1.63 aspect ratio - which format fits best?

ampguy

ampguy

Veteran
Local time
3:37 PM
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
6,946
Looking at a calendar I have, I've noticed that the best photos that I like are all in this format. The other images are either portrait mode, or much wider.

Is there a MF format that can get close to this wide?

Of course, they could have been cropped, but they don't look like they were.
 
There's always the 6x10 Veriwide -- not cheap though!

6x9 is same ratio as 35mm film (1.5 AR). Only takes a tiny bit of vertical cropping and you're down to 1.6 AR. Getting rid of a bit of sky or some foreground isn't too hard.
 
5x8" or 7x11" large format cameras will give you this ratio. None of these is a standard format though (7x11" probably easier to find). The ration you find so pleasing is actually the Golden ratio :)
 
Thanks xwhatsit and Matus, very interesting about the golden ratio. Perhaps I'll start by making a custom mask for the Nex, then see how the prints look when cut for this ratio.
 
The Golden Ratio: 1:1.618, isn't it? And isn't Fibonacci connected to that?

Point to ponder: When Paramount developed VistaVision in the 1950's, they named 1.66 as the ideal aspect ratio. They said Paramount Pictures are filmed with a height that gives them grandeur. That's pretty close: 1.63, 1.618, 1.66. That's got to mean something.
 
Why don't they look cropped? How can you tell? Crop 6x9cm (true 56x84mm) to 52mm on the short axis and you have it. Or crop 6x12 (56x110) to 91mm on the long axis.

Cheers,

R.
 
ampguy said:
Thanks xwhatsit and Matus, very interesting about the golden ratio. Perhaps I'll start by making a custom mask for the Nex, then see how the prints look when cut for this ratio.
Click to expand...

The golden ratio is just a mathematical construct. It isn't inherently better to view than any other rectangle. It's magic bullet chasing. You'll start trying to find subjects that fit it and most won't so where will that leave you.
 
Hi Roger

Hi Roger

I can't be sure, they well may have been cropped. However, they seem to fit the landscapes and architecture (some from many centuries ago) very naturally. But with the options for native ratios scarce, it seems cropping to that ratio will be my first step with a 3:2 format.


Roger Hicks said:
Why don't they look cropped? How can you tell? Crop 6x9cm (true 56x84mm) to 52mm on the short axis and you have it. Or crop 6x12 (56x110) to 91mm on the long axis.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
I can't be sure, they well may have been cropped. However, they seem to fit the landscapes and architecture (some from many centuries ago) very naturally. But with the options for native ratios scarce, it seems cropping to that ratio will be my first step with a 3:2 format.
Click to expand...

This is precisely why I'd say they HAD been cropped, but at the shooting stage, not afterwards. Quite often, when using a decent sized format (6x7cm to 12x15 inch) I'll think "I don't need that bit" and compose on the ground-glass to ignore it. Many devotees of 6x6cm perforce do something very similar, unless they really like square pics.

Cheers,

R.
 
I remember somebody said that "not cropping is very left-handed". OK, he said "very gauche", but since gauche means left or left-handed, I figured that since most people are right-handed, then what he meant was that most people cropped.

Some like their coffee with a bunny or a pretty flower "design" on it, others like it "straight". Those looking for "fresh-ground" vs. "instant" should not be accused of magic-bulleting. It's just a matter of taste.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I remember somebody said that "not cropping is very left-handed". OK, he said "very gauche", but since gauche means left or left-handed, I figured that since most people are right-handed, then what he meant was that most people cropped.

Some like their coffee with a bunny or a pretty flower "design" on it, others like it "straight". Those looking for "fresh-ground" vs. "instant" should not be accused of magic-bulleting. It's just a matter of taste.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that in most cultures, 'gauche' carries the undertone of 'cack-handed' (=sh!t-handed), historically an attack on left-handers, so it also has connotations of 'incompetent' and 'clumsy' as well as implying a social disadvantage.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Bear in mind that in most cultures, 'gauche' carries the undertone of 'cack-handed' (=sh!t-handed), historically an attack on left-handers, so it also has connotations of 'incompetent' and 'clumsy' as well as implying a social disadvantage.
Click to expand...


Ah, those right-handed people...

They've never had to experience trying to operate things in a left-handed world, have they? I also know that in certain cultures the left hand is indeed left for "sanitary" tasks.

I actually don't understand why people can't use both hands. Most of us are born with two, anyway, right? I can write with either hand, and although I am left-dominant, I do not have a problem using the right (i.e. not the left) one. Except when I'm really tired.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Ah, those right-handed people...

They've never had to experience trying to operate things in a left-handed world, have they? I also know that in certain cultures the left hand is indeed left for "sanitary" tasks.

I actually don't understand why people can't use both hands. Most of us are born with two, anyway, right? I can write with either hand, and although I am left-dominant, I do not have a problem using the right (i.e. not the left) one. Except when I'm really tired.
Click to expand...

Indeed. How much is innate, and how much cultural? I'm quite strongly right-dominant, but (for example) always fenced ambidextrously, as did my school chum Miklos. The other two members of the team were solidly southpaw. We used to win a lot, espècially against other left-handers. Fighting a fellow left-hander is bad enough: fighting someone who switches is apparently worse, though Miklos and I never had a problem. This may be why he was captain and I was vice-captain most of the time, changing places only when I needed to be captain to suit my CV. He now teaches martial arts, including kendo.

There must be a genetic component, but the cultural reinforcement is enormous. Right-handers almost never have to learn how to operate LH equipment, but left-handers have little choice in most cases, even if they are not punished at school for being left-handed (my late mother and mother-in-law) or subjected to much worse training (I knew of someone who was shot in the left arm by his father to force him to use his right hand).

Left-handers are allegedly much better tolerated today, and (as far as I recall) left-hand usage rates have almost doubled, but the only research I recall suggests that right-handers outnumber left-handers at least 3:1, even in the most favourable general environments, even though in highly specialized environments (fencing, boxing) left-handers have a significant advantage.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
There must be a genetic component, but the cultural reinforcement is enormous. Right-handers almost never have to learn how to operate LH equipment, but left-handers have little choice in most cases, even if they are not punished at school for being left-handed (my late mother and mother-in-law) or subjected to much worse training (I knew of someone who was shot in the left arm by his father to force him to use his right hand).
Click to expand...

I don't know how much of it is or isn't genetic but I think it's safe to assume that even if there were no cultural reinforcement most people would develop a dominance for one side. Otherwise it would be hard to explain right- and left-footedness for which there is very little cultural reinforcement either way.
Also, I think it's safe to say that some people have stronger dominances than others. There are even some people who can use both extremely well. My better half knows a guy who can write two different texts with both hands simultaneously.
 
This was taken with a 3mp p&s (lumix fz3) and cropped to 5:3, a preset in Picasa, while converting to b/w. ISO 100, f2.8, full optical zoom, 1/160:

1236011776_KXdkn-L.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom