an entire square-cornered room from wall to wall, ceiling to floor, when mounted in an upper corner. Nonetheless the practical difference is not huge.



Outdoors, distances are much greater and I think you often don't need more height that could be offered by a taller sensor, but more width is almost always appreciated.

There's also the argument that most displays are built 16:9 or wider these days, making that aspect ratio a better fit for full-screen video.
I need to view a covered patio from one corner. I wound up getting a 2.8 mm lens even though it sees a little more of the wall than I'd like, but I needed the vertical coverage. When I angle the camera down slightly, the narrower lenses lose coverage on the upper parts of the doors where a potential attacker's face would be. A square would have fit the scene better.
 

archedraft

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Sep 11, 2018
Messages
138
Reaction score
91
Location
USA
I got all excited about changing a few of my cameras to 4:3 as it would be nice for a few cameras... only to find out that all the resolution options for those specific cameras are only 16:9. Got all excited for nothing.
 

J Sigmo

Known around here
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
997
Reaction score
1,335
I got all excited about changing a few of my cameras to 4:3 as it would be nice for a few cameras... only to find out that all the resolution options for those specific cameras are only 16:9. Got all excited for nothing.
That's how all cameras I've seen do it. The "main" or higest-resolution format is what is advertised, or standard. Other possible aspect ratios are crops from the actual sensor dimensions. That's the only way it can be done.

Most of the photo cameras I have are based on 3:2 aspect ratio because that is what 35mm camera film was (24×36mm useable area). But I have had a few cameras with different sensor aspect ratios. And all of the photo cameras I've had used square pixels on a square grid arranged to achieve the active area. But even that is not always the case. There are sensors that have non-square pixel grid arrangements.

My dad had SpeedGraphic film cameras that used 4 x 5" and 2.25 x 3.25" cut film. Those were standard "press cameras" and he had used them for sports photography back when he was in college in the '40s.

I grew up shooting 120 roll film, then 2.25 x 2.25 format on roll film in a twin lens reflex Rolleiflex of my dad's. A beautiful camera. Then I used a 35mm roll film viewfinder camera and eventually bought a 35mm SLR (Canon FTb) with lawn-mowing money when I was 14. From there, I used pretty much all 35mm SLRs, and that (2×3) aspect ratio is probably what's been burned into my brain as "normal".

But all aspect ratios have their uses.

While you are throwing away data when you choose an aspect ratio that is a crop out of a camera's native resolution, you are saving data storage space and lowering traffic load on your network and PC, etc. So there may well be benefits to choosing an aspect ratio other than the sensor's native one when setting up your security cams, especially if the extra coverage is completely useless.

On the other hand, if that extra coverage gives a second copy of a useful area, you might want to use it.

No matter what the camera's aspect ratio, it will never fit every situation. In photography, we often, perhaps most of the time, end up cropping the captured images to get the exact image we want. Standard prints or slides don't give you that flexibility. But when you make your own prints, or post to the net, etc., you can crop exactly the way you want. And cropping is a huge part of image composition.

Shoot wide, and crop for composition. :)

Then again, there is an art to getting great composition using the native camera "window", too. It's all fun.

For security camera use, just make sure you have plenty of pixels over the critical areas. This may not be fine art, but there is an element of art to getting things right, for sure.
 
Last edited:

TonyR

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
16,746
Reaction score
38,991
Location
Alabama
@looney2ns That was hilarious. I'm right there with you on that. Almost never is a vertical video the best aspect ratio for the subject.
And when shown on network news they show a foggy, blurry, faded version on both sides in the pillar boxes; makes my head spin and I can't focus on the content in the vertical middle. :facepalm:
 

Mr_D

Getting comfortable
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
596
Reaction score
527
Location
Southern California
@looney2ns That was hilarious. I'm right there with you on that. Almost never is a vertical video the best aspect ratio for the subject.
90% of the time, vertical video just winds up with the top half of the frame being useless ceiling or sky.

I admit I shot one clip vertical years ago. My friend's kid was rolling a car or something toward me on the floor and its something I would have shot portrait orientation if I were doing stills. Then I went to edit the clip and realized the problem. The problem now is that most people are shooting and viewing on a phone so they think its fine.
 
Top