Re: 5p vs. 7p

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John (Scrappy) B writes

>I think that phi ( phi = 1 + 1/phi which can be solved algebraically)
>applies to the object and not to the frame.  I guess it depends on 
>whether the frame is the art or what's in the frame is the art.  
>Perhaps both?  Too fine a point?
>
>OK, how about the best area of the lens, which is a circle, is more 
>closely fitted by a square than by a rectangle?

Regarding whether the frame is the art or the subject in the frame
I would say that it all depends on the subject matter. It could be
both sometimes, and sometimes not. I would rather take full advantage
of the full frame and crop down to a square than to take a square 
frame and crop that to a rectangle as this sacrifices film area and
conversly picture quality. (Yes I like quality!)

Concerning the 5p and 7p debate, as everyone probably knows, I prefer 
7p or 8p, and in this respect the only camera that fills the bill would
be a Realist, all things considered. Yes the Realist and here is why.
There is no other camera that I know of that can take 7p type pictures
for a reasonable price. The RBT is too expensive (yes it's a good deal
considering its custom made, but I am talking about as a mass produced
camera and it can't compete) The FED seems like a good contender if
you don't mind that it can't be used manualy. The way I do it is to use
a SLR and take side by side (or paired SLRs if you have 2 SLR cameras),
but that is not always suitable or conveniant. Other than that I don't
know of any other camera. Now back to what I mean to 7p regarding the
Realist type cameras. If I take 2 of my 3DMagic cameras and turn them
sideways and pair them together to take 3d pics, I would get back prints
or slides with similiar but not quite the same aspect ratio as 8p pics.
With a Realist if you crop the 5p to the same aspect ratio as the 3DMagic
turned sideways it will have taken 44% of the total real-estate of the
film, compared to 50% for the 3DMagic. Slightly less might infer poorer
quality picture for the Realist but since the Realist has a much better
lenses, it comes out ahead.

As was mentioned by Allan and others, some other reasons people (including
myself) prefer 35mm full format is because its rectangular and has more
familiar aspect ratio. Also the golden rule was mentioned. I think another
obvious answer is because our eyes are arranged to see in panorama and
maybe this explains the golden rule and why 35mm is rectangular. Remember
wide screen movies and tv. Even with one eye our eyes peripheral vision
is more or less rectangular. I guess this must have evolved from the
horizontal landscape mammals adapted to.

Allan Woods brings up a good point that the Realist is square, more because
of economics rather than aesthetics. Dr.T brings up another good point (as
I was about to post this at almost the same time when the latest bulletin
came off the wires) that the cameras were designed by engineers and not
artists, very true. George then concludes as a retorical question, since 5p
is a limitation, we should not use 5p cameras?  No, I say what choice do we
have as George has mentioned awhile back.

Oh no another release of the presses by Greg, I have to respond to.
Greg mentions that the best engineers are also artists which I agree
100% with but the problem is that engineers have to work under the
constraints of budgets or economics.
 
G  a   b   r   i   e   l      i  n      w  i  d  e      f  o  r  m  a  t  !    


------------------------------