Database Info

[Q]General Camera question - Widescreen vs non Widescreen

Hi guys ..
I was wondering, is Widescreen (16:9) option in camera settings good or bad ?
I mean, i know it gives less than 8mp picture.
But what do you think ppl? Are pictures taken with widescreen on better quality than widescreen off ? What do you use ? What do you recommend to use?
Thanks in advance
Laynee1

I think it's personal preference, But with the amaze camera and a camera mod, I will get 4.5mb photo's in 16:9
and then 7.5mb photo's in the old 4:3, So depends on what your using it for but in my experience there is more detail in the 4:3 format, And I use 4:3 for that reason

Thanks for the answer !

i use the amaze camera mod as well but i hate having my pictures cut off on my sexy 4.3 inch screen. lol so i use 16:9. i dont think u will notice much of a difference in quality from the 16:9 to 4:3 unless u blow up the picture really big.

[Q] Can nexus S take photes in 16:9 mode and how good is it?

If yes then what resolution? I am pretty sure it can take in 720p but does it take in 1920x1080 or even a bit higher?
Now how good the camera really is? I am getting very mixed opinions in reviews. With the GSMarena photo compare tool it seems really good as far as most 5MP cameras are concerned like iphone 4 and galaxy S.
Some reviews complain about somewhat washed out under saturated pics, would you agree with that?

It takes 5M pixel photos which are 2560x1920 pixels on all 5M cameras btw.
If you meant the camcorder than no, it will not do HD.
Now, with that resolution you can easily format any picture to 16x9 aspect ratio. The stock camera doesn't have wide screen option buy some 3rd party apps do.

obsanity said:
It takes 5M pixel photos which are 2560x1920 pixels on all 5M cameras btw.
If you meant the camcorder than no, it will not do HD.
Now, with that resolution you can easily format any picture to 16x9 aspect ratio. The stock camera doesn't have wide screen option buy some 3rd party apps do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok no native 16:9 shooting I see. Can you tell which application can do that?
Has nexus S gotten native touch to focus with ICS?

Come on anyone??

Tap to focus didn't work for me when I had ICS on my Nexus S. I guess it's a Galaxy Nexus feature.
You should be able to resize or crop photos to be 16:9 with QuickPic or Photoshop Express.

How much would a widescreen HDR+ picture taken with the Nexus 5 measure?

Since Google won't update the awful stock camera app and the quality of the pictures taken with the third party apps on the play store is garbage.
I will crop my pictures using a Photoshop Script until we get a new app or I get the HTC One+/ One 2014 , to which size should I crop my pictures to get the maximum resolution posible of photos taken with HDR+ on?
The Nexus 5 camera takes pictures with 3264x2448 and when you use HDR+ it takes slightly smaller pictures (3200x2368) native 8 MP cameras take pictures with 3008 x 2000 resolution, would it be ok if i just chop 368 pixels horizontally and 192 vertically?

Chad_Petree said:
Since Google won't update the awful stock camera app and the quality of the pictures taken with the third party apps on the play store is garbage, I will crop my pictures using a Photoshop Script until we get a new app or I get the HTC One+/ One 2014 , to which size should I crop my pictures to get the maximum resolution posible of photos taken with HDR+ on? The Nexus 5 camera takes pictures with 3264x2448 and when you use HDR+ it takes slightly smaller pictures (3200x2368) native 8 MP cameras take pictures with 3008 x 2000 resolution, using my 3200x2368 pictures and cropping them to 3008 x 2000 won't slightly distort the picture?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cropping CUTS the image. It doesn't SQUISH it so no distortion is possible. You just wont be able to see parts of the photo you crop off.
Anyway, to get a 16:9 aspect ratio from a width of 3264, You would need to crop to a height of 1836.
4:3 means for every 4 pixels across the screen, it goes 3 pixels up the side of the screen. So if 3264 is the 4 across (3264 / 4 = 816 for each 1) then 816 * 3 = 2448
16:9 for every 16 pixels across, it goes 9 pixels up. So if 3264 is the 9 across (3264 / 16 = 204 for each 1) then 204 * 9 = 1836
Or in otherwords
Resolution is always WidthxHeight
Aspect ratio is always Width:Height
Take Resolution Width and divide it by Aspect Ratio Width to get a multiplier. Multiply the multiplier by the Aspect Ratio Height to get the resolution height.

rootSU said:
Cropping CUTS the image. It doesn't SQUISH it so no distortion is possible. You just wont be able to see parts of the photo you crop off.
Anyway, to get a 16:9 aspect ratio from a width of 3264, You would need to crop to a height of 1836.
4:3 means for every 4 pixels across the screen, it goes 3 pixels up the side of the screen. So if 3264 is the 4 across (3264 / 4 = 816 for each 1) then 816 * 3 = 2448
16:9 for every 16 pixels across, it goes 9 pixels up. So if 3264 is the 9 across (3264 / 16 = 204 for each 1) then 204 * 9 = 1836
Or in otherwords
Resolution is always WidthxHeight
Aspect ratio is always Width:Height
Take Resolution Width and divide it by Aspect Ratio Width to get a multiplier. Multiply the multiplier by the Aspect Ratio Height to get the resolution height.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Had to re read what you posted hahaha :'( , but I do what aspect ratio refers to, yes silly me, the picture won't be distorted, because I'm just chopping a piece of it, what I should have asked is wether cutting it to 3008 x 2000 will give me a true 16:9 aspect ratio, I cropped a HDR+ picture (3200x2168) and I got a 3200x1800 picture

Chad_Petree said:
Had to re read what you posted hahaha :'( , but I do what aspect ratio refers to, yes silly me, the picture won't be distorted, because I'm just chopping a piece of it, what I should have asked is wether cutting it to 3008 x 2000 will give me a true 16:9 aspect ratio, I cropped a HDR+ picture (3200x2168) and I got a 3200x1800 picture
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would you choose to crop to 3200 width? Are you using an app with presets?
3200 x 1800
16 : 9
3200 / 16 = 200
200 * 9 = 1800
So yes
OR
3200/16 = 200
1800/9=200
So yes
.

rootSU said:
Why would you choose to crop to 3200 width? Are you using an app with presets?
3200 x 1800
16 : 9
3200 / 16 = 200
200 * 9 = 1800
So yes
OR
3200/16 = 200
1800/9=200
So yes
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I'm using the Photoshop presets for 16:9 , why is it a different size than the size you're talking about ?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Chad_Petree said:
Yes I'm using the Photoshop presets for 16:9 , why is it a different size than the size you're talking about ?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok well I can confirm, that preset is 16:9 but you're also losing some width of the photo there too. The number in my earlier response is based on the maximum width of image produced by the N5 sensor. The optimum 16:9 resolution for an image taken from the Nexus 5 is 3264x1836, however your preset isn't much smaller so its a non-issue I suppose.

Of course for anyone else reading ( @Chad_Petree knows this) it will still only display as 2mpx 1920x1080 on a HD display. A higher resolution can only be achieved on a higher than HD resolution screen or printing to poster size.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I believe the 3200 width comes from the HDR+ photos hes taking. The pictures are reduced in size presumably to better stitch the multiple images together.

rootSU said:
Of course for anyone else reading ( @Chad_Petree knows this) it will still only display as 2mpx 1920x1080 on a HD display. A higher resolution can only be achieved on a higher than HD resolution screen or printing to poster size.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, by the way I'll reserve judgment until I see them, maybe they will blow me away, but all this talk about 2k screens on phones, I think it's innecesary, putting more strain on the battery, just give me a damn phone that last 24 hours with heavy use, a normal sized phone not a phablet
bblzd said:
I believe the 3200 width comes from the HDR+ photos hes taking. The pictures are reduced in size presumably to better stitch the multiple images together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sounds like a plausible explanation, the photos taken with HDR+ are indeed a bit tinier

bblzd said:
I believe the 3200 width comes from the HDR+ photos hes taking. The pictures are reduced in size presumably to better stitch the multiple images together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes you're right
---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------
Chad_Petree said:
Yes, by the way I'll reserve judgment until I see them, maybe they will blow me away
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They won't. It is impossible for there to be any visual improvement between a 2mpx image and a 6mpx image on a 2mpx screen. In fact, since the 6mpx image has to be condensed into 2mpx, it is even possible that a 2mpx image will look better than a 6mpx image.
The only time you will get blown away with more than 2mpx is if:
1) You have a screen with more than 2mpx (4k for example)
2) You're printing the image in an enlarged format

rootSU said:
yes you're right
---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------
They won't. It is impossible for there to be any visual improvement between a 2mpx image and a 6mpx image on a 2mpx screen. In fact, since the 6mpx image has to be condensed into 2mpx, it is even possible that a 2mpx image will look better than a 6mpx image.
The only time you will get blown away with more than 2mpx is if:
1) You have a screen with more than 2mpx (4k for example)
2) You're printing the image in an enlarged format
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was talking about 2k screens, not 2k videos on our 1080p screens, don't forget that when 1080p screens were announced we were quick to say they were gimmicks, but look how much better they look, and yes I realise that it probably has to do more with the fact that they come with new technologies and the resolution is not the main reason why they look better

Chad_Petree said:
I was talking about 2k screens, not 2k videos on our 1080p screens, don't forget that when 1080p screens were announced we were quick to say they were gimmicks, but look how much better they look, and yes I realise that it probably has to do more with the fact that they come with new technologies and the resolution is not the main reason why they look better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying that they're a gimmick. 4k screens will become prevalent in the future. 2k seems like a pointless step to me though.
Watching a 1080 video on a 720 screen looks no better (in fact worse) than watching a 720 video on a 720 screen. The trick is, display whatever you are displaying at the native resolution for best results
...and yes, a 6mpx photo will look better than a 2mpx photo on a 2k screen. The 6mpx image will need to be condensed to fit but the 2mpx picture is a lower resolution so it will either need to be upscaled or simply not fill the screen.
However 1080 screens are 2mpx so a 2mpx photo will always look better than a 6mpx photo on the same screen because it is the native resolution of the image and screen.
So as long as you have nothing over and above 1080, a 6mpx image is pointless. That said, I prefer as full a resolution as I can get for future proofing.

16:9 12MP?

Like the title implies with the stock u11 sense camera Is there a way to take pictures in 16:9 but with the full 12MP with HDR on?

It can't - because the size ratio of image sensor is 4:3. If you want 16:9 it won't be full 12 MP.

What is the reason for 3 extra MP? It does nothing for quality of the picture.

schmeggy929 said:
What is the reason for 3 extra MP? It does nothing for quality of the picture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ehh...my brain just wanted it lol

My previous LG G4 had 16:9 sensor, and I have to admit it, that I really miss it, because now I have to crop image to such aspect ratio, but G4 had full 16:9 uncropped image - better, because more was captured.
P.S. Not talking about quality, but sensor.
3:2 > 16:9 > 4:3

Why are aspect ratios and resolutions not important anymore?

Ì sent my Samsung A70 back because 16:9 was limited to 8 MP, I knew little about aspect ratios their respective resolutions, now that I have read a lot about it I am somewhat wiser. I was used to taking 16:9 photos on my S8+ and cropping the picture to my liking while maintaining the 16:9 AR. This requires a somewhat larger original picture if you wish to view the result on a large screen.
I bought the 7 pro and immediately ran into the same problem, aspect ratios are stuck to a certain resolution and 48 MP is limited to 4:3 JPG format, I can´t even choose 16:9 and decided to go along with the 20:9 fullscreen option ... can still easily be cropped to 16:9. But why are aspect ratios locked into a certain resolution which is usually okay in it´s original size for viewing but doesn´t allow for a lot of creativity.
I have been using a Gcam mod which has 16:9 available and the pictures do allow for a small crop, not much though before the pixels suffer on the big screen.
I will never use 4:3 as I hate the field of view it offers.

4:3 is likely the native sensor size/ratio. It comes from mimicking film cameras. Film cameras in turn copied oil painting canvases. 16:9 is just a compromise television format to approach Cinema formats roughly 21:9.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

larsdennert said:
4:3 is likely the native sensor size/ratio. It comes from mimicking film cameras. Film cameras in turn copied oil painting canvases. 16:9 is just a compromise television format to approach Cinema formats roughly 21:9.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I figured that. Why are the size of the pictures restricted in all aspect ratios? that´s my question. As the average consumer you get 48MP advertised when you buy the phone, large pictures are however impossible to shoot in any other aspect ratio than 4:3 and for that you need to tweak the settings. For most people the camera will be 12 MP at most.
Why can´t I f.ex. shoot a 16:9 picture at 24 MP? I realize the fact that it´s impossible to get a 48 MP picture at 16:9 due to how the camera angle works.

The main sensor has 48 million pixels laid out in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Furthermore they are grouped in a quad Bayer layout which really just makes it a 4x light sensitive 12mp camera instead of a 48mp detail sensor. That is the hardware.
If you want images cropped to another aspect ratio afterwards, download something like Open Camera or MX Camera and set a custom resolution.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

larsdennert said:
The main sensor has 48 million pixels laid out in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Furthermore they are grouped in a quad Bayer layout which really just makes it a 4x light sensitive 12mp camera instead of a 48mp detail sensor. That is the hardware.
If you want images cropped to another aspect ratio afterwards, download something like Open Camera or MX Camera and set a custom resolution.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All third party apps are limited to the 12 MP, they don´t know how to use the 4x .... so they are pretty limited in their range of resolutions.

Yes and regrettably can't use the other lenses either.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

larsdennert said:
4:3 is likely the native sensor size/ratio. It comes from mimicking film cameras. Film cameras in turn copied oil painting canvases. 16:9 is just a compromise television format to approach Cinema formats roughly 21:9.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cinema is 2.35:1 which is why on 16:9 shows you the black bars on the top and bottom of your screen for the majority of movies.
---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------
AurioDK said:
Yes, I figured that. Why are the size of the pictures restricted in all aspect ratios? that´s my question. As the average consumer you get 48MP advertised when you buy the phone, large pictures are however impossible to shoot in any other aspect ratio than 4:3 and for that you need to tweak the settings. For most people the camera will be 12 MP at most.
Why can´t I f.ex. shoot a 16:9 picture at 24 MP? I realize the fact that it´s impossible to get a 48 MP picture at 16:9 due to how the camera angle works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless your going to print MASSIVE size prints, overall, MP is a marketing ploy to get your to spend more money on am item. After 12 to 16mp, for 95% of people, the difference is in the pixel size in Montana, not the number is pixels.

larsdennert said:
The main sensor has 48 million pixels laid out in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Furthermore they are grouped in a quad Bayer layout which really just makes it a 4x light sensitive 12mp camera instead of a 48mp detail sensor. That is the hardware.
If you want images cropped to another aspect ratio afterwards, download something like Open Camera or MX Camera and set a custom resolution.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So in general, when stock camera takes 12mp photo on 48mp sensor, it would be using pixel binning, resulting in better looking image, right?
larsdennert said:
Yes and regrettably can't use the other lenses either.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If yes, then if 3rd party Apps can capture photos at 12mp only, is it using pixel binning on main 48mp sensor or some other tech? If other tech, what is that other tech?
Thanks!

Even non Bayer sensors use four sensors filtered for each color. Generally an RGGB configuration. One sensor with a red filter, two with green and one with blue. They aren't individually addressible. They are summed together in hardware to mix all the colors. A Bayer configuration of groups allows sub addressing of different luminance channels.

larsdennert said:
Even non Bayer sensors use four sensors filtered for each color. Generally an RGGB configuration. One sensor with a red filter, two with green and one with blue. They aren't individually addressible. They are summed together in hardware to mix all the colors. A Bayer configuration of groups allows sub addressing of different luminance channels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for more details. Also, if you could, please answer (maybe you already answered but I did not get it) the doubts I asked above.
Thanks

It might be a custom API that only the manufacturer accesses with their binary or camera app. Google camera2 API may not support it but people do cool stuff with the Google camera app to get at stuff.