Missing Pixels?!?

[Iguanasan]

Can anyone explain this? Same camera. Same lens. But one image, you'll see is not 2x3 whereas the other is 2x3 due to some missing pixels. Can anyone explain why this happens?

[mbrager]

My take is it's just the program rounding off the numbers. If you do the calculation 2860/4288 it comes out to .66697, but the calculation 2858/4293 is .66573, just slightly less than 2:3. The program probably assigns 2:3 if the ratio is .666xxx, but not if it's .66xxx. I've been doing math homework with my daughter tonight so I'm on top of my game. LOL But I have no idea where the missing pixels went. If you are shooting jpg, the compression could eat them I suppose. Mike

[QuietOne]

It isn't just the ratio. Look at the right and bottom numbers in each screen shot, and the width and height. It isn't even off the same number of pixels between those pairs. Whether you're shooting raw or jpg, it could also be as simple as the program fell through different loops of code for each one, even though the photos are actually the same ratio. Not ideal, not (usually) intended by the programmer, but it happens. If I recall correctly, you're using GIMP. You might consider sending them a bug report with the screen shots.

[Iguanasan]

This is actually the UFRaw interface. These are both RAW images and it's been happening on and off for a while but I just fix the ratio and end up doing an somewhat insignificant crop and move on. It is a curiosity to me. I never thought of it being a bug in the software... hmm....