Sometimes instead of counting sheep I think about aspect ratios. Doesn't everyone? I was wondering why we always use the same ratios, 1:1, 3:2, 5:4, 4:3, those being most common that you see in cameras and in standard print sizes when you send out to print. I recently had an 'aha' moment that could well be one of those 'everybody knows that' moments. So here goes.
Every rectangle can be thought of as a square plus some extra area. I know in composition this is called the rabatment of the rectangle and artists often place important elements within the rabatment especially at the edge of a rabatment. For example if you have a 10x8 print you can think of it as an 8x8 square with an extra 2x8 section added on, or a 9x12 print is imagined as a 9x9 square with an extra 3x9 area.
So the aha moment was taking a square and adding on the simplest divisions, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. to make a rectangle.
Start with a square and draw a vertical line to cut it in half. Add that half to the end make a new rectangle. That rectangle is now in a 3:2 aspect ratio. The two halves you started with makes the 2 and the 3 is because you added on the extra equal sized part. So applying 1/2 to a square gives the simple 3:2 format so common in photography.
Next apply 1/3 to a square. Divide the square into 3 parts with vertical lines, take one of the 3 parts and add it to form a rectangle. You end up with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The 3 comes from the original square and the 4 from the extra part you add on to make the rectangle.
Next apply 1/4 to a square. Divide the square vertically into 4 parts, then make a rectangle by adding one of the 4 parts. This gives the 5:4 ratio.
I imagine you see the pattern? Now can we get some sleep?
But wait, it could go on with other fractions of the original square and you do see a lot of common print ratios emerge, but as the fractions get smaller there are smaller differences and you get a lot of repeats because of reducing fractions. If you did 2/3 instead of 1/3 you get 5:3, a common print ratio. 3/4 gives 7:4.
Fifths are interesting. Applying 1/5 gives the 6:5 ratio but 2/5 gives 7:5 and 3/5 gives 8:5.
So where does the common 16:9 come from? Is it just out of the blue or is there some reason for that particular aspect ratio?
Every rectangle can be thought of as a square plus some extra area. I know in composition this is called the rabatment of the rectangle and artists often place important elements within the rabatment especially at the edge of a rabatment. For example if you have a 10x8 print you can think of it as an 8x8 square with an extra 2x8 section added on, or a 9x12 print is imagined as a 9x9 square with an extra 3x9 area.
So the aha moment was taking a square and adding on the simplest divisions, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. to make a rectangle.
Start with a square and draw a vertical line to cut it in half. Add that half to the end make a new rectangle. That rectangle is now in a 3:2 aspect ratio. The two halves you started with makes the 2 and the 3 is because you added on the extra equal sized part. So applying 1/2 to a square gives the simple 3:2 format so common in photography.
Next apply 1/3 to a square. Divide the square into 3 parts with vertical lines, take one of the 3 parts and add it to form a rectangle. You end up with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The 3 comes from the original square and the 4 from the extra part you add on to make the rectangle.
Next apply 1/4 to a square. Divide the square vertically into 4 parts, then make a rectangle by adding one of the 4 parts. This gives the 5:4 ratio.
I imagine you see the pattern? Now can we get some sleep?
But wait, it could go on with other fractions of the original square and you do see a lot of common print ratios emerge, but as the fractions get smaller there are smaller differences and you get a lot of repeats because of reducing fractions. If you did 2/3 instead of 1/3 you get 5:3, a common print ratio. 3/4 gives 7:4.
Fifths are interesting. Applying 1/5 gives the 6:5 ratio but 2/5 gives 7:5 and 3/5 gives 8:5.
So where does the common 16:9 come from? Is it just out of the blue or is there some reason for that particular aspect ratio?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-651240376-645f9422a1684adbaea17576261113e5.jpg)
