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

David J Taylor wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
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?

My camera has a 16:9 mode - however the raw file is kept at 3:2 (full
frame). The JPG is cropped (in-camera) and only if you use the Sony s/w
for the raw import will the 16:9 crop be done. Adobe raw import ignores it.

As to the aesthetic, I dislike 4:3 the most, though for portraits I
might like it more. 3:2 is fine and 16:9 not different enough to matter
at take time. Can be done in PS after the fact.

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.

At one time I'd have agreed with you, since 4:3 was the standard for
computer monitors, TV sets, home movies and pre-1953 movies, and more
recently the majority of digital cameras (other than SLRs, of course). So it
was pretty universal. Of the common film sizes, only 35mm and 6 x 9 cm were
3:2, the latter being not really all that common in recent times.

But 4:3 is going the way of the dodo bird. I don't think anyone makes a 4:3
TV anymore; they're all 16:9 or thereabouts. It's increasingly hard to find
a 4:3 monitor -- mostly they're only available in the 15" size, which itself
is disappearing from the market. Even laptops now are practically all
widescreen. And compact cameras, which used to be nearly all 4:3, now often
have 3:2 and/or 16:9 options as well.

To cover all these aspect ratios, and all of them are popular for various
purposes, 3:2 is a very nice compromise -- probably close to the ideal. If
it's not as good as 4:3 for portraits (in the usual "portrait" orientation)
it's much better for landscapes, and could usefully be wider still for that.

No aspect ratio is going to suit everyone perfectly all the time. 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.

David J Taylor wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
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?

Fab! on my HDTV. Landscapes; cropping all to 16:9 is a pain, especially
portrait orientation, but the results are worth it to me.

--
john mcwilliams

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. :- )

Bruce 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. :- )

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?

Yes, it _is_ beyond most people to use (1 + ?5)/2, or x2 - x - 1 = 0, as a
rule of thumb. Since it's an irrational number, any numerical representation
is by definition approximate.

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.

Sure, but it's impossible to say exactly what is it's numerical value, so
conscientious people will do the right thing and say it is
"roughly/approximately/about 1.6...".

[* If you want to see contrived compositions, look at any of the many
mind-numbingly mediocre images posted to the SI and several Usenet
newsgroups by Alan Browne, who hasn't the faintest idea about how to
compose a photo so follows many "rules", and still fails every time.]

Wilba wrote:

(1 + ?5)/2

I wasn't sure that would come out right. Read "?" as the square root symbol.
IOW, (1 + SQRT(5))/2.

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. :- )


It is. The rule-of-thirds is just a dumbed-down version of the
golden-ratio. Long long ago, when people were asking me about the
golden-ratio compositions that I always used, I had to dumb it down to the
rule-of-thirds to make them understand it and make it easier for them to
remember and use for photography purposes. I'm sure I'm not the only
photographer and artist that was faced with the stupidity of most humans,
and they did likewise.

"Wilba" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

"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. There's a lot of interesting
stuff about the golden ratio and its showing up in various surprising
things, such as the pentagram, and all this makes it a rather intriguing
mathematical oddity. But I doubt there's any real evidence that "many people
found it very pleasing" as opposed to any other rectangle such as 4:3, 3:2
or 16:9, or anything else within that range.

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.