Reading mode: Light Dark

does the 2:3 aspect ratio make sense?

Go to last post
BJL said:
Maybe EVF digicams could allow rotation of just the sensor,
allowing normal horizontal holding of the camera for verticals, and
normal flash positioning. One LF back does this. Tricky with SLR's
though!
Click to expand...
The RB67 medium format SLR does it, so it is possible.

The big problem is doing this is that the SLR needs to be designed for it from the beginning. An SLR based on a 35mm full frame camera has a screen and mirror big enough to accomodate a 1.5x crop sensor in either 16x24 or 24x16 orientation.

Make the sensor any bigger than 24mm, and it won't fit in the 24x36 envelope any more.

But it's a nice idea, and one that's been discussed before.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3971531

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
The big problem is doing this is that the SLR needs to be designed
for it from the beginning. An SLR based on a 35mm full frame camera
has a screen and mirror big enough to accomodate a 1.5x crop sensor
in either 16x24 or 24x16 orientation.

Make the sensor any bigger than 24mm, and it won't fit in the 24x36
envelope any more.
Click to expand...
Yes to was the 24mm height restriction I was worrying about, so you will not be surprised that I now propose a 24x18mm (4:3) rotatable sensor, or even 24x19 (5:4), to get the biggest possible image is all common print shapes within that 24mm constraint.
 
Sean Keegan said:
2:3 is much more pleasing to the eye than 3:4. And jives more with
acutal human eyesight. This is a fact.
Click to expand...
What are your souces for this "fact" and aesthetic claim? And can you explain why all the serious artistic users and makers of medium format and large format cameras have never acknowledged it, instead preferring formats almost entirely in the range 5:4 to 4:3, and why when photographic printing papers in the more pleasing 3:2 shape were offered for sale, they failed in the market place, in favour of the still dominant 10x8, 14x11, 20x16; dominant even when used by people printing from the 3:2 shape of 35mm negatives?

On the broader question of artistically pleasing shapes, take a look at the shapes of paintings in any gallery of art book, and you will find that shapes 7:5 horizontal and wider (including 3:2 horizontal) typically account for far less than half of all items; a clear majority are in the range from 4:3 horizontal towards square and on to verticals; ignoring orientation, a clear majority are between 7:5 and square, so closer to 4:3 than 3:2.

In summary, it seems that painters of all centuries and most serious photographers over more than a century do not share your opinion about the superiority of 3:2 (horizontal) shape.
 
The mass market, which is not represented here - hence the wide variety of opinions, will most likely prefer 3:2 because it is the shape of the 6x4 prints we (I include myself here) are used to get for a couple of decades now from most photo labs. In this case, 3:2 makes a lot of sense.

In mi particular case, whenever I print digital pictures, I go to the nearest drug store with a Fuji Frontier mini lab and dump the pictures there and in a short time I've got my prints. No need to crop ANY picture at all (except if composition is bad enough), no lost pixels. I never print at home where I would not have to worry about aspect ratio. What could be simpler? If I were to shoot 4:3 (my camera doesn't shoot that mode anyway) I would have to crop every picture to make sure I get whatI want.

I seldom print anything bigger than 6x4 because most of the times I want the pictures to be put in an album to show anyone without having to be in the computer.
 
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
Funny you should mention that. Can't tell you which one, but one of
the sensor manufacturers just sent me some data sheets on a sensor
outside the antique 4:3 mode. Hopefully, they'll announce
publically before SAE next month.

Wide sensors make sense in the auto industry. Rear windows have an
aspect over 2:1.

Didn't Sony just announce a line of camcorder CCDs, 2mp, 16:9 HDTV
style?
Click to expand...
So, two more items of evidence that wide shapes are popular for moving images and video uses, be it viewing on HDTV screens or electronic rear vision mirrors. But I still do not see that this has much to do with the realm of SLR still image photography.
 
For decades, the 35mm mass market got all its prints in cropped shapes like 5"x3 1/2", 5"x4", 7"x5", 10"x8", along with 12x9cm and 24x18cm in some European countries, and more serious printing was also dominated by these shapes. Note that most are either 4:3 or less elongated, with the exceptions being 7x5 and 5x 3.5, midway between 4:3 and 3:2. Note that 35mm became dominant in this era of croped prints, and hence its dominance was not because of its 3:2 shape, but despite it.

Then minilabs added a single snapshot print format, 6"x4", with the attraction of involving no cropping, still staying with less elongated shapes for all larger sizes; more recently, some larger "uncropped" shapes have been added.

What will happen with digital cameras? The driving force behind 6"x4" minilab prints seems to have been getting uncropped prints from 35mm negatives, and the overwhelming majority of digicams give 4:3 shape, so maybe the appeal of uncropped prints from digicam files will bring us more "digicam friendly" print smaller shapes once prints from compact digicams become a sufficient share of minilab work. We have already had 8"x6" added.
 
Hey BJL...

Actually the fact I was referring to deals more with the human visual system being more attuned to wide formats over square... not the more pleasing bit (which is true too, by the way).

Regards,
Sean
BJL said:
Sean Keegan said:
2:3 is much more pleasing to the eye than 3:4. And jives more with
acutal human eyesight. This is a fact.
Click to expand...
What are your souces for this "fact" and aesthetic claim? And can
you explain why all the serious artistic users and makers of medium
format and large format cameras have never acknowledged it, instead
preferring formats almost entirely in the range 5:4 to 4:3, and why
when photographic printing papers in the more pleasing 3:2 shape
were offered for sale, they failed in the market place, in favour
of the still dominant 10x8, 14x11, 20x16; dominant even when used
by people printing from the 3:2 shape of 35mm negatives?
Click to expand...
Inertia, my friend... why hasn't the US changed to Metric yet? It is obviously better. Inertia.
BJL said:
On the broader question of artistically pleasing shapes, take a
look at the shapes of paintings in any gallery of art book, and you
will find that shapes 7:5 horizontal and wider (including 3:2
horizontal) typically account for far less than half of all items;
a clear majority are in the range from 4:3 horizontal towards
square and on to verticals; ignoring orientation, a clear majority
are between 7:5 and square, so closer to 4:3 than 3:2.
Click to expand...
Books are hard to print and hard to handle when they are wide format... so that is why there are few wide format images in books as it would waste most of the page. Books are the limiting factor, not what is more pleasing.

There have been numerous studies done in the movie industry, and they all found that people prefer wider formats. Also look up in a psychology book that is in depth about the human visual system, and you will find that the human eye/brain combination work in a way similar to a wide format kind of view. We are most sensitive to seeing things side to side rather than up or down. We are able to process a scene better when it is wide rather then square. It is just how the human brain works. Makes sense when most of the time it would be advantageous to process information in this way to sense danger etc.... think about it.
BJL said:
In summary, it seems that painters of all centuries and most
serious photographers over more than a century do not share your
opinion about the superiority of 3:2 (horizontal) shape.
Click to expand...
Probably inertia as well. 3:4 also "feels" more constrained than 2:3 for most people. IF you look at paintings of landscapes etc. they are very often wide format. Most portraits look better in 3:4 though. Sounds like you mostly look at portraits when you think of paintings. Broaden your scope a bit and you will find paintings are very often wide format... and often what is reproduced in art books are not the complete painting because they do not fit nicely into a book format.

Regards,
Sean
 
Sean Keegan said:
Actually the fact I was referring to deals more with the human
visual system being more attuned to wide formats over square... not
the more pleasing bit (which is true too, by the way).
Click to expand...
Firstly, we are talking about 4:3, so comparing to square is a red herring. Secondly, the "more pleasing" bit is surely what counts, and I would say that the evidence from a millenium or more of "stationary rectangular visual art objects" seems to contradict your aesthetic claim. You seem to be basing your case more on moving images, which is a different topic.
Sean Keegan said:
Inertia
Click to expand...
Inertia seems a good explaination for the persistence of the 3:2 format, which came to prominance through the success of 35mm film despite the great majority of prints made from it being closer to 4:3 in shape.
Sean Keegan said:
Sean Keegan said:
On the broader question of artistically pleasing shapes, take a
look at the shapes of paintings in any gallery of art book
Click to expand...
Books are hard to print and hard to handle when they are wide
format... so that is why there are few wide format images in books
as it would waste most of the page. Books are the limiting factor,
not what is more pleasing.
Click to expand...
What has the shape of books got to do with it? I was talking about the shapes of paintings in galleries and reproduced in books and exhibit guides. This included several complete exhibition catalogues, so there was no question of a bias againsts wider paintings. Also, I usually used the dimensions printed in the catalogue description, so there was no risk of being fooled by any cropping for reproduction.

In the books I studied, lots of "landscape" oriented paintings are reproduced, despite the "portrait" orientation of the pages, and a majority of these are in the shape range between square and 4:3, with distinctly fewer being closer to 3:2. One book consisted almost entirely of watercolour landscapes. I am now tempted to bring Ansel Adams' landscapes into the shape count!
Sean Keegan said:
There have been numerous studies done in the movie industry, and
they all found that people prefer wider formats.
Click to expand...
The topic here is STILL images: I agree about the wider shape preferences for moving images; but that is a different subject. For one thing, there is the difference between (a) the full visual field including peripheral vision, more oriented to detecting motion and so more relevant to moving images, and (b) the central visual field used when examining a still image.
Sean Keegan said:
Sean Keegan said:
In summary, it seems that painters of all centuries and most
serious photographers over more than a century do not share your
opinion about the superiority of 3:2 (horizontal) shape.
Click to expand...
Probably inertia as well.
Click to expand...
Is every bit of evidence that you do not like "inertia"?
Sean Keegan said:
3:4 also "feels" more constrained than 2:3 for most people.
Click to expand...
You continue to declare this with a complete lack of any evidence relevant to still images. Art supply shops in the US have a variety of papers and canvasses available in 3:2 and even 2:1 shape, and even wih those choices, the majority of purchases are in the shapes 4:3 and 5:4. This is not something being forced upon artists, artists are freely choosing 4:3 more often than 3:2. Your "inertia" is my "aesthetic preference".
Sean Keegan said:
If you look at paintings of landscapes etc. they are very often wide format.
Click to expand...
Panoramic landscapes exist of course, but are not nearly so dominant in painting as you seem to think: even counting only paintings in "landscape" orientation, a clear majority are in the shape range between 4:3 and square, with 3:2 and wider distinctly less common.
Sean Keegan said:
Sounds like you mostly look at portraits when you think of paintings.
Click to expand...
As I have already mentioned, I looked at all kinds of paintings; a distinct minority were portraits. When it comes to looking, it seems clear to me that you have not done any such looking and counting of the relative frequency of different painting shapes.
Sean Keegan said:
... and often what is reproduced in art books
are not the complete painting because they do not fit nicely into a
book format.
Click to expand...
It seems that every bit of evidence you do not like gets disparaged, and yet you can quote no relevant contradictory evidence of your own. See my comments above about the image dimensions I studied from complete exhibition catalogues, which show that 4:3 is at least as common than 3:2, even when one checks for cropping, eliminates portraits, etc.
 
Matthew Cromer said:
3:2 is terrible for verticals (and I shoot mostly verticals).
Click to expand...
I have noticed that my framing choices vary between two strategies: when I am shooting more casually, I tend to try to adjust my composition to fill the frame, probably a habit developed under the influence of minilab printing with no cropping. So I conform to 3:2 or 4:3 depending on which camera I am using. When I am doing black and white photography for my own darkroom printing, I instead just make sure that everything I want is in the frame with a minimum of wastage, often knowing that something will need to be cropped away. That camera is 35mm format, and almost always the stuff destined for cropping away is at the long ends, so the cropped composition will be a bit less elongated than 3:2.
 
It's annoying to crop 90% of the time. Most of my prints are 4x6. When I shot with my Coolpix 990 I always shot with it's largest format which isn't 2/3

Why waste pixels? It had a 2/3 mode but achieved it by masking the pixels.

For 2 years and 20,000 picts (ok, I didn't print them all) I kept it at full size.

Now I shoot with my Canon 300D -- what a moron I was for not shooting with the 2/3 ratio.

All that time wasted in cropping the picts to the 4x6 size.

Lee
Andrew Marshall said:
Ok, so why don't camera makers offer anything other than this ratio
for D SLR's knowing many of us are making portrait 4x5, 5x7, 8x10
.. sizes?

Consider this: (were talking all un-interpolated here)

Things being as they are, 8x10's out of my D100 go from 6MP to
4.8MP or from 2000 x 3008 to 2000 x 2400. Which leaves me
w/250dpi at the 8x10 print size.

If my sensor where designed w/ 4x5 ratio, out of cam. images would
be 2739 x 2191= still 6MP but @ 8x10 this now becomes 273 dpi.

Ok I belive the 1Ds is 8.9MP, doing the math right (or wrong?) I'm
saying the pixel dim. are around 2650 x 2435, which, when cropped
to 8x10 leaves 304 dpi.

. . . I think you get the point,

So, I guess what I'm saying is I HATE WASTING PIXELS!!!

OK ... feel better now.

Seriously though, you could abandon making 4x6's, (who needs them
anywhay) You would have to crop to get 4x6, but I wouldn't mind
wasting pixels (via cropping) when going to a small print size, I
do when going large . . . makes sense.

I guess if you're a pano person, you'ld have to generally disagree
with me.

Hey, why not 2 formats: 1 panoramic and 1 portrait.

just my thoughts.

andy
Click to expand...
 
BJL said:
Sean Keegan wrote:
Click to expand...
[tons of snipping]
BJL said:
BJL said:
3:4 also "feels" more constrained than 2:3 for most people.
Click to expand...
You continue to declare this with a complete lack of any evidence
relevant to still images. Art supply shops in the US have a variety
of papers and canvasses available in 3:2 and even 2:1 shape, and
even wih those choices, the majority of purchases are in the shapes
4:3 and 5:4. This is not something being forced upon artists,
artists are freely choosing 4:3 more often than 3:2. Your "inertia"
is my "aesthetic preference".
Click to expand...
[And still more cropping, if you can believe it]

BJL,

Sean knows I would never, ever add my voice in support of his. Forum history shows that we occupy two different multiverses. (Well, okay, I occupy a multiverse..grin.) However, it might turn out that Sean is more righter than you on this one. Though you are both somewhat justified in your respective arguments (it's a complex world, and it's not hard to find a convicing body of those willing to justify near any position imaginable). But there are also a whole bunch of people, even "artists", who are all too happy to go with whatever the prevalent flow is. (That, of course, only is applicable to whoever takes the opposing point of view...people who agree with the position of the speaker are never "lemminglike".)

But there are inertial states and there are inertial states, and even artists have their conventions. It's all too easy to buy whatever the most "popular" sizings of materials about are. They may not be as aesthetic as less popular formats, but the shoppers with the pocketbooks aren't challanged...and on and ever on.

I shoot 35mm, for a time shot Pentax 6 x 7. I gave the Pentax up because the format was just too static for my tastes, though it works better in a "portrait" orientation. 35mm is terribly awkward in portrait orientation, but it's stone killer in "landscape" orientation. Far, far less static than 6 x 7, 8 x 10, or the dreadful (historical TV proportions of) 3 x 4. And, be honest, that's why most digitals are 3 x 4...cause they were kicked off by videocam engineers. What did they know about aesthetics?

2 x 3 indeed does have a certain historical aesthetic weight...it is the common format closest to the classic "golden section" proportions:
http://home.att.net/~vmueller/prop/prp_the/comp.gif

'nuff said. I'm outta here...

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
 
Ed,

note that I am not arguing that 3:2 is inferior or undesirable, as it has its place for moderately panoramic landscapes, which is what a large proportion of snapsots are. (But not for all landscapes by any means: for example Ansel Adams seems never to have gone so wide!)

However, it seems to me that the advocates of the clear superiority of 3:2 over less elongated shapes like 4:3 should look a bit more outside the box of 35mm camera viewfinders and minilab prints. Can anyone provide ANY examples or evidence from outside of 35mm photography where 3:2 shape is more often chosen than 4:3 and 5:4 by artists? So far I have read attempts to diminish the significance of the evidence I have quoted from the world of painting, drawing and photography in formats other than 35mm, but no actual positive evidence of an overall preference for the wider shape for still images.

On the subject of inertia, firstly I have mentioned several cases where artists have had the choice of 3:2 along with 4:3 and/or 5:4, and choose the latter at least as often as the former [artist's supplies now, printing papers in the past]; not inertia, but choice.

Another interesting example is the history of roll film cameras, and 120 film in particular. 120 film started with the 3:2 format of the Brownie 2 (a roughly 6x9cm format camera), though the name 120 came later. Inertia should have been on the side of 3:2, but as that film moved up from those snapshot cameras to more serious photography, it moved almost entirely to 6x6, 6x4.5 and 6x7 (really a 5:4 shape). There are a few panoramic options like 617 and 6x9 backs for view cameras, but even the last of the 6x9 rangefinders from Fuji have now been discontinued. Inertia should have favored 3:2, but the momentum has been all towards somewhat less elongated shapes, plus some special panoramic options.

As to the Golden Ratio of approximately 1.62, the ancent Greek numerological fascination with rectangles of that shape seems not to have carried over into the modern world of painting and photography, at least as far as image shape is concerned. Another fact I noticed when studying painting and print shapes is that there is a significant cluster at about 3:2 (but no bigger than the clusters at 4:3 or 5:4), and then almost nothing up to panoramics at 2:1 and beyond; a far bigger gap than than any between popular shapes in the range from square up to 3:2. Thus, the Golden Mean is conspicuously absent from the shapes chosen, almost to the point of appearing to be avoided!
 
Hey Ed...

Just because we don't agree on film Vs. digital does not mean that we might agree on a vast many other issues. :) I have mentioned many times in my posts that I respect you as a photographer very much, and you are obviously someone I look up to. Please do not construe my disagreements with you on film and digital in any personal way or that I think poorly of you. Your post distressed me that you have gotten that impression. In general I find I agree with you more often than not. It is just on the Film Vs. digital debate that we seem to be on different teams. (Die film die, hehe, just kidding.... well sort of ;)).

By the way, thank you for bringing up the golden section. (your link does not work, by the way). I was going to post that very same information myself. In fact Leonardo Da Vinci himself discovered that 2:3 was a very pleasing format in his paintings. In fact... guess what ratio the mona lisa was painted in.... He used it very very often in his paintings. In fact, one can find this ratio all over in nature as well.

Links for BJL... who is constantly saying that I bring no evidence to the table. Well here you go:

http://www.designsdigital.com/goldenrectangle.htm

Quote from above:

The ratio 1:1.618 is called the "golden ratio" (sometimes known as the Divine Proportion).

Golden Rectangle in Action

If you examine some of the aspect ratios, they are closely related to the golden ratio. For example,

35mm film has an aspect ratio of 36:24, which is 1:1.5 - close enough to 1:1.618
HDTV aspect ratio is 16:9, which gives us 1:1.77

Most wide screen's have an aspect ratio of 1:1.66. Maybe that's why movies look better on movie theatres.

End quote

http://www.q-net.net.au/~lolita/symmetry.htm

And in all forms of art, not just images:

http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html

Still think 4:3 is more pleasing, or even just as pleasing?

Regards,
Sean
Ed Leys said:
BJL said:
Sean Keegan wrote:
Click to expand...
[tons of snipping]
Ed Leys20479 said:
Ed Leys20479 said:
3:4 also "feels" more constrained than 2:3 for most people.
Click to expand...
You continue to declare this with a complete lack of any evidence
relevant to still images. Art supply shops in the US have a variety
of papers and canvasses available in 3:2 and even 2:1 shape, and
even wih those choices, the majority of purchases are in the shapes
4:3 and 5:4. This is not something being forced upon artists,
artists are freely choosing 4:3 more often than 3:2. Your "inertia"
is my "aesthetic preference".
Click to expand...
[And still more cropping, if you can believe it]

BJL,

Sean knows I would never, ever add my voice in support of his.
Forum history shows that we occupy two different multiverses.
(Well, okay, I occupy a multiverse..grin.) However, it might
turn out that Sean is more righter than you on this one. Though
you are both somewhat justified in your respective arguments (it's
a complex world, and it's not hard to find a convicing body of
those willing to justify near any position imaginable). But there
are also a whole bunch of people, even "artists", who are all too
happy to go with whatever the prevalent flow is. (That, of
course, only is applicable to whoever takes the opposing point of
view...people who agree with the position of the speaker are never
"lemminglike".)

But there are inertial states and there are inertial states, and
even artists have their conventions. It's all too easy to buy
whatever the most "popular" sizings of materials about are. They
may not be as aesthetic as less popular formats, but the shoppers
with the pocketbooks aren't challanged...and on and ever on.

I shoot 35mm, for a time shot Pentax 6 x 7. I gave the Pentax up
because the format was just too static for my tastes, though it
works better in a "portrait" orientation. 35mm is terribly awkward
in portrait orientation, but it's stone killer in "landscape"
orientation. Far, far less static than 6 x 7, 8 x 10, or the
dreadful (historical TV proportions of) 3 x 4. And, be honest,
that's why most digitals are 3 x 4...cause they were kicked off
by videocam engineers. What did they know about aesthetics?

2 x 3 indeed does have a certain historical aesthetic weight...it
is the common format closest to the classic "golden section"
proportions:
http://home.att.net/~vmueller/prop/prp_the/comp.gif

'nuff said. I'm outta here...

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
Click to expand...
 
BJL said:
Ed,
note that I am not arguing that 3:2 is inferior or undesirable, as
it has its place for moderately panoramic landscapes, which is what
a large proportion of snapsots are. (But not for all landscapes by
any means: for example Ansel Adams seems never to have gone so
wide!)
Click to expand...
There you go putting words into dead peoples mouths. I happen to think Leonardo Da Vinci is a greater authority on what is pleasing to the human eye than Ansel Adams, although Mr. Adams was a master... there were other reasons he chose the formats he did... have you never read an Ansel Adams instruction book? If you have, maybe you should read more carefully.
BJL said:
However, it seems to me that the advocates of the clear superiority
of 3:2 over less elongated shapes like 4:3 should look a bit more
outside the box of 35mm camera viewfinders and minilab prints. Can
anyone provide ANY examples or evidence from outside of 35mm
photography where 3:2 shape is more often chosen than 4:3 and 5:4
by artists? So far I have read attempts to diminish the
significance of the evidence I have quoted from the world of
painting, drawing and photography in formats other than 35mm, but
no actual positive evidence of an overall preference for the wider
shape for still images.
Click to expand...
You have quoted nothing except yourself. Maybe you need to review your art history a bit better.

Want more evidence?

from here:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/video-format3.htm

Quote:

In addition to the grandeur and immersing qualities of panoramic scenery shots, wider aspect ratios simply allow for more interesting artistic composition. If you go to an art museum, the vast majority of paintings you see will either be significantly wider than they are tall, a "landscape shape," or significantly taller than they are wide, for a "portrait shape." This is because a more rectangular canvas shape allows the artist to balance the elements of the painting more effectively, which creates a sense of visual harmony. Movies are the same way: A director and a cinematographer can compose shots that are much more pleasing to the eye when they use a wider aspect ratio. The shape of a television screen, which is more square-shaped, severely limits the possibilities for interesting visual compositions.
end quote

From a HDTV page:

Quote
Any of these widescreen formats is a better approximation of the human visual
field than the boxy, nearly square shape of a TV screen. After all, our two eyes
are set side-by-side and their field-of-view therefore has an aspect ratio wider
than 3:4. Yet TV screens were everywhere and when video projectors appeared
on the scene, to what aspect ratio were they obliged to conform? You guessed
it, 3:4 again.
Are we doomed to watching video pictures shaped like 50-year-old television
screens forever? We hope not. There is, thank goodness, the shape of things to
come. Its name is High Definition Television, and compared to the video pictures
we are used to, HDTV’s specifications are certainly impressive.

A wider aspect ratio coupled with vastly improved picture quality
would provide the viewer far more involvement with the program.
It was determined by exhaustive research and testing that a 30
degree field of vision would not only excite the central portion of
the human visual system, but the peripheral vision as well. This
gives a very heightened experience of reality to the viewer . . . . 1
Other independently conducted research showed that “the human visual system

is clearly divided by two functions – the ability to see detail better in the central
area and the ability to see motion in the peripheral.” 2 Thus if video was ever

going to match the impact of the movies, it needed, quite literally, to change its
image. Anyone who has seen a HDTV 9:16 display recognizes instantly its
enormous visual superiority over the old 3:4 aspect ratio.

End quote

Clipped nonsense that 3:2 had the actual inertia that was overcome by the "less elongated" 4:3
BJL said:
As to the Golden Ratio of approximately 1.62, the ancent Greek
numerological fascination with rectangles of that shape seems not
to have carried over into the modern world of painting and
photography, at least as far as image shape is concerned. Another
fact I noticed when studying painting and print shapes is that
there is a significant cluster at about 3:2 (but no bigger than the
clusters at 4:3 or 5:4), and then almost nothing up to panoramics
at 2:1 and beyond; a far bigger gap than than any between popular
shapes in the range from square up to 3:2. Thus, the Golden Mean is
conspicuously absent from the shapes chosen, almost to the point of
appearing to be avoided!
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything? Just because most photograpic prints are not 3:2 does not change the fact that it is more pleasing to the eyes, as well as matching how the human eye and brain work.

Well now I have provided numourous links... there are plenty more around.. search for yourself, I assume now you have enough evidence. Now why don't you provide some evidence that you say I was lacking in, instead of just quoting your misguided opinion.

Regards,
Sean
 
No, it is fact. Wow, have none of you taken art history?! 4:3 has been proven over again and again to not be as pleasing as 3:2 or other wide formats, not to mention more limiting artistically. Although I can see your point that to SOME people 4:3 is more pleasing.

Here is a very good paper showing why this is a fact. Just go through all the pages here:

http://www.tcm.rmit.edu.au/notes/GoldenMean/golden1.htm

I think I have more than proven my point.

Regardless. it is an indisputable fact that the human visual field is highly biased towards a wide field of view. People see in a wide filed of view, one not suited to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Dispute that one. You cannot.

Regards,
Sean
Brian D. Schneider said:
Sean Keegan said:
2:3 is much more pleasing to the eye than 3:4. And jives more with
acutal human eyesight. This is a fact.

Regards,
Sean
Click to expand...
--No, it's an opinion.
Brian Schneider
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top