-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
16:9 frame over a 4:3 screen in a smartphone to make 16:9 photos?
- Thread starter Biffos
- Start date
my z fold 4 comes with the option to do 16:9. most phones should be able to do it.
https://support.google.com/camerafromgoogle/answer/9722610?hl=en
I can't think of any app that would do that. And quite frankly the only thing I can think of is an appropriately shaped 16:9 hole card mask affixed to the phone's screen, i.e. an actual 16:9 frame
I just take all pictures in 4:3, for maximum quality, and if I want any 16:9 or other cropped aspects, I do it in post editing.
I know some old 135 and APS film cameras had a 16:9 “panoramic" composition mode, where they just inserted a cropping mask into the viewfinder.
I just take all pictures in 4:3, for maximum quality, and if I want any 16:9 or other cropped aspects, I do it in post editing.
I know some old 135 and APS film cameras had a 16:9 “panoramic" composition mode, where they just inserted a cropping mask into the viewfinder.
Last edited:
So a real - not digital - mask. I assume, that would be pretty impractical. Not only for photographing, but also for carrying with you, the handling of the mask (also when / while not using it).
Yes, but I guess, if I do not see the real format (16:9) when photographing in 4:3 I am not able to (exactly) get the cutout I want.
You can frame the long axis of the picture, then crop the short axis as needed.
But I assume that there is a particular reason you want precisely 16:9. So what are you intending to view the image on? A 4k display is only 8MP, and I suspect that you'll only see the difference on a 8k display if you are fairly close (and you can print a fair size with 12MP, but I don't think 16:9 would matter so much if that was the intent). So would using the 16:9 mode really make a significant difference?
(I use the 64MP mode of my phone occasionally, but for most phone shots it's not worth the extra file size.)
But I assume that there is a particular reason you want precisely 16:9. So what are you intending to view the image on? A 4k display is only 8MP, and I suspect that you'll only see the difference on a 8k display if you are fairly close (and you can print a fair size with 12MP, but I don't think 16:9 would matter so much if that was the intent). So would using the 16:9 mode really make a significant difference?
(I use the 64MP mode of my phone occasionally, but for most phone shots it's not worth the extra file size.)
So then on the image I have the entire area from the left to the right edge on the 16:9 crop (without cropping / cutting the sides) and I only have tu cut the area on top and at the bottom? So it is the same result (not for the resultion) as if I made a photo in the 16:9 format in the phone?
Yes, that is right, I generally do not like 4:3, but 16:9 (or something like that). Generally I want to watch / show the images on a 16:9 screen. Notebook, PC, TV, etc. And besides of that I want to keep the option open to have it printed out in larger formats than the resolution in 16:9 format might allow. With 16:9 (and "binning") the Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 4G only has 12 MP (instead of 64 MP as stated in the technical data and 4:3 supports).
Well, yes, indeed, I've asked myself about that, I really do not have any imagination of that.
You can test: take the same image in 16:9 and the highest resolution your phone gives and view the corresponding parts on the same device/at the same magnification.
If you "pixel peep" (view at full resolution) you'll always conclude that higher resolution is better. But if you just view the full image the differences may be subtle or even invisible. But only you can know whether it fits your requirements, so the simple thing is to test it.
If you "pixel peep" (view at full resolution) you'll always conclude that higher resolution is better. But if you just view the full image the differences may be subtle or even invisible. But only you can know whether it fits your requirements, so the simple thing is to test it.
Yes, I did, the difference is - like you said - there is "added" (to 4:3 against 16:9) more information (part of the image) on top and at the bottom. Respectively exactly the same part ("bars") of the image are missing when setting 16:9. And the sides are the same, nothing added / removed. So then the quality of 16:9 made from 4:3 in the editing seems to be much better.
Strange, why do the manufacturers not simply cut off the space on top and at the bottom to get 16:9 and leaving the amount of pixels remaining instead of just make a 16:9 format with only 12 MP?
May be depending on the size of monitor or the print, I assume?
Depending on the size of the print or the size & resolution of the monitor.
As for why one option or another, you'd have to ask the manufacturer. My s21's main camera is 64MP 4:3, but the default view is downscaled to 12MP 4:3 and the 16:9 view is a crop of the 12MP image. I can imagine several possible reasons they might make that choice, but I don't know what their thinking was.
On my phone the default 12MP 4:3 can be zoomed out to "0.5x" magnification, which uses the wide angle camera, and I assume that if you zoom in it switches to the telephoto at some point (even though you don't see the switching), and the 16:9 mode has the same zoom range. The 64MP 4:3 has a more limited zoom range (only zooms in to 6x, can't zoom out at all). Both the wide and tele cameras are 12MP sensors, so maybe they choose the downscaled views for the default 4:3 and 16:9 so that they can use this wider zoom range without the resolution suddenly changing?
(I'm not a fan of "digital zoom", i.e. cropping then upscaling a lower resolution image, in the first place. But that's why I have a real camera when I actually go out to photograph anything).
As for why one option or another, you'd have to ask the manufacturer. My s21's main camera is 64MP 4:3, but the default view is downscaled to 12MP 4:3 and the 16:9 view is a crop of the 12MP image. I can imagine several possible reasons they might make that choice, but I don't know what their thinking was.
On my phone the default 12MP 4:3 can be zoomed out to "0.5x" magnification, which uses the wide angle camera, and I assume that if you zoom in it switches to the telephoto at some point (even though you don't see the switching), and the 16:9 mode has the same zoom range. The 64MP 4:3 has a more limited zoom range (only zooms in to 6x, can't zoom out at all). Both the wide and tele cameras are 12MP sensors, so maybe they choose the downscaled views for the default 4:3 and 16:9 so that they can use this wider zoom range without the resolution suddenly changing?
(I'm not a fan of "digital zoom", i.e. cropping then upscaling a lower resolution image, in the first place. But that's why I have a real camera when I actually go out to photograph anything).
Yes, it in any case is a pity (in my layman's imagination at least), why not with the 16:9 setting in the phone just crop the top and bottom information of the (4:3) image so may be 20, 25 MP would be cropped and one had the 16:9 format wit perhaps 44 MP instead of 12 MP with that 16:9 setting in the phone.
If only I had always taken pictures with my phone in 4:3 format (if I wanted 16:9).
Yes, the digital zoom / tele really is not good, I guess. and yes, that is why I want a real camera (one for the pocket, without having to carry it with me separately) since some years. But I then ALWAYS would have to care about a furhter device, take it with me all the time (and the charger with cable if necessary).
If only I had always taken pictures with my phone in 4:3 format (if I wanted 16:9).
Yes, the digital zoom / tele really is not good, I guess. and yes, that is why I want a real camera (one for the pocket, without having to carry it with me separately) since some years. But I then ALWAYS would have to care about a furhter device, take it with me all the time (and the charger with cable if necessary).