golden ratio

[Bruce Watson]

Apropos cinematography and adjustable masks. My old Cameflex (standard equipment for 35mm not so long ago) has a series of different aspect-ratio masks which slide in flush with the film gate. Shooting commercials for tv and movie theatres required switching masks. Movie people have always been aspect-ratio freaks ever since the 'postage stamp' format was junked in the 1950's.

I found this discussion on cinematography pull down interesting. I don't know how factual or relevant it is, but it does give some clues where the 4:3 ratio of old TVs came from, which I found interesting. This is the "postage stamp" format?

I've been paying a good bit of attention to the aspect ratio of movies lately. I don't know why. But I've been impressed by the lack of variance (which could just be my own lack of variance in picking movies to watch, not movies in general, IDK). Nearly all movies made in the last few decades seem to be 2:39:1, with a few at 2:35:1 and fewer still at 2.4:1. What are the reasons for these small variances in aspect ratio?

I can't remember the last movie I saw in Super-35 (1.58:1), which is very close to the golden ratio (1.58:1).

Then again, I just got a copy of 2001 A Space Odyssey on BD, and it's in its original 2.2:1 aspect ratio (non-anamorphic 70 mm) which is very close to my favorite panorama aspect ratio of sqrt(5):1.

[cjbroadbent]

The aspect-ratio confusion is here. It's one of the things that drove me to photography.

[Ken Lee]

The article states this, which makes me smile:

"For LCD and Plasma displays, however, the cost is more related to the area, so producing wider and shorter screens with the same advertised diagonal is more profitable".

[Lachlan 717]

Old thread, I know; however, I've been wondering whether the GR in its numeric form (1:1.61803399) can translate onto the ground glass of any camera?

To try to explain this, I have been thinking about adding some thin black tape to the GG of my 7x17, in a similar fashion to the electronic grid lines many DSLRs now have.

But, rather than the (DSLR) ratio based on "rule of thirds", I was wondering whether I can divide the width of the GG by 2.6180339, multiply the result by 1.6180339 and place a vertical line there. (And do the same from all sides of the GG). This will leave two rectangles at 1:1.61803399.

In other words, does stretching/compressing the rectangle to fit a given format still give the same aesthetic fulfilment as the traditional model?

[Mark Sawyer]

In other words, does stretching/compressing the rectangle to fit a given format still give the same aesthetic fulfilment as the traditional model?

The thing is, just like heavy concentrations of mass distort space, so concentrations of darker tones distort the compositional grid of a confined image. That throws all the arbitrary physical measurements out of sync. You just have to have your own sense of proportion (no small thing), be aware of it, and use it towards your own ends. If you use them as a formula, the Golden Ratio or Fibonacci Series are just another Rule of Thirds.

Yeah, I had a couple of pre-post cocktails...