However, the aspect ratio for televisions is changing from 4:3 to
16:9. Maybe 4:3 is a bit old-fashioned?
It's a shape! A SHAPE! With no inherent technical, artistic, or
moral value connected to it.
Heavy sigh....
What are they teaching kids in schools these days?
No "inherent" artistic value? Well, I guess that's true...
If you ignore thousands of years of art and architecture history. Ever heard of the "golden mean"? How about the "Canon of Proportions"? Ever taken a class in anatomy for artists? Seen the "Vitruvian Man" of Leonardo da Vinci? Maybe you've read of it's namesake, the Roman architect Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, who set down the principles of architectural and artistic proportion about 2100 years ago? And that's just the "aspect ratio" parameter of "shape"
How about "technical" value?
The aspect ratio determines the percentage of a lens's coverage circle that you use.
It determines the mechanical design of a camera. Given the same diagonal, a 3:2 swinging mirror has 0.62 of the moment of inertia of a square mirror, which means it can either move 1.62x faster (given the same amount of force and noise) or move with 62% of the force, and less noise and vibration, if you want the same speed.
It regulates the type of the camera. A square format enables you to make a twin lens reflex, like the classic Rollieflex. On an SLR, it enables you to have an angled viewfinder, like the 30 degree upturned Blad prism finders. A rectangular format gives you a rectangular camera, which gives you a better base for a rangefinder.
It determines the ergonomics of a cameras. A square camera never gets turned on its side, so you only have to worry about control operation in 1 orientation. You can place controls for that orientation, with no compromise. A 3:2 gets turned, a lot, so the controls have to be relatively comfortable in either orientation, forcing certain compromises. A 4:2 may even have redundant controls for both orientations.
A 3:4 is somewhere in the middle, many people do not turn a 645 medium format when shooting horizontal. Four-thirds (tm) SLRs are light, and shy on pixels, so they get turned. That's why Oly offers a vertical grip for the E-1.
It also determines how a lens designer has to treat the aberrations and light falloff in the corners of the image. The more "square" the aspect ratio, the more visible light falloff and aberrations are, so a lens design that looks great on a 3:2 format because it has a sharper center at the expense of corner sharpness or falloff,
And if you want to get into "moral" value...
Various aspect ratios (including the golden mean, the perfect square, 3:2, pi and pi/2, the 1.73:1 aspect of a 30 degree rectangle, or sets of Pythagorean triples like 3:4:5) have been considered sacred to different religious sects. Doesn't matter if you're building St. Peter's Basicila, the Parthenon, the Alhambra, Stonehenge, or the pyramid of Giza, or just getting the right ratio of vertical to horizontal on a Christian cross, the virtuous and moral ratios
And that's just aspect ratio. Shape is often the symbol of religion. The cross. The star of David (I won't get into the Da Vinci code). The pyramids. The Ahnk. The Platonic solids.
You guys might as well be arguing
about how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin!
Well, we might, except that aspect is a real issue that affects the life of photographers.
Regardless of the Aspect Ratio that your particular camera comes
with, you are free to crop to whatever AR you choose according to
whatever your personal vision dictates at the time.
this whole thread has taken on an odd surreal tone!
Only since you joined it.
--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.
It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!
Ciao!
Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com 
