Why 3:2 aspect ratio?

[rcarca]

I have always thought that there is something magical about 10x8 for portraits. Maybe because of the old large format photographs, but in a darkroom that was always my favourite. I also like the A sizes (which is the golden ratio...) why approximate the golden ratio when you can use the real thing??? But then 3x2 is just "accepted" because of 6x4 prints straight from 35mm film. Hey: go with what you like!!! I have also started doing a lot of square crops.

But then when it comes to putting something on the wall, a 10x15 inch print in a 500x400mm card looks fantastic. Why the cross over of units between imperial and metric??? Goodness only knows! But they results look awesome!

Richard

 

[dak723]

This conversation brings up a question I have had for a while. Why not have a square or a cross shaped sensor?

Let me explain. Say you are camping near a lake. First you take a picture of the lake during a sunrise. You set the camera to landscape at 16:9, or whatever you want, and only the pixels in that ratio is used in taking the shot. Next your child wakes up and is sticking her head out the tent door. So you switch to portrait 4:5 and you can hold the camera in the same comfortable position as you do in landscape and take the picture. The day goes on with different shots with different ratios.

Obviously this would only work with a mirrorless camera and you could not have a lens hood with pedals.

I think some of the advantages would be you get to hold the camera "normally" for portrait shots, you only use the pixels you want (thus keeping the size of files to a minimum), there is less cropping in post, etc.

What do you all think? Stupid idea or does it have some merit?

The Olympus OM-D EM-1 mirrorless camera does not have a square or cross-shaped sensor, of course, but it does basically what you want (including portrait 3:4 without rotating the camera). If you shoot RAW, it will use all the pixels of its entire 4:3 sensor image, but JPGs are cropped as you specify.

So, yes, I would say your idea has merit!

 

[monkey44]

I suspect it emerged from the 'artistic visual' perceptions and appreciation and evolved into standardization more for manufacturing convenience (printing and frames) than any other reason ... and it allows variation in the 'idea of view'... you can turn it 'landscape' or 'portrait' for at least some kind of variation beyond square ...

Because we make our own frames and mats, etc -- we do not require that standard size image or frame. But, interesting enough, most of our clients will order one of the standard sizes, even when we lift those restrictions. I'm never sure whether it's an artistic choice or a 'trained' choice when that happens.

We find the most often variation tho, is wider and shorter landscapes, when the image stretches along the horizon to a much greater degree than a 3:2 ratio ... as with a real wide shot, after a long horizontal crop can emerge as a 4x24 or a 6x24 image ...

I've always thought it odd that 35mm frame mathematically ups to 8x12, and most often the image choice fits in an 8x10 ...never could figure that out, unless that's a hold-over from the "poof and flash days" of medium format cameras, maybe.

My best guess, pleasing to the eye transferred into standardizations for manufacturing stability.

 

[Marsu42]

My best guess, pleasing to the eye transferred into standardizations for manufacturing stability.

There's certainly one thing to be said in favor of shooting in a standard (3:2 or any) format: it reduces complexity. Once you start imagining the scene in a number of maybe 10 different "standard" aspect ratios, you'd never get a shot done.

Personally, I admit also find it hard to imagine a certain non-3:2 ar in a 3:2 viewfinder w/o a cropping grid. Magic Lantern has the ability to overlay any bitmap you chose in live view, but in the good ol' optical viewfinder you have to imagine for yourself how 4:3 or 5:4 would look like.

 

[Rocky]

My semi scientific explanation:
3:2, This is close to the visual field angle of human eye. If you do not move your head an/or your eyes, you will see more width than height. Leica pick this format also based on the movie film at that time. about two movie frame size was used to make 24 X 36 MM
4:3, is carry over from the TV. The image sensor in the early date are round tube. They are small and expensive. So 4:3 was pick to have a larger image area and give in to the human visual field.
8X10, 5X7, 4X5 etc. are for the handling of either glass plate or paper.It is easier to handle something that is close to square than a skinny oblong.
6X6 camera, since those camera are not easy to be turned sideway. a square form will avoid turning. the guy can cropit later to be portrait or landscape.

 

[mrzero]

This conversation brings up a question I have had for a while. Why not have a square or a cross shaped sensor?

Let me explain. Say you are camping near a lake. First you take a picture of the lake during a sunrise. You set the camera to landscape at 16:9, or whatever you want, and only the pixels in that ratio is used in taking the shot. Next your child wakes up and is sticking her head out the tent door. So you switch to portrait 4:5 and you can hold the camera in the same comfortable position as you do in landscape and take the picture. The day goes on with different shots with different ratios.

Obviously this would only work with a mirrorless camera and you could not have a lens hood with pedals.

I think some of the advantages would be you get to hold the camera "normally" for portrait shots, you only use the pixels you want (thus keeping the size of files to a minimum), there is less cropping in post, etc.

What do you all think? Stupid idea or does it have some merit?

The Olympus OM-D EM-1 mirrorless camera does not have a square or cross-shaped sensor, of course, but it does basically what you want (including portrait 3:4 without rotating the camera). If you shoot RAW, it will use all the pixels of its entire 4:3 sensor image, but JPGs are cropped as you specify.

So, yes, I would say your idea has merit!

Genius. I want to take portrait photos without removing my baseball cap. That's got to be worth a few grand more.

 

[c.d.embrey]

I think that the 3:2 ratio has been with us since Leica introduced the 35mm film media. I can't remember the reasons behind it, but I do vaguely remember from classes I took something about closeness to the golden ratio, and how pleasing that was to the eye.

The reason Oskar Barnack/Leica chose 8 perf 35mm film is simple. It's just two 4 perf 35mm Motion Picture Frames https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film Nothing magical or mystical.

BTW the REAL Normal Lens for 35mm film is 43mm (diagonal of frame). Leica supplied 50mm lenses, and almost everybody else copied Leica (Pentax made 43mm lenses).

Portrait prints from a Portrait Photographer are 8x10 and 16x20. Mamiya made 6x7 Medium Format cameras because it is about the same ration as 8x10, and therefore required little cropping.

Common picture ratios.
6cmX6cm Medium Format camera = 1:1
6cmX7cm Medium Format camera = 1.17:1
4"X5" camera = 1.2:1
Magazine Page = about 1.29:1
4/3 = 1.33:1
Pre HD TV = 1.33:1
35mm Still Frame = 1.5:1
HDTV = 1.78
Motion Picture = 1.85:1
Wide Screen Motion Picture = 2.35/2.40:1

 

[LDS]

Hopefully someone can provide a scientific answer.

Maybe there isn't a truly scientific ones. IMHO, in the old days when most photos were made to be sold to be printed on newspapers, magazines and books (or street ads), I guess formats were chosen also for how well the image fit the page frame design with minimal cropping, especially when there was no digital workflow. And the page design was tied to the available paper sizes.

 

[jhpeterson]

I'm not sure how anyone else sees, but the 4 x 5, 8 x 10 and even the 4:3 format works best for me as a vertical. If I want a horizontal, I much prefer the 3:2 ratio, or, even better, the 16:9.
I'm convinced there's a physiological component to this latter preference. It's pretty near to what our eyes see.
But, close one, and you have (almost) portrait format.

 

[Aglet]

I like 3x2 and 2x3 for lots of landscape and natural images.
the 4x5 ratio looks good for many portraits and other images I will crop to what best suits the overall image balance.

There's a very limited edition skyline panorama I've done that didn't look quite right at 36x12"
Changed it to 36 x 11.25 and viola! masterpiece!
Sometimes it can be that subtle.

 

[Slyham]

But this is ot, maybe you should open a new thread for this.

Good point. If you would like to discuss the square or cross shaped sensor topic further...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22995.0

 

[TexPhoto]

Warning: Climbing on to my soapbox
I cringe when I see the "It's pretty near to what our eyes see" or similar comments. Our eyes see 2 round images that have partial overlap with much more color and detail in the center, and you nose in the middle of it. Our brains turn that into a a 3D image that seems to have even color.

Our pictures are 2x3 because that was the way film was, and film was that way because it's efficient to make that way. Most books and printed materials are similar for the similar reasons. Whether making paper by hand or in rolls, 2x3ish was most efficient. Thus it looks normal to us.

If we wanted photos or video to have a view similar you to our eyes, wouldn't we stand close enough to fill our field of vision? Or maybe just have a nose printed in the image.

Climbing down from soapbox

Anyway, why not crop to what looks best for the image for you? 99% of our photos are never going to be printed, or stuck in a frame. Crop freely, or stick with an aspect ratio that feels good to you. Be an artist, not a follower.

 

[TeT]

That said... I use 3:2 crop on my eBay & images and they look better and are have marginally better results than my non 3:2 cropped listings. (also it might just be my personal preference)

Interesting - if that's not a statistical error, maybe the reason is what I wrote in the op: Because of the tradition the native 3:2 looks "uncooked" and honest, while anything apart from the "pro" 1:1 implies tinkering and editing?

I just tried to crop a couple of wildlife shots that really wouldn't fit into 3:2 landscape to 4:5, this aspect ratio is even included in Lightroom. On the one hand, it results in much better composition, on the other hand it looks, well, "cropped" and if something's missing.

It has an honest uncropped look.. I am sure that is the reason behind its appeal.

 

[RLPhoto]

I think Leica had something to do with it but... I'm slowly starting to dislike the 3:2 ratio the more I shoot MF. 4:3 feels and crops much better for my work.

 

[epsiloneri]

I often crop to 4:3, in particular for portrait. Landscapes generally get much wider crops.

 

[canon_guy]

yes, 3:4 best for portrait shots