Scott Root Posted August 24, 2009 Share #1 Posted August 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does anyone know why Leica sticks to the golden ratio rather than change to 4/3? The radius of coverage would be less for a 4/3 system with same area of coverage in comparison to 3/2, albeit with a differing proportion between length and width, and result in less vignetting and possibly reduce the micro lens challenge of full frame. Furthermore, 4/3 looks great. See below a cropped picture of a trip through Northern Georgia I took this past weekend that looks best cropped 4/3. No, I was riding in a vehicle and that is not me in the cart. M8 & 50 summilux asph. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=158368&stc=1&d=1251132927 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Hi Scott Root, Take a look here 4/3 makes sense for practical and technical reasons. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mat_mcdermott Posted August 24, 2009 Share #2 Posted August 24, 2009 Personally, I can't stand the 4:3 frame from a compositional sense except if it's a vertical -- not square enough nor narrow enough, so I'm glad they've stuck with 3:2. And not to be be pedantic, but the golden ratio is about 1.62 not 1.5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted August 24, 2009 Share #3 Posted August 24, 2009 because Leica invented and pioneered the 35mm format??........... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted August 24, 2009 Share #4 Posted August 24, 2009 Maybe the best would be a circular sensor with images we could crop to any shape we like:rolleyes: Meanwhile I'm happy with 3:2. It's a good compromise between 4:3 and the golden ratio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominic Posted August 24, 2009 Share #5 Posted August 24, 2009 "Furthermore, 4/3 looks great. " So great that the market share of the "universal" (lol) 4/3 is 5 %, and that the imaging division of Oly is in the red with sales taking a free fall... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 24, 2009 Share #6 Posted August 24, 2009 Now, I use and like 4/3 but... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted August 24, 2009 Share #7 Posted August 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I only realised recently how clever the A paper size definition is. This has the unique property that if you cut it in half (across the long side) that the aspect ratio of the two halves is the same as the original i.e. you can reduce intelligently from single A4 page to folios of A5. How does it work? ratio L/W = W/½L = 2W/L so L^2 = 2W^2 so (L/W)^2 = 2 so L/W = √2 = 1.41421356 This ratio is more intelligent than 3:2 or 4:3 and is not the golden ratio (1.61803399) or the 16/9 wide screen ratio (16/9 = 1.7777778). Time for change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted August 24, 2009 Share #8 Posted August 24, 2009 Equally true of the B sizes, of course. But mightn't it be difficult to make a sensor with an irrational number of pixels? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted August 24, 2009 Share #9 Posted August 24, 2009 Ah, but in an irrational world everything is more or less possible: 41/29 = 1.4137931 and √2=1.41421356 Error = 0.03%, I can live with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 24, 2009 Share #10 Posted August 24, 2009 I only realised recently how clever the A paper size definition is. ... This ratio is ... not the ... 16/9 wide screen ratio (16/9 = 1.7777778). Stephen, HDTV engineers chose 16:9. But in the movies, there are a number of widescreen standards, from 1.8:1 to 2.25:1 as I recall, for the single-projector versions. Different again for Cinerama and Gance's Napoleon, yet again for Todd-AO and Cinemiracle, etc. The ancient Greeks liked the proud stasis of the "golden ratio," did they? Gee, what did they know? Βαρνακ to them, say I! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted August 24, 2009 Share #11 Posted August 24, 2009 Because they called me first and ask for my opinion. I don't like 4/3. I like square or 2/3 sorry about this Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted August 24, 2009 Share #12 Posted August 24, 2009 You're forgetting Vittorio Storraro's 1:2 aspect ratio he was proposing for a while. Think the version of Dune he shot was done in that. We can throw in Super16 at 1:1.69 for good measure, if this is going down the let's see how many aspect ratios we can list route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted August 25, 2009 Share #13 Posted August 25, 2009 That is precisely the basis of the European DIN system of paper sizing. The proportions are root 2 rectangles. Those proportions are actually quite close to 'golden section'. As a practical matter, these paper sizes are very efficient with 3:2 Leica photographs and better than traditional photo proportions such as 8x10 and the American Letter size papers, for example. For an excellent discussion including this subject, I recommend "Geometry of Design" (Studies in proportion and composition) by Kimberly Elam. It is inexpensive and fascinating. I only realised recently how clever the A paper size definition is. This has the unique property that if you cut it in half (across the long side) that the aspect ratio of the two halves is the same as the original i.e. you can reduce intelligently from single A4 page to folios of A5. How does it work? ratio L/W = W/½L = 2W/L so L^2 = 2W^2 so (L/W)^2 = 2 so L/W = √2 = 1.41421356 This ratio is more intelligent than 3:2 or 4:3 and is not the golden ratio (1.61803399) or the 16/9 wide screen ratio (16/9 = 1.7777778). Time for change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 25, 2009 Share #14 Posted August 25, 2009 Rectangular formats are more natural than square formats just because the human vision is very rectangular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted August 25, 2009 Share #15 Posted August 25, 2009 I'm not sure how a 4:3 format makes practical or technical sense as the Leica lenses we know and love were all created with the 24x36mm format in mind. I would never buy a 4:3 Leica and changing aspect ratios would be a quick way to lose quite a few customers, I suspect. Paper sizes have nothing to do with the shape of my prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerhardt Isringhaus Posted August 25, 2009 Share #16 Posted August 25, 2009 This is pure gibberish. The lens makes a circular image, crop it as you will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicanut2 Posted August 25, 2009 Share #17 Posted August 25, 2009 I saw a site a week ago that showed the crop factor when you make a 8 by 10 and you loose less on a 4/3 picture than you do on a 35mm. I just got my panasonic adapter to use my only R lens on a micro 4/3rds camera I plan on getting the e-p1 around the end of the year only because of all the rumors of new cameras. Even of a E-P1 with a viewfinder. Just think my 280mm will be a 560 and with the 1.4x a 800mm and with the 2x a massive 1120mm Only time will tell Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 25, 2009 Share #18 Posted August 25, 2009 You're forgetting Vittorio Storraro's 1:2 aspect ratio he was proposing for a while. Think the version of Dune he shot was done in that. We can throw in Super16 at 1:1.69 for good measure, if this is going down the let's see how many aspect ratios we can list route. Oops; didn't mean to head off that way. Just wanted to say, 'format, shmormat.' IMHO, any format is fine as long as it works for the photographer. I recently asked the projectionist (yes, there is one!) at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston how he adjusted to the various aspect ratios, and his answer was that 'after a while, you can tell by just looking at the film.' The museum's recent presentation of "Made in USA" stretched the screen to close to its maximum (Godard; Anna Karina): Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/94277-43-makes-sense-for-practical-and-technical-reasons/?do=findComment&comment=1003478'>More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 25, 2009 Share #19 Posted August 25, 2009 Actually, since I've led us off topic, I might as well include two more shots from same film, illustrating if nothing else French automotive humor. The first introduces the New Yorker that temporarily replaces the policeman's Citroen: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The second is the visual catch with film advertisement placement. (Note how the policeman's torso parallels the "Forward Look" of the Chrysler): ("Forward Look" was Chrysler Corporation's name for its implementation of the hooded headlights popular in American cars of the period.) Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The second is the visual catch with film advertisement placement. (Note how the policeman's torso parallels the "Forward Look" of the Chrysler): ("Forward Look" was Chrysler Corporation's name for its implementation of the hooded headlights popular in American cars of the period.) ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/94277-43-makes-sense-for-practical-and-technical-reasons/?do=findComment&comment=1003493'>More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted August 30, 2009 Share #20 Posted August 30, 2009 Jan, I think that four thirds came about due to the efficiencies of fitting those proportions within the smaller image circle. As you know the area of the four thirds sensor is smaller than (that of) other dSLRs or the M8. So you get more pixels. A square would be the most efficient of course. 8x10 has long been accepted as a 'standard' for prints (ignoring movie formats) but it very likely started from 5 inch by 4 inch negatives perhaps? On the other hand 24x36 when invented had a direct relationship for quality reproduction to contact prints from existing cameras at that time. I suspect that Oskar's choice was more a practical matter (rather than aesthetic) since the camera grew out of a way to test movie film and 24x36 was 2 frames of course. Print formats are evolving whether from commercial printers or our inkjets at home. Generally there is much less wastage from those inkjet papers with 3:2. Just out of interest and purely about aesthetic preferences, the classic study of best rectangle preferences by Fechner way back in 1876 (!) shows this: (proportion's preferred percentage) 4:5 - 4% 1:1 - 5% 3:4 - 5% 1:2 - 9% 2:3 - 21% 5:8 (Golden Section) - 35% It really is a fascinating subject to learn something about. Some image editing programmes and camera viewfinders are even offering overlays now on different proportions. Of course the 'rule of thirds' is always a useful compositional guide too. I saw a site a week ago that showed the crop factor when you make a 8 by 10 and you loose less on a 4/3 picture than you do on a 35mm.I just got my panasonic adapter to use my only R lens on a micro 4/3rds camera I plan on getting the e-p1 around the end of the year only because of all the rumors of new cameras. Even of a E-P1 with a viewfinder. Just think my 280mm will be a 560 and with the 1.4x a 800mm and with the 2x a massive 1120mm Only time will tell Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.