The Golden Ratio

[Tim Hole]

The program is an interesting tool. I can see it could be interesting to use it for modelling and other 3D work, or design work, but I think it would get a little tedious to use it for film work.

The only guides per se that are really helpful is aspect ratios, as this is obviously more important for the mise-en-scene and framing. Having guides for composition such as rule of thirds and other basic composition helpers are pretty pointless as the human mind is perfectly able to break the frame into its elements. For people learning composition maybe it would be helpful but unless you are doing something intricate I don't think it would make much difference having them or not.

Picture overlay on the other hand I would find a very helpful tool. For multiple exposures I want to know that each element is perfectly playing in whichever portion of the frame it should be, in relation to other elements. For the match cuts I want, again precision is imperative.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

I used this type of screen overlay on my photography based upon using the golden ratio a few years ago and really got into it. Now its just feel, and I know why it feel right which gives extra confidence and also a starting point at which to attempt the composition.

Because of the aspect of the golden ration it can be broken down which like davinci's work went into negative space, distance, relationship etc etc.. can be divided down in the frame using the law of thirds.

IMHO i think they should have used the golden ratio instead of 16:9 for cinema.

Moving the camera (and having objects move within the frame) just becomes a merging of thirds and an extra way of looking at it, giving a lot more complexity. In that sense it is exciting for an artist to play with. Likewise, you play around for it and it becomes second nature and even in run and gun you start looking for the relationships rather than the subject. Most directors who have strong composition skills (such as hitchcock) have already worked this out before the shoot though and would have drawn the line in their first draft storyboards or in their imaginations. This then is enough guidance for a DOP to go on feel.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

IMHO i think they should have used the golden ratio instead of 16:9 for cinema.

They don't even use 16:9 (1.78 : 1) for cinema -- that's for HDTV broadcast. Most theatrical projection is 1.85 : 1 or 2.40 : 1. A few theaters can still show the old European ratio of 1.66 : 1, which is the closest to the Golden Ratio of any projection format.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

I promise I say this without malice, but if you cannot visualize the Golden Ratio simply by looking at a scene, you probably have no business operating a camera professionally.

I had a client once who would drive us absolutely crazy with his bizarre directions about color correction; one day he finally revealed that he was color-blind. You can't make this stuff up, but you can be victimized by it.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Weston Ford]

I promise I say this without malice, but if you cannot visualize the Golden Ratio simply by looking at a scene, you probably have no business operating a camera professionally.

Leo

I don't think using tools for accuracy makes anyone a lesser filmmaker. He might not want to ballpark or guestimate a composition....he might want it to be EXACT. Its just a different method which is as valid as any other.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

I don't think using tools for accuracy makes anyone a lesser filmmaker. He might not want to ballpark or guestimate a composition....he might want it to be EXACT. Its just a different method which is as valid as any other.

In the first place, the Golden Ratio is irrational, so there is no "exact." Of course that's just academic; what is salient is, with the possible exception of architecture, there is no exactitude when dealing with subjects such as the natural world and human beings.

Where is the "center" of a human figure? Center of mass? The nose? The eyes? Does the human face really fall perfectly in Golden Ratio? Obviously not, and we are all different. I've seen many examples of classical art overlaid to attempt to prove that the artist slavishly followed the Golden Ratio, and it appears to me that the "rules" for what determines placement are quite variable. In other words, the placement was fudged to prove the point.

So, yes, classical artists frequently composed more or less along what would be predicted by the Golden Ratio, but "exact?" Not a chance.

Finally, is the Golden Ratio always the best guide for artistic composition? I think not; sometimes a gross violation of the "standard" composition is far more compelling. Surely you can think of many, many examples.

However I stand by my point; if you can't compose a scene without a Golden Ratio overlay, you're quite challenged as a camera operator.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Mark Wilkinson]

I think a tone check is in order. There is nothing wrong with experimenting with frame guides or whatever else when shooting.

Personally, I can't compose a frame without a cup of coffee.

 

[David Battistella]

The whole theory and that little tool is kind of cool, I downloaded the demo program - maybe they could have that built in to the epic and then with the touchscreen you could move it around anywhere.

I like when you apply it to a nautilus shell. That's pretty cool. Or too the human hand.

David

 

[Detlev Eller]

a)
... since "The Matrix" has won an Academy Award for editing, i went through the pain & pleasure and sliced the whole movie in FCP - to look at each shot individually.

b)
... since in print, all good design is based on "the grid" and most camera work does not have THIS graphic quality, i have applied print design thinking to the screen and created a proportional grid, with different ratios ...

c)
... just for the fun of it,
i took the grid and layered it over the matrix footage.

Its a while back, but i remember that even the background paintings on the office walls have been perfectly placed on a grid.

Perfectly. not roughly. Precisely. Exactly.
In size and position.


conclusion:
There is more to mathematical beauty, than the golden ratio.
the approach comes from advanced thinking, it is a pictorial style, a very advanced art form which combines techniques from other arts, like painting and graphic design to enhance the graphic quality of motion pictures.

There is no doubt, that this alters the perception of the spectator.

The secret is to see the grid and break out and overlap.
Using the grid, when it helps the scene and getting loose in other sequences.
same as: relax - tension. dark - bright. shadow - light. Action - silence.

The grid provides a visual rhythm. A custom grid, is a secret key to compositional style.

Working on a grid or grids, is a different way of thinking, no offense to the "gauging" hip shooters, ...

But, how boring, to think in "thirds" only ... !!
there is so much more. explore. think. 4ths, 5ths, 10ths ... ;-)

... start rotating the grid 30 degrees, add circles .... it can get crazy - but helps to create a coherent stream of images. This ultimately helps to communicate the directors vision and the sequences message.


With grid assistance, the hole process gets much faster and the footage matches much better in editing.


EPICs with image overlay are promising to be very powerful weapons in this regard.
Looking very much forward to shooting with it.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

a)
Perfectly. not roughly. Precisely. Exactly.
In size and position.

First, let me applaud you for working, for studying. Unfortunately, your method is a victim of the "Ouija Board" effect; unless we are very rigorous to discount bias, our conclusions may be invalid.

You began with a premise, that all compositional elements fall precisely on a grid, but you do not specify the number of cells or the mathematical description, then you proceed to locate the "points" and proclaim them to have fallen where your own theory predicted. Surely you can see that this violates basic principles of experimental design.

While the Golden Ratio is inherently beautiful, it's not always the proper compositional choice; indeed, a series of shots all falling within it may well be visually boring, or worse, be inappropriate to the desired effect.

Often a classical composition, formally balanced, is better; sometimes a gross violation of commonly accepted balance is perfect. The artist knows instinctively what composition to create. Slavishly following a grid of whatever dimensions is artistic folly.

Going beyond still frames, our art is temporal; our subjects within our compositions are moving through space. We may choose to compose the climactic point at a Golden Mean or not, again depending on the effect we are trying to achieve.

This is not meant to disparage composition satisfying the Golden Ratio; it is quite beautiful, fascinating in it's appearance in nature, and wonderfully integrated with the Fibonacci sequence. I do love it, but not to the exclusion of other compositions.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Andy Jarosz]

First, let me applaud you for working, for studying. Unfortunately, your method is a victim of the "Ouija Board" effect; unless we are very rigorous to discount bias, our conclusions may be invalid.

You began with a premise, that all compositional elements fall precisely on a grid, but you do not specify the number of cells or the mathematical description, then you proceed to locate the "points" and proclaim them to have fallen where your own theory predicted. Surely you can see that this violates basic principles of experimental design.

While the Golden Ratio is inherently beautiful, it's not always the proper compositional choice; indeed, a series of shots all falling within it may well be visually boring, or worse, be inappropriate to the desired effect.

Often a classical composition, formally balanced, is better; sometimes a gross violation of commonly accepted balance is perfect. The artist knows instinctively what composition to create. Slavishly following a grid of whatever dimensions is artistic folly.

Going beyond still frames, our art is temporal; our subjects within our compositions are moving through space. We may choose to compose the climactic point at a Golden Mean or not, again depending on the effect we are trying to achieve.

This is not meant to disparage composition satisfying the Golden Ratio; it is quite beautiful, fascinating in it's appearance in nature, and wonderfully integrated with the Fibonacci sequence. I do love it, but not to the exclusion of other compositions.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

While normally I'd agree, I don't think this is a case of researcher bias, as it were. I think that he perhaps did indeed find that things fell on a grid, but that doesn't mean they were placed there. It just means they looked good there. The fact they fell on a grid means that perhaps we, as humans, feel order looks nicer naturally.

It's like in school, when teachers made you analyze books to the extent you were positive they were reading far more into them then the author even intended. Just because the author didn't necessarily know he was going so deep doesn't just make it any less brilliant.

 

[Detlev Eller]

Leo,

... You began with a premise, that all compositional elements fall precisely on a grid, but you do not specify the number of cells or the mathematical description, then you proceed to locate the "points" and proclaim them to have fallen where your own theory predicted. Surely you can see that this violates basic principles of experimental design.

... this would fill a book, wouldn´t it.

Just to remain clear, i did not predict, but pointed out, that "the matrix imagery" did fit within an experimental grid, i did a while before slicing up the movie.

The result may be a coincidence.
Or a synchronicity in thinking and approach - given that the Wachowski brothers have been heavily involved in comic graphic design ... ;-)

The grid is a CORE concept of graphic design education.

The insight here is NOT the magic formula, but the mere fact that a grid is apparent. Which in reverse can be used to create shots in the first place.

I did also point out to think in quarters, fifths, circles and diagonals ...
so there we have the formula.

In the particular case of the scene "Neo´s escape from the office - in the green room", i remember to have layered two grids on top of the imagery -
thirds and quarters of the visible screen, which make for a little more complex visual system.

While the Golden Ratio is inherently beautiful, it's not always the proper compositional choice; indeed, a series of shots all falling within it may well be visually boring, or worse, be inappropriate to the desired effect.

... i agree.

Our eyes field of view is not based on the golden ratio, neither.
It is not the canvas, that is golden. it is the objects in the scene, that may adhere to the the "golden standard".

In general, I think beauty comes from PROPORTION and RHYTM, which can be cascading ... or FRACTAL as is described in chaos theory.


By the way, me too thinks that although the golden ratio is "nice" and "pleasing" ... other ratios are much more sexy!

Often a classical composition, formally balanced, is better; sometimes a gross violation of commonly accepted balance is perfect. The artist knows instinctively what composition to create. Slavishly following a grid of whatever dimensions is artistic folly.

Sure.

let´s have a look at how "gross violation" works.
it is still a grid, that is violated, so it is inherently present - by absence and contrast to the surrounding shots or sequences.


folly:
... i would plead that slavishly following "instinct only" would be folly - and amateurish, too.


Guess, especially on this board, it is time to realize and acknowledge, that there are different approaches leading to results and outcome.

This community does only exist, because of the "think different" school of thinking.
We would not have RED, if they would insist on tunnel thinking - and we should neither.

Each one of us has different approaches and all shall be seen in the resulting work.
let the audience be the judge.

I like to follow intuition and be surprised by the process. I also like to improvise, a lot.
Interestingly, by the use of a visual system (as in grid) ... the result is coherent.

The risk in the artist following his "ONE intuition" ... is plain repetitiveness.
Designing a visual grid, for each sequence, helps to BREAK the pattern of the "one intuition".

The visual grid has a similar function, than the color scheme has.
Or would we create the color scheme by intuition in each shot .... ???

Obviously not.

... although there are people not using color schemes at all !!!
;-)


It is a question of layering things.

Starting with a grid is accepted professional practice in print or music and seems to be widely ignored in videography and film - although not by the masters that think beyond mere photography.

Next,
"Interest" comes from distortion of the underlaying grid, or compositional rules.

For example, making things "dirty" is a common approach in musical composition. Music is perfectly mathematical and not easy to decipher for the untrained. I still have major difficulties with it and i am after it for a very long time.

Music is composed of: chords, functions, harmonies and melody ... all based on a given scale and musical functions ...

Perfectly mathematical.

And still, it is pure magic to our ears and emotions.

Because the musician, the virtuose artist adds his own nuances to the musical grid.

For example, the drummer hits the notes with his own slight temporal nuances and creates the groove, that is unique to him (see Phil Collins for example).

Same for all musicians.

Going beyond still frames, our art is temporal; our subjects within our compositions are moving through space. We may choose to compose the climactic point at a Golden Mean or not, again depending on the effect we are trying to achieve.

... sure. its temporal. like music.
the grid helps to connect the pieces in time.

Then regarding still frames,
Thinking of a big glossy magazine, like vogue ... ;-) ... with layout templates.
Isn´t the process of turning the pages and going through it a temporal experience, too?

Isn´t the design grid visible in each article.
Arn´t they still all different?

How is it done?




Enjoy creating,
best regards
Detlev

 

[Michael Hastings]

snip

"I do love it, but not to the exclusion of other compositions."

Leo

Leo, your posts are always informative and well spoken, but I don't think the OP (or anyone else seriously) was suggesting to use it slavishly. It's a cool concept that, while it shouldn't be high on a priority list, wouldn't hurt anything either.

I think a tone check is in order. There is nothing wrong with experimenting with frame guides or whatever else when shooting.

Personally, I can't compose a frame without a cup of coffee.