What makes the "Rule of Thirds" work?

Colin_D wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
j fabian wrote:


Just wondering, why is "A4" a more proper paper size than "8.5 x 11"?


Eurocentric snobbery.

No, the A and B series of paper sizes is designed so that halving any
given sheet produces two sheets of the next smaller size without cutting
to waste - which you cannot do with most if not all of the American
paper sizes. The dimensions of these series is in the ratio of
1:sqrt(2). Such a shape can be repeatedly halved yet retain the same
ratio with no cutting waste.

A few years ago I suggested that it would be nice if the camera sensor
makers would make sensors in ISO 216 "A" proportions for this reason.

Too sensible I guess...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Colin_D wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
j fabian wrote:


Just wondering, why is "A4" a more proper paper size than "8.5 x 11"?


Eurocentric snobbery.

No, the A and B series of paper sizes is designed so that halving any
given sheet produces two sheets of the next smaller size without cutting
to waste - which you cannot do with most if not all of the American paper
sizes. The dimensions of these series is in the ratio of 1:sqrt(2).
Such a shape can be repeatedly halved yet retain the same ratio with no
cutting waste.

A few years ago I suggested that it would be nice if the camera sensor
makers would make sensors in ISO 216 "A" proportions for this reason.

Too sensible I guess...

Cheers,
Alan

It's too bad that 35 mm film wasn't designed to use the same proportions,
too........Think of all the millions of square miles of images that have
been thrown away over the years in order to print photos on A4 size
paper.......

William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Colin_D wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
j fabian wrote:

Just wondering, why is "A4" a more proper paper size than "8.5 x 11"?

Eurocentric snobbery.
No, the A and B series of paper sizes is designed so that halving any
given sheet produces two sheets of the next smaller size without cutting
to waste - which you cannot do with most if not all of the American paper
sizes. The dimensions of these series is in the ratio of 1:sqrt(2).
Such a shape can be repeatedly halved yet retain the same ratio with no
cutting waste.
A few years ago I suggested that it would be nice if the camera sensor
makers would make sensors in ISO 216 "A" proportions for this reason.

Too sensible I guess...

Cheers,
Alan

It's too bad that 35 mm film wasn't designed to use the same proportions,
too........Think of all the millions of square miles of images that have
been thrown away over the years in order to print photos on A4 size
paper.......


I don't think A4 was invented at the time Barnack invented the 35mm format.

About the only paper to more or less fit film sizes was and still is
photographic paper. But, A4 is a fairly close fit to both 3:2 and 4:3
sensor formats - 3:2 is about a 1/2-inch too long when the width is
right, and 4:3 is about a 1/2-inch too wide when the length is right.
A4 at 1.414:1 is almost exactly midway between 3:2 (1.5:1) and 4:3
(1.33:1). Midway is actually 1.415:1.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Pudentame wrote:
Colin_D wrote:
j fabian wrote:

Just wondering, why is "A4" a more proper paper size than "8.5 x 11"?
Standards are, after all, mostly just convention.

It's not more 'proper', whatever that might be. The A series of paper
sizes, starting at A0 (zero) have an aspect ratio of 1:sqrt(2), or
1:1.414. This allows successively halving any given size to produce
two sheets of half the area, each still having an aspect ratio of
1:1.414, thus the paper cuts into smaller sizes with no waste.
However, the 'grain' of the paper does change with size, being
alternately along or across the length of the sheet, and sometimes
this matters with sheet feeders. Grain with the length sometimes
feeds better than cross grain.

Colin D.

A4 is the most used size for letters and documents at 8.27 x 11.7
inches, or 210 x 297 mm; and at that is slightly narrower and longer
than the American letter size.


A4 paper will fit in most American "standard" laser printers, while
American 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper won't fit in most European "standard"
laser printers.

Most lasers, and inkjets for that matter, will take either by
adjustments in the paper tray, except the earlier HP lasers, which used
different trays.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Colin_D wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
j fabian wrote:

Just wondering, why is "A4" a more proper paper size than "8.5 x 11"?

Eurocentric snobbery.
No, the A and B series of paper sizes is designed so that halving any
given sheet produces two sheets of the next smaller size without cutting
to waste - which you cannot do with most if not all of the American paper
sizes. The dimensions of these series is in the ratio of 1:sqrt(2).
Such a shape can be repeatedly halved yet retain the same ratio with no
cutting waste.
A few years ago I suggested that it would be nice if the camera sensor
makers would make sensors in ISO 216 "A" proportions for this reason.

Too sensible I guess...

Cheers,
Alan

It's too bad that 35 mm film wasn't designed to use the same proportions,
too........Think of all the millions of square miles of images that have
been thrown away over the years in order to print photos on A4 size
paper.......

or 8x10

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

William Graham wrote:

It's too bad that 35 mm film wasn't designed to use the same proportions,
too........Think of all the millions of square miles of images that have
been thrown away over the years in order to print photos on A4 size
paper.......

or 5x7

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Originally Posted by Tony Polson

David Chant wrote:

Well, actually, since you begin with the mistaken assumptions of 1.5 and
2 being components of the rule of thirds, yes you do. Because you are
plainly wrong.


If you think I am "plainly wrong", you must have your head a long way
up your ass, or simple math is beyond you. I don't know how much
simpler I can make it for your tiny little mind, but I will try:

In the Golden Section, divide the height of the image into two unequal
portions so that the ratio of the larger to the smaller portion is the
same as the ratio of the whole to the larger. The whole point of the
Golden Section is that the two ratios are the same. Simple math tells
you that the ratio can only be 1.618.

In the Rule of Thirds, the two ratios are different to each other. The
ratio of the larger to the smaller portion is 2.000. The ratio of the
whole to the larger is 1.500.

The whole point of the Golden Section is that the two ratios are the
same. In the Rule of Thirds, the two ratios are significantly
different. A visual comparison of the two shows a clear difference.
And that is why the Rule of Thirds is no more than a very poor
approximation of the Golden Section.

Now if you cannot understand that, you really are dumb. As dumb as
Alan Browne, in fact, because he cannot understand it either.

It is just one of so many things that Alan Browne will never
understand, like bokeh, depth of field, hyperfocal distance, circle of
confusion and - let's not forget this one! - which way to point an
incident light meter. (Up your ass is best for you, Alan.)

;-)

Ah.
Mr Polson showing his usual charm.
Pity he can't just express a view, right or wrong, without trying a put down for anyone with a different opinion. Is this a sympton of an inadequate personality and is he, as I have heard, actually a wimp?