Nikon's upcoming micro 4/3rds system raises fascinating question

"Wilba" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

At one time the "golden ratio" (roughly 8:5) was supposed to be the
perfect format for paintings, and had some connection to other art
forms. Not many people care about it today.

I suspect that the rule of thirds is an approximation to the golden
mean. A lot of people seem to care a lot about that. :- )

Sure, but that's different, unless I'm missing something. The rule of
thirds is about subject placement within the picture, not the overall
aspect ratio of the picture.

Correct. I'm not referring to the application of the golden mean to aspect
ratios.

If you construct an illustration of the golden mean by sectioning the
appropriate rectangle, you get some intersections that *vaguely* remind
one of the rule of thirds, but I don't think there's any more to it than
that.

Spot on, except I'd put the other way around -

If you construct an illustration of the rule of thirds by sectioning the
appropriate rectangle, you get some intersections that *vaguely* remind
one of the golden mean.

OK. :-)

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:26:39 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:36:57 +0800, "Wilba"
wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

At one time the "golden ratio" (roughly 8:5) was supposed to be the
perfect format for paintings, and had some connection to other art
forms. Not many people care about it today.

I suspect that the rule of thirds is an approximation to the golden mean.
A
lot of people seem to care a lot about that. :- )


Why does the Golden Section always have to be described as "roughly"
or "something approximating to"? Is it really beyond most people to
use the simple terms that define it?

In a word, yes. Describing it as "roughly 8:5" is close enough, and saves
all the bother of actually constructing it.


A lot of people care about it because it is one of the few "rules" of
composition that works without appearing contrived*. It was well
researched, hundreds of years ago, and it was clear that many people
found it very pleasing.

I think this is something of an urban myth.

LOL!! Right, an urban myth going back to the time of the pyramids.

Oh, the ignorance and stupidity of people sometimes. I swear some of them
must have never made it past 3th grade, but yet somehow found a way to use
a keyboard. I blame those who made computers idiot-friendly.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:43:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


People from "the time of the pyramids" told you they found pictures "very
pleasing" when they were in the proportion of the golden rectangle?

Astonishing! I hope you have alerted the Egyptologists to this, as I'm sure
they will find it interesting also.

He proves the depths of his ignorance again. You really are that amazingly
ignorant, or you're just a troll. Which is it? There are no other options.

The Golden-Ratio has been known since the time of the Pyramids. The Greek
and Roman cultures built many of their buildings and temples in those
proportions. The Parthenon and Acropolis for just two examples. Fibonacci's
Series approaches the Golden Ratio at infinity. Seeds and flowerets of
compound flowers are arranged in the number of clockwise and
counter-clockwise whorls in their seed-pods according to any two
consecutive numbers in Fibonacci's Series. Leaves are arranged around a
stem in any two angular proportions of consecutive numbers in Fibonacci's
Series. The list of examples between the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci's
Series throughout history and all life-forms in the natural world are
endless. Quite the track record for just some "urban myth claim" coming
from an uneducated inexperienced hick.

Go educate yourself beyond a 3rd grade level.

"Frank Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:43:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


People from "the time of the pyramids" told you they found pictures "very
pleasing" when they were in the proportion of the golden rectangle?

Astonishing! I hope you have alerted the Egyptologists to this, as I'm
sure
they will find it interesting also.

He proves the depths of his ignorance again. You really are that amazingly
ignorant, or you're just a troll. Which is it? There are no other options.

Oh, it's you, the dingleberry. You caught me napping that time. I should
have picked it up right away, as no one else rises to your advanced level of
doltishness.

David J Taylor wrote:
Bob Larter wrote
RichA wrote:

My dream is that Nikon wakes up from the ancient 3:2 format nightmare
and releases a 4:3 format with the same surface area as the current FF
sensors.

For purely aesthetic reasons, I prefer 3:2 over 4:3.

How does 16:9 strike you?

I like it (sometimes). I've been doing 13x24 prints from roll stock and
it's quite a bit more dramatic than 13x19 cut sheets at 3:2. I have a
tendency to crop tight though and it's not uncommon that the 16:9 crop
does not work. Square can be really nice too g.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
David J Taylor wrote:
[]
How does 16:9 strike you?

I like it (sometimes). I've been doing 13x24 prints from roll stock and
it's quite a bit more dramatic than 13x19 cut sheets at 3:2. I have a
tendency to crop tight though and it's not uncommon that the 16:9 crop
does not work. Square can be really nice too g.

--
Paul Furman

Square also has the major advantage of not requiring Portrait Mode! G

David