jrc Posted August 30, 2009 Share #21 Posted August 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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'd be interested to know where you learned this; I do find it fascinating, and possibly even useful. 2:3 is quite close to the golden section, and combined with the golden section, over half the people chose that general ratio... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 Hi jrc, Take a look here 4/3 makes sense for practical and technical reasons. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hoppyman Posted August 30, 2009 Share #22 Posted August 30, 2009 I'd be interested to know where you learned this; I do find it fascinating, and possibly even useful. 2:3 is quite close to the golden section, and combined with the golden section, over half the people chose that general ratio... Yes that is exactly why I went through this process and settled on the DIN series for my printer paper. Fortunately in metric counties we get our paper that way This is direct from the excellent little book "Geometry of Design" (studies in proportion and composition) by Kimberly Elam. I think mine came from Amazon. I recommend it to every photographer interested in composition. My 18x27 M8 files fit superbly on A4, A3. A2 paper I guess any future 24x36 ones will too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted August 30, 2009 Share #23 Posted August 30, 2009 There have been some 35mm cameras with a 4:3 ratio (32x24mm, e.g. early Nikon rangefinders, early Wrayflex) but customer demand rapidly forced a change to 3:2. Presumably this was partly because it was hard to get slides mounted - but did the proportions of the image also play a part? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 30, 2009 Share #24 Posted August 30, 2009 Geoff-- Thanks for the numbers. Quite interesting. Was Fechner's a study of existing paintings, of artists' general preferences (that is, a question like "what do you find most appealing?"), or what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted August 30, 2009 Share #25 Posted August 30, 2009 Simply amazing, the 35mm was just about the universal format for over 80 years with just about the best pictures in the world taken on this frame. Now since the Electronic campanies have taken over photography, they have just about stuffed it up in less then 10 years with their incompatibility. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted August 30, 2009 Share #26 Posted August 30, 2009 Simply amazing, the 35mm was just about the universal format for over 80 years with just about the best pictures in the world taken on this frame. Now since the Electronic campanies have taken over photography, they have just about stuffed it up in less then 10 years with their incompatibility. How can you be so narrow-minded? 35mm was dominant in some fields of photography from about the 1950s until recently, but nowhere near universal outside particular groups of users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted August 30, 2009 Share #27 Posted August 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Geoff--Thanks for the numbers. Quite interesting. Was Fechner's a study of existing paintings, of artists' general preferences (that is, a question like "what do you find most appealing?"), or what? Howard, Gustav Fechner was a German psychologist who was curious about the Golden Section. "Fechner's curiosity was due to the documented evidence of a cross-cultural archetypal aesthetic preference for golden section proportions" How's that for a mouthful! I am certainly not an expert on late 19th century German psychologists! His experiment was limited to man-made objects such as books, boxes etc. It was about people in general and across cultures, not limited to artists' opinions. This is just background from the book I mentioned. There is another study too done by Lalo in 1908. The results largely parallel the earlier study. Buy the book people it really is well worthwhile if you are interested by this. "The Power of Limits" (proportional harmonies in nature, art and architecture) by Gyorgy Doczi is another. That one touches on philosophical aspects too but still has much of interest to photographers' eyes. These books delve into the whole Golden Section field , Nautilus shells, shapes in nature,history of art, architecture, industrial design and much else besides. Elam's book though is a model of clarity and deals with that DIN paper system specifically too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted August 30, 2009 Share #28 Posted August 30, 2009 It might be interesting to find out what the golden rule is today. Does the archetypal preference hold? Or elongated screens of cinema and displays made a difference here already? 36x24mm (3:2) cine doubleframe was apparently chosen by Barnack in 1913 because: -cinematic perforated film was common and relatively cheap -its 24x18 (4:3) frame was too small for intended print quality -stills camera favoured the horizontal film spooling Therefore he put the two 24x18mm frames together. There is nothing else to 3:2 ratio. In his times the pro format was 10x8 inch. The closer to the square, the better the usage of the lens image circle real estate. Panasonic came up with a neat trick on it's LX3/GH1 cameras. By using an oversize sensor (corners coming outside the image circle) it can offer the choice of "native"* 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 ratios. Probably the best compromise until the circular sensor arrives. * diagonal AOV is maintained for all ratios As explained by Bjorn Utpott . G1-GH1 sensor aspect ratios small.jpg photo - Bjorn Utpott photos at pbase.com 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=1010515'>More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 30, 2009 Share #29 Posted August 30, 2009 "Fechner's curiosity was due to the documented evidence of a cross-cultural archetypal aesthetic preference for golden section proportions." (Maybe it sounds better in German? ) Geoff, this is very interesting. Thanks for the data and explanation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 1, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 1, 2009 There's a pretty extensive list of cinema formats at Film Formats. Very interesting comment connecting Leica and VistaVision on that page: [John R.] Bishop [of Paramount] cut out the separation between the two frames, rolled the camera over on its side and fitted it with Leica 35mm still camera lenses. This camera, dubbed the "Lazy-8" because it pulled the film across horizontally in 8 perforation frames, provided a total negative area 2.66 times greater than the conventional 35mm camera with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. Implication: At least some VistaVision footage was made with Leica lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.