No Subject

[CanterMike@xxxxxxx]

In digest 3330. Grant writes, in part:

<<   The first would provide the maximum 1:1.5
 portrait ration for an unmodified 50's viewer, 18x27 mm (a heavily cropped 
SLR
 image).  The second would be 22x33 which would maintain the 1:1.5 portrait
 ratio, give plenty of stereo window adjustment room, be viewable in a plastic
 $3.00 viewer, and be projectable.  I think a Kodaslide could be modified (in
 walks George) to view a 31 mm tall image (you might have to put 45 mm lenses
 in it so that the reflector will cover the image).  The only problem with the
 33 mm tall mount is that it might compromise the stiffness of the Spicer
 mount.
 
 Perhaps, if you could produce only one new mount, you could compromise and
 make one at 20x30. >>


So, why the fixation on the 2x3 aspect ratio (which has been one of the least 
attractive attributes of standard 35mm cameras)?  Whats wrong with the 
classic 4x5 ratio, or anything else?

Mike C


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