"Real" 2:1 - editor needs help

[Julian Gerretsen]

This might be slightly off topic, but something interesting in aspect ratio's which I noticed recently whilst playing around with the maths:

4:3 = Old television standard (1.33:1)

sqaure up that ratio on either side and you get;

16:9 = New television widescreen standard (1.78:1)

cube the original on either side and you get;

64:27 - divide the 64 into 27 and you get 2.37:1, which is close to the Panavision specification. Is this mathematical proof that the current TV widescreen standard is the (almost) precise mid point between the two and therefore the "best" compromise as such?

Interesting stuff (or maybe not, depending on your point of view!)

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Interestingly enough 16:10 (almost exactly the golden ratio) is one of the most popular screen formats on earth. It's what most computer monitors are now.

 

[joshua csehak]

Most paintings are around 4:3 (or 3:4). I think that's probably where it came from. 1:1 is really hard to compose in; it's very static. But there are plenty of good square paintings, not to mention all the 6x6 photos out there. And nice circle compositions are of course possible too. They usually have some kind of directionality though:

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pinfo?Object=32+0+none

http://www.allposters.com/gallery.a...Referrer =http://gardenofpraise.com/art33.htm

 

[joshua csehak]

That is interesting! It sounds like the puddle's proof that he was created for the hole, since he fits it so perfectly, but I'm sold anyways I think 16:9 is awfully purty.

 

[Thomas Wright]

It should be a project by project decision if you ask me. Depending on the subject and delivery point.

 

[Sean Porter]

Indeed it is 2:1. not 1.89:1. go figure. He might have been talking about red's 1.85's guides in 2:1 or 16:9? not sure.

1.89 is the ratio of a standardized 2K DPX (2048x1080) which our 2:1 (2048x1024) red material is conformed to, letter boxed of course. and then in our case its going to 1920x1080 (1.77) and then off to HDCAM. lots of format conversions =(

 

[Thomas Wright]

there's an interesting article in last weeks guardian weekly about the golden ratio. They assert that because wholes split into fractions of 1:1.61 ish like the trunk of a tree etc that this becomes a natural and thus pleasing thing for the eye to observe.

it was stated earlier in the thread that 2:1 is the golden ratio but I don't see how that is, unless perhaps it's a case of area... hmm, methinks a diagram is needed.