Gripe: The Misery of 3:2 35mm Aspect Ratio

[Cholentpot]

At a lower resolution. Even with replenished XTOL the grain is too big with Tri-X to be useful.

I'm putting Tri-X through a Minolta 16 II and pushing it a stop.

I laugh at the tiny half-frame grain.

 

[brbo]

I have a Tessina and the half frame has the same problem but as 2:3 instead of 3:2.

HF is much closer to 3:4 than 2:3.

 

[Chan Tran]

I agree that would have been better, but a poor choice of a standard had been set by Barnak had being lazy and multiplying by a factor of two from the movie industry standard.

According to an article on the Nikon Japan website the reasons for using the 24x32mm frame size were:

• 1.The 3:4 proportion seemed to have better proportions than the "Leica" format (2:3).
• 2.It could take 40 frames and was more economical than the "Leica" format of 36 frames.
• 3.The standard of the slide projector provided by the Japanese Ministry of Education was 24 x 32 mm.

and it does make sense.
And the reason for changing to the 24x36mm frame size because they wanted to sell the camera in the USA and they couldn't because:

"There was one big dilemna with the camera. The picture size of the "Nikon" format (24 x 32 mm) did not correspond to the automatic color slide cutting machines that were used in the U.S.A.
Those machines operated with the Leica format (24 x 36 mm), and if film from the "Nikon" format was used, the pictures would be incorrectly cut.
Because of this problem, GHQ did not permit export of the Nikon I, and CPO hesitated to place the order.
To solve the dilemna, the camera's frame size had to be changed immediately to a 24 x 36 mm size."

 

[brbo]

I'd would be so nice if 35mm film format was 32x24. But then again, half format would then be "wrong"...

 

[Chan Tran]

I'd would be so nice if 35mm film format was 32x24. But then again, half format would then be "wrong"...

They can keep it 18x24mm for the half frame. Doesn't have to go down to 16x24 like the digital.

 

[brbo]

They can keep it 18x24mm for the half frame. Doesn't have to go down to 16x24 like the digital.

But then that would not be half-frame (half the width of the imaginary "standard" 32x24mm frame).

 

[Chan Tran]

But then that would not be half-frame (half the width of the imaginary "standard" 32x24mm frame).

Is there a new half frame camera made recently right? Well but they are rare. But any way if I have the 24x32mm camera I can't shoot slides anyway as they can't mount them.

 

[snusmumriken]

Why would 3:2 be the most aesthetically desirable ratio? It was born from very practical reasons: using two frames of 35mm cine film for miniature cameras (notable Leica, but some other ones before).

Well this is very old hat, but FWIW...

Whatever inspired the original choice of frame size, it has been argued (eg by HCB, no less) that it is the most aesthetically desirable because 3/2 is an approximation of the Golden Ratio, which was said to underpin a lot of fine art (questionable) and natural growth forms (true), and that this facilitated pleasing composition. 39x24 would have been much closer to the GR, but if 36x24 is already too lengthy...

No comment from Xpan users yet?

 

[brbo]

Is there a new half frame camera made recently right? Well but they are rare. But any way if I have the 24x32mm camera I can't shoot slides anyway as they can't mount them.

I don't understand what or why you just wrote that...

I was merely stating that in the parallel fantasy world, where small format is 32x24mm, half format would be 16x24mm (in reality that would be closer to 15x24) which would make it "wrong".

(is it clear enough already that I like 4:3 format?)

No comment from Xpan users yet?

As an XPan user, I say that 65x24 format is "wrong", too. Widelux/Horizon cameras got it right for panoramic format. And that's a fact, no IMHO...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't understand what or why you just wrote that...

I was merely stating that in the parallel fantasy world, where small format is 32x24mm, half format would be 16x24mm (in reality that would be closer to 15x24) which would make it "wrong".

(is it clear enough already that I like 4:3 format?)



As an XPan user, I say that 65x24 format is "wrong", too. Widelux/Horizon cameras got it right for panoramic format. And that's a fact, no IMHO...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

12"x18" + 2" border: 16x22 not 16x20
21"x14" + 1.5" border = 24x17" not 24x20
9x6"+ 0.5" border = 10x7 not 10x8
12x8 + 1" border = 14x10 not 14x11
12x8 + 4" border = 20x16 okay that's a size but 2/3rd of it is matte

I'm just perpetually surprised that given 35mm-aspect's centrality in image making since at least the 1930's, there's not a decent standardized way to frame it other the custom framing as if NOBODY EVER DID THIS BEFORE :/

(frame makers' profit margins beat image margins, I guess)

not a big fan of 2:3 anyway. I find the 4x5,5x7 or golden ratio much better; in the end, I decide on the final framing in the darkroom while printing and don't let the negative format dictate the ratio.

 

[mshchem]

Pretty close to 35mm

Golden Rectangle Calculator

Golden rectangle calculator determines the missing side and area of a golden rectangle.

www.omnicalculator.com

 

[VinceInMT]

…. there's not a decent standardized way to frame it other the custom framing as if NOBODY EVER DID THIS BEFORE :/

(frame makers' profit margins beat image margins, I guess)

So it’s a problem with framing the finished print?

 

[4season]

Maybe this is more an issue of USA-standard paper sizes not being a particularly good fit for ISO-standard film formats?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Pretty close to 35mm

Golden Rectangle Calculator

Golden rectangle calculator determines the missing side and area of a golden rectangle.

www.omnicalculator.com

This is not a game of horse shoes. Close is not good enough.

 

[faberryman]

This is not a game of horse shoes. Close is not good enough.

Does you always print to the golden ratio?

If the aspect ratio for 35mm were the golden ratio, the film size would be 24x38.8. I thought people were saying they would prefer something shorter than 36?

 

[snusmumriken]

I just want to point out that even if everybody used the same negative format (say, 3 x 2) and didn't crop, adding an even margin all round (which could be 1/4", or 3", or more), or allowing for the strip covered by the frame moulding, will change that proportion of width to height.

So it's actually impossible to 'design' a paper size or a frame size that will suit even the majority of 35mm users, let alone those who crop to other proportions, use multiple negative formats, etc.

When I bought some off-the-shelf frames recently, it was the outside measurement that was standardised (e.g. to 10"x8", A2, A3, etc), and since the moulding width varied between manufacturers, the dimensions and proportions of the visible area were variable amounts smaller than the nominal size.

 

[MattKing]

I recommend to everyone that they consider cutting their own mats!

 

[Sirius Glass]

DoesDo you always print to the golden ratio?

If the aspect ratio for 35mm were the golden ratio, the film size would be 24x38.8. I thought people were saying they would prefer something shorter than 36?

No, I print to fit the photograph on the paper, not to any rule written by the Greeks thousand of years ago. I do not ever recall anyone at any time stating that ancient Greeks were involved with photograph. If you have references stating otherwise, please post them.

 

[snusmumriken]

I recommend to everyone that they consider cutting their own mats!

...a process that involves quite a lot of wastage! But yes.

Buy the frame, and cut the mat to fit both the frame and the photo.
or
Cut the mat to suit the photo, and have the frame made to fit the mat.

 

[VinceInMT]

I recommend to everyone that they consider cutting their own mats!

Matt, I want to thank you for your reference the other day to Frame Destination. I have a small show coming up at the end of next month (drawings, not photography) and had been pricing the framing, mats, etc. I’ve made my own frames and cut plenty of mats over the years but was looking for a simpler solution (for me) and Frame Destination was it. I placed an order for 6 custom metal frames with plain mats, glass, and hangers last Thursday and received them yesterday. They are perfect and just what I wanted. And, the price was right. Thanks.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, I want to thank you for your reference the other day to Frame Destination. I have a small show coming up at the end of next month (drawings, not photography) and had been pricing the framing, mats, etc. I’ve made my own frames and cut plenty of mats over the years but was looking for a simpler solution (for me) and Frame Destination was it. I placed an order for 6 custom metal frames with plain mats, glass, and hangers last Thursday and received them yesterday. They are perfect and just what I wanted. And, the price was right. Thanks.

Glad it worked out - they were great when they participated here too.

 

[Don_ih]

I recommend to everyone that they consider cutting their own mats!

I have a mat cutter - it takes up a lot of space.

 

[MattKing]

I have a mat cutter - it takes up a lot of space.

I have An Altos cutter that is limited to working with 16x20 sheets, and is reasonably compact. It ends up being a good, practical compromise for my uses. It works well. They are no longer made, but there are Logan mat cutters that are similar.
One from this line, and of the same size:

I have friends with bigger cutters, that offer useful additional features, but cost a lot more.

 

[Don_ih]

limited to working with 16x20 sheets

Mine is a bit bigger - but I rarely even make enlargements as big as 11/14. I have cut mats for a few 8x10s and 11x14s - it's handy to have it because you can use a frame you like. I always buy used frames (and rarely make one).