Hi everyone,
Any tips on how I can get the missing 3mp when taking photos.

All my photos are only 9mp and not the 12mp touted by DJI. I undertand there is is something about true achievable mp, though dont rightly understand.

Looking forward to being educated.

Cheers

What format are you shooting in?

In DNG I get 4000x3000 files = 12MP.

SimplePanda Posted at 2015-9-15 14:51
What format are you shooting in?

In DNG I get 4000x3000 files = 12MP.

I shoot typically J+R

Early days I was getting 12mp on both.

Now only 9

There must be a setting that needs to be reset.

Don't laugh (ok maybe a little) but does the IMAGE SIZE option change the MP capability? ie 4:3 or 16:9

I don't have my Inspire with me at the moment so cant check what I have set.

Caddwizard Posted at 2015-9-15 09:20
I shoot typically J+R

Early days I was getting 12mp on both.

4:3 uses the full sensor size (the sensor is natively 4:3) and hence you get the full 12MP

16:9 is simply a ratio. Therefore a crop is applied to the top and bottom, hence you get 9MP.

Personally, it makes more sense to shoot in 4:3 and then crop in post. 16:9 only makes sense if you're struggling with framing the shot in your mind.

ghoonk Posted at 2015-9-15 03:36
4:3 uses the full sensor size (the sensor is natively 4:3) and hence you get the full 12MP

16:9 i ...

while this certainly makes sense how you explain it, it doesnt make sense to me that 4:3 is even an option anymore, i havent seen a square screen anywhere in the last 10 years or so! Why dont they use 16:9 native sensors? they get a bulk deal on outdated hardware someone found sitting in a warehouse for the last 10 years? lol

sultangris01@gm Posted at 2015-9-15 21:14
while this certainly makes sense how you explain it, it doesnt make sense to me that 4:3 is even a ...

4:3 is one of the 'perfect' ratios, especially for composition. In fact, short of widescreen TV, there's very little use for 16:9 for photographers
http://www.ethos3.com/2013/10/43-vs-169/

http://digital-photography-schoo ... and-why-it-matters/

ghoonk Posted at 2015-9-15 13:31
4:3 is one of the 'perfect' ratios, especially for composition. In fact, short of widescreen TV, th ...

I guess i can see the composition aspect, but nothing has a square screen anymore, tvs, computers, phones, tablets, all of them are wider than they are tall, i guess not all perfectly match the 16:9 ratio either, so i guess it doesnt matter either way, but certainly nothing produced today displays 4:3 without black bars that i know of.  One of my biggest pet peves are idiots that take cell phone video without holding it sideways so you end up with a small stupid looking tall skinny video when playing back on a PC or tv, lol! I hate the black bars. Maximize screen coverage is my opinion.

ghoonk Posted at 2015-9-15 14:31
4:3 is one of the 'perfect' ratios, especially for composition. In fact, short of widescreen TV, th ...

For some reason, I thought most SLR cameras had an aspect ratio of 3:2

justin.mah Posted at 2015-9-16 19:28
For some reason, I thought most SLR cameras had an aspect ratio of 3:2

They do. 35mm is usually 3:2. 645 format is closer to 4:3.

'Real' cameras are square format - 6x6 FTW!
Best option for composition I reckon - leaves plenty of room for cropping and post capture flexibility.
People just love a square B+W image that's printed 20" wide on proper FC photographic paper.

Still use my old Hasselbladski - 'Kiev 88'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_(brand)

At $40,500 US the Hasselblad may just be a little beyond the average budget....

So for those (like me) who have to use an off-the-shelf DSLR .... ..... then the following may be a helpful explanation.

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/aspect-ratio.html

T.