[rollei_list] Re: S2 format

I thought the 'ideal' ratio is based on the 'Golden section' ie 1:1.618.... 
Also there is another special ratio of 1:√2 or 1:1.414.... None of the formats 
conform to either of these special ratios.

-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aaron Reece
Sent: 24 September 2008 15:00
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: S2 format

 
Personally, I detest the 3x2 aspect ratio of conventional 35mm still cameras. I 
find it unnatural to work with in comparison to 5x4 and square formats, and the 
justification that it matches the human eye's field of view falls flat unless 
you view all photographs from a distance equal to the focal length of the lens 
that took the picture, through one eye naturally. This red herring is even more 
nonsensical in reference to vertical compositions.

Another a.m. rant from the desk of . . .
Aaron Reece



On Sep 24, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Jan Decher wrote:

> Why not?  The 24 x 36 mm format was an accident of history (based on 
> 35mm cine film) spearheaded by Leitz Wetzlar.  So why not invent a new 
> standard given the freedom of digital?  May be cost-saving for certain 
> optical desings too..


---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: