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

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,904
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
Sirius Glass said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,185
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format
I'd would be so nice if 35mm film format was 32x24. But then again, half format would then be "wrong"...
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,904
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
brbo said:
I'd would be so nice if 35mm film format was 32x24. But then again, half format would then be "wrong"...
Click to expand...

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

brbo

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,185
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format
Chan Tran said:
They can keep it 18x24mm for the half frame. Doesn't have to go down to 16x24 like the digital.
Click to expand...

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

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,904
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
brbo said:
But then that would not be half-frame (half the width of the imaginary "standard" 32x24mm frame).
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,566
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
bernard_L said:
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).
Click to expand...
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

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,185
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format
Chan Tran said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?)

snusmumriken said:
No comment from Xpan users yet?
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,469
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,686
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

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.
 

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,895
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
bjorke said:
…. 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)
Click to expand...

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

4season

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,031
Format
Plastic Cameras
Maybe this is more an issue of USA-standard paper sizes not being a particularly good fit for ISO-standard film formats?
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,469
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

faberryman

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
Sirius Glass said:
This is not a game of horse shoes. Close is not good enough.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,566
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,549
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I recommend to everyone that they consider cutting their own mats!
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,469
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
faberryman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,895
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
I recommend to everyone that they consider cutting their own mats!
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,549
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

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

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,549
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Don Heisz said:
I have a mat cutter - it takes up a lot of space.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,959
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
MattKing said:
limited to working with 16x20 sheets
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…