There is one obvious problem which is that the first number in the ratio is irrational, which means the whole proportion is irrational, which means it is literally impossible for any object to follow that proportion.
There is one obvious problem which is that the first number in the ratio is irrational, which means the whole proportion is irrational, which means it is literally impossible for any object to follow that proportion.
The golden ratio is probably nonsense, but this isn't true either.
E is irrational. It shows up in nature all the time. I'm pretty sure there are chemical bonds whose angle measurements that are irrational in both radians and degrees. I don't see what's special about physical proportions that they cannot repeatedly follow the same irrational ratio.
There is one obvious problem which is that the first number in the ratio is irrational, which means the whole proportion is irrational, which means it is literally impossible for any object to follow that proportion.
The golden ratio is probably nonsense, but this isn't true either.
E is irrational. It shows up in nature all the time. I'm pretty sure there are chemical bonds whose angle measurements that are irrational in both radians and degrees. I don't see what's special about physical proportions that they cannot repeatedly follow the same irrational ratio.
There is one obvious problem which is that the first number in the ratio is irrational, which means the whole proportion is irrational, which means it is literally impossible for any object to follow that proportion.
and that we are inclined to find that ratio pleasing.
<snip>
But bigger problem is that all the typical examples used to describe how the proportion are used in art or architecture make their rectangles in entirely arbitrary ways just to fit the picture into the ratio.
This was not an accident nor BS
(https://img.culturacolectiva.com/content/2015/08/sergio2-1000x562.jpg)
This was not an accident nor BS
(https://img.culturacolectiva.com/content/2015/08/sergio2-1000x562.jpg)
Because what really captures that compositions's importance is Clint's lower cheek, which we all know is the most important part of a person's face.
Because the number is irrational, any real life application has to be an approximation...
Because the number is irrational, any real life application has to be an approximation...
Any real-life realization of any geometric object will be an approximation, wether the dimensions are rational or irrelational. IRL, you can't construct a perfect square any more or less than you can a perfect circle or a perfect golden rectangle. However, for any of these objects, you can come arbitrarily close to perfect, or at least as close as your construction technique permits. With a compass you can construct an approximately perfect circle, even though the ratio of the circumference to the radius is irrational. The error in the real-world circle does not stem from irrationality, but rather from limitations of precision of the real-world construction materials. Similarly, with a compass and a straight edge, you can construct an approximately perfect goden rectangle. The error, likewise, has nothing to do with the irrationality of the ratio of the sides.
Because the number is irrational, any real life application has to be an approximation...
Any real-life realization of any geometric object will be an approximation, wether the dimensions are rational or irrelational. IRL, you can't construct a perfect square any more or less than you can a perfect circle or a perfect golden rectangle. However, for any of these objects, you can come arbitrarily close to perfect, or at least as close as your construction technique permits. With a compass you can construct an approximately perfect circle, even though the ratio of the circumference to the radius is irrational. The error in the real-world circle does not stem from irrationality, but rather from limitations of precision of the real-world construction materials. Similarly, with a compass and a straight edge, you can construct an approximately perfect goden rectangle. The error, likewise, has nothing to do with the irrationality of the ratio of the sides.
No one is arguing that it's impossible to make a golden rectangle...
The argument is that the golden rectangle and the golden ratio don't actually show up in many of the places that it is claimed.
For example, you can find people who argue that the ratio of certain lengths of body parts converge on the golden ratio, but this is just cherry picking.
There is no biological basis for why the golden ratio should apply to the length of your arm or torso.
or the above example from the movie. A piece of the curve is cut completely off! Clearly saying the golden ratio applies to that frame is opinion only.
This was not an accident nor BS
(https://img.culturacolectiva.com/content/2015/08/sergio2-1000x562.jpg)
Because what really captures that compositions's importance is Clint's lower cheek, which we all know is the most important part of a person's face.
in that shot it certainly was
the phi gridline is on his nose anyway,
Other areas we are seeing Golden ratios embedded include quantum mechanics (eignenvalue probabilities), ratios of atomic hydrogen radii in some molecular structures, black holes physics, natural Quasicrystals and in theories on Quantum Gravity (given the black holes stuff I guess this isn't surprising).
Because the number is irrational, any real life application has to be an approximation...
Any real-life realization of any geometric object will be an approximation, wether the dimensions are rational or irrelational. IRL, you can't construct a perfect square any more or less than you can a perfect circle or a perfect golden rectangle. However, for any of these objects, you can come arbitrarily close to perfect, or at least as close as your construction technique permits. With a compass you can construct an approximately perfect circle, even though the ratio of the circumference to the radius is irrational. The error in the real-world circle does not stem from irrationality, but rather from limitations of precision of the real-world construction materials. Similarly, with a compass and a straight edge, you can construct an approximately perfect goden rectangle. The error, likewise, has nothing to do with the irrationality of the ratio of the sides.
No one is arguing that it's impossible to make a golden rectangle, I just did a few minutes ago with a compass and a straight edge. The argument is that the golden rectangle and the golden ratio don't actually show up in many of the places that it is claimed. For example, you can find people who argue that the ratio of certain lengths of body parts converge on the golden ratio, but this is just cherry picking. There is no biological basis for why the golden ratio should apply to the length of your arm or torso.
or the above example from the movie. A piece of the curve is cut completely off! Clearly saying the golden ratio applies to that frame is opinion only.
In the previous post you claimed it was the optimal ratio for staggering leaves in plants. Really?
Distribution of leaves around a stem, or flowers petals, or seeds are often optimised when the pattern used follows such irrational ratios.
e.g. if you want to maximise the light collected from one stem, then rotating the placement of leaves around the stem using such an irrational ratio will do this, or if you want to maximise the packing of seeds in a flower, then it represents a optimal design strategy.
If you think nature doesn't do irrational numbers, then you'll probably not want to know about how often fractals appear in nature as well. Just look at a fern leaf. Classic fractal pattern. Indeed, fractals are a brilliantly efficient way to encode a method of replication (which is why computer graphics use them all the time). The simplest of algorithms can lead to very complex and intricate patterns, as well as lead to optimal outcomes.
Irrational ratios appear in nature all over the place. The Golden ratio is but one and it's certainly not ubiquitous. There are others.
It is most certainly not impossible to create them. Indeed it's a consequence of minimising energy states (physics) and optimising outcomes (evolutionary pressure) that leads to the common appearance of such irrational ratios in the natural world.
The lower left cheek is the window into a person's soul.It’s his lower right cheek.
So I know I could simply google it to find out for myself, but I would really like to see a mathematical explanation of why the Golden Ratio (or some other specific irrational ratio besides pi or e) is an actual solution to any optimization process in nature.
In this example the golden ratio is forced on the image as it doesn't really fit in the image and is cut off on the top by the letterbox.
(https://img.culturacolectiva.com/content/2015/08/sergio2-1000x562.jpg)
I do think that people find non-symmetrical images more pleasing, but I don't by that the golden ratio is better than any other ratio.
I've seen research done with modern art in which blinded subjects rate paintings from modern artists and similar but random splashes of paint and color. And the results do find the artists work more pleasing, so saying "Even a child can do that" requieres a gifted child.
I would be surprise if a similar experiment cannot be perform using ratios like this, to definitely test if they are more pleasing.
I do think that people find non-symmetrical images more pleasing, but I don't by that the golden ratio is better than any other ratio.
Also:In this example the golden ratio is forced on the image as it doesn't really fit in the image and is cut off on the top by the letterbox.
(https://img.culturacolectiva.com/content/2015/08/sergio2-1000x562.jpg)
I think the inclusion of the spiral is misleading people, here. It's the vertical and horizontal lines that Captain Video is claiming are being used to frame the shots. Since he is the only one of us here who actually is a film industry professional, I will take his word that directors are doing that; I have no reason to doubt it. Does anyone?
Note that this does not mean that the golden ratio is in any way magical or that it objectively creates better compositions. But that is not necessary for CV's claims to be true; all that is necessary is that directors believe it creates better compositions. It may be entirely woo on their parts, or merely something that their eyes have been trained to appreciate; but that doesn't mean that they aren't doing it.
The lower left cheek is the window into a person's soul.It’s his lower right cheek.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As was mentioned, cutting frames into thirds is similar to the Golden Ratio and I am much more willing to believe someone might intentional cut their frame or artwork into thirds than that they would shoot for 1.618:1
As was mentioned, cutting frames into thirds is similar to the Golden Ratio and I am much more willing to believe someone might intentional cut their frame or artwork into thirds than that they would shoot for 1.618:1
In the previous post you claimed it was the optimal ratio for staggering leaves in plants. Really?
Has someone calculated the overall number of photons of light that are incident on leaf surfaces based on the geographic location and growing season, adjusted for the efficiency of chlorophyll and other photoactive compounds, estimated energy expenditures for either the formation of buds or the overall growth of a leaf, and then proved that setting (L1+L2)/L2 = L2/L1 maximizes overall energy intake?
Quote DISCUSSIONhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2004.01185.x |
Based on those factors I listed, I'd bet that whenever you get something close to the golden ratio it is a coincidence rather than a fundamental organizational structure.
I could (maybe) write out some differential equations and boundary conditions where the golden ratio really *does* represent some sort of min or max, but I doubt they'll correspond to any realistic situation that we encounter in biology or physics.
We should also consider the fact that just because a particular design is optimal does not mean there is an evolutionary pathway to get there or maintain it.
Perhaps a lot of classes of plants reach ~1.5/1 distances between leaves but then hit a kind of barrier where there's no way to further increase without drastically altering their morphology.
This is what bugs me so much about this topic - instead of inspiring people to think about the why or the how, the Golden Ratio is just thrown out there like it's some sort of mythical force that automatically explains everything. If it's not immediately intuitive why it's so special, or if there's doubt about it's significance, it's up to people that tout its utility to do actually do the math and prove their thesis.
Or even those that tout the aesthetics - come up with something beyond Psych 101 explanations of why people find it pleasing.
I have to disagree, it was thought out in advance regardless of what John Albert thinks
I think the inclusion of the spiral is misleading people, here. It's the vertical and horizontal lines that Captain Video is claiming are being used to frame the shots. Since he is the only one of us here who actually is a film industry professional, I will take his word that directors are doing that; I have no reason to doubt it. Does anyone?
They often see a larger aspect ratio in the viewfinder (like 2:1) then the film crops it down. With video they sometimes shoot at 2:1 then crop later.
With the GR you stretch it width wise to fit the frame when setting up.(click to show/hide)
I'm sure a DP or 1st Camera will line these shots up instinctively without actually needing to see the lines and certainly no need to draw a curve.
Yeah, I watched the video. What he's saying is quite arbitrary.
I'm not saying nobody uses Phi grids, I'm saying it's not a universal hard rule. And if you compose a shot according to the the Golden Ratio and then crop that shot, the final result no longer conforms to the Golden Ratio.
You also never answered my question as to what mechanism Dallamano allegedly used back in the 1960s when lining up the shots, to get them to mathematically conform to the GR.
I get it.
I'm asking, for the third time now, what mechanism you suspect Dallamano used back in the 1960s, when lining up shots, to get them to mathematically conform to the GR.
Yeah but it misses the center of his nose. That's the issue with a lot of the golden ratio woo: people count anything vaguely close as a "hit". (Plus in artistic compositions it's pretty self-fulfilling. Past artists believed it was inherently pleasing so they used it in art we find pleasing which conditions us to think it's inherently pleasing and to use it in our own art.)This was not an accident nor BS
(https://img.culturacolectiva.com/content/2015/08/sergio2-1000x562.jpg)
Because what really captures that compositions's importance is Clint's lower cheek, which we all know is the most important part of a person's face.
in that shot it certainly was
the phi gridline is on his nose anyway,
I would really like to see a mathematical explanation of why the Golden Ratio (or some other specific irrational ratio besides pi or e) is an actual solution to any optimization process in nature.The golden ratio is equal to 1 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + ...))). In a precise sense it is the irrational number "farthest" from rational numbers.
Yeah but it misses the center of his nose.This was not an accident nor BS
(https://img.culturacolectiva.com/content/2015/08/sergio2-1000x562.jpg)
Because what really captures that compositions's importance is Clint's lower cheek, which we all know is the most important part of a person's face.
in that shot it certainly was
the phi gridline is on his nose anyway,
That's the issue with a lot of the golden ratio woo: people count anything vaguely close as a "hit".
I get it.
I'm asking, for the third time now, what mechanism you suspect Dallamano used back in the 1960s, when lining up shots, to get them to mathematically conform to the GR.
I suspect that he knew what he liked, and it was the golden ratio.
Yeah but it misses the center of his nose.This was not an accident nor BS
(https://img.culturacolectiva.com/content/2015/08/sergio2-1000x562.jpg)
Because what really captures that compositions's importance is Clint's lower cheek, which we all know is the most important part of a person's face.
in that shot it certainly was
the phi gridline is on his nose anyway,
And the left edge of the Golden Ratio box doesn't go all the way to the edge of the frame, either. You can see a gap there.That's the issue with a lot of the golden ratio woo: people count anything vaguely close as a "hit".
This is what I'm getting at. It's just too easy to project these kinds relationships onto a finished piece, and ascribe specific intent onto artists without actually knowing their mind.I get it.
I'm asking, for the third time now, what mechanism you suspect Dallamano used back in the 1960s, when lining up shots, to get them to mathematically conform to the GR.
I suspect that he knew what he liked, and it was the golden ratio.
I'm asking about the specific mechanism by which Massimo Dallamano lined up shots so that they conformed to the GR. If you've ever looked through the eyepiece of a mid-20th Century film camera fitted with a telephoto lens, at a human being in extreme close-up (even an accomplished actor trying to stand stock-still), you'd recognize how difficult it is to be that precise.
I think in most cases frame composition is arrived at naturally or instinctively without concern for rules or ratios, but good composition can naturally fit those forms.
I know of cinematographers who study composition in art, mostly paintings but also sculpture, and compose every shot based on their years of study rather.
I think in most cases frame composition is arrived at naturally or instinctively without concern for rules or ratios, but good composition can naturally fit those forms.
I know of cinematographers who study composition in art, mostly paintings but also sculpture, and compose every shot based on their years of study rather.
Personal anecdote, but I found that the quality of my photography improved substantially when I learned about the rule of thirds.
I think in most cases frame composition is arrived at naturally or instinctively without concern for rules or ratios, but good composition can naturally fit those forms.
I know of cinematographers who study composition in art, mostly paintings but also sculpture, and compose every shot based on their years of study rather.
Personal anecdote, but I found that the quality of my photography improved substantially when I learned about the rule of thirds.
Cool. That's one of the best things about those kinds of basic and simple rules, is they help dabblers and hobbyists.
Not so much the pros though.
Also you are looking at one frame and nobody is perfectly still. Clints nose sits in the general area they wanted for the shot, in this case using the golden ratio not the rule of thirds.
John Albert keeps asking "what mechanism you suspect Dallamano used back in the 1960s" he used his eyes.
yea except 4 frames down the line his nose moves to the right of camera
You win and are completely right, I was obviously completely wrong, my experience of being on set daily and all the work I have done up to this moment in time where you refuted me means nothing.
Art is largely subjective, so you can't necessarily say whether the Golden Ratio produces more beautiful visual compositions. Good composition is subject to lots of considerations such as form, color, chiaroscuro, use of lines, mass vs. negative space, etc. Some compositions rely upon symmetry, others benefit from the rule of thirds, and others work better with different arrangements.
For centuries, it was widely believed the Parthenon, with its appearance of balanced, straight lines, was also built according to the golden ratio. Only it wasn't. A reconstruction project that began in the 1980s, designed to save the crumbling marble structure, revealed something else. Each of the thousands of pieces of the Parthenon was different, and there was nary a straight line among them. It actually fit together like a complex puzzle, with each part fitting only in its particular space.
Another ratio, however, does appear throughout most of the Parthenon, and it would also have met the Greek sensibilities for harmonic proportions. For example, the Parthenon is 30.8 meters wide and 69.51 meters long (101 and 228 feet, respectively). This equals a 4:9 ratio. This 4:9 ratio also is found in other parts of the building, including the width of the Parthenon's front columns, and in the height of the façade to its width.
Designing and constructing the Parthenon was the equivalent of orchestrating a symphony, using many different instruments in perfect harmony. Although the majestic Parthenon wasn't built on the golden ratio, the effect wasn't so different: It remains aesthetically pleasing [source: Nova].
Art is largely subjective, so you can't necessarily say whether the Golden Ratio produces more beautiful visual compositions. Good composition is subject to lots of considerations such as form, color, chiaroscuro, use of lines, mass vs. negative space, etc. Some compositions rely upon symmetry, others benefit from the rule of thirds, and others work better with different arrangements.
You can do double blind randomized controlled trials were a large number of individuals are shown various images, and asked which they found more interesting, moving or pleasing
The fact that something is subjective does not mean it's beyond understanding.
I didn't say "The Golden Ratio is bullshit." I didn't say that artists never use it, or that it doesn't figure prominently in the layouts of some iconic works.
But as you said, there are lots of popular techniques for laying out compositions, the GR being just one of them.
Is the GR more prevalent than others? Possibly.
But I surmise that would depend on which specific elements in a given composition that you decide to measure.
For example, measuring the distance between the right edge of the picture plane and the left edge of Clint Eastwood's nose, you get a rough approximation of the GR, but measuring the area of negative space to the right of Clint's face gives you a rough one-third.
Measuring from some arbitrary edge of the frame to Clint's right pupil would give a different ratio, measuring a different edge to the same pupil would give yet a different ratio; the same goes for his left pupil, his cigar, and so on and so forth. Those are all different ratios that reference the primary focal points in that image. Why aren't we paying attention to all those ratios? Perhaps because the GR is a specific thing we've decided to look for?
Walk through any art museum and you'll find an infinite variety of proportions in the designs of the images and sculptures. You could pick any numerical ratio out of a hat, then take a stroll through the Louvre with a measuring tape and check the distances between arbitrary elements in every painting and you'd find countess examples.
Does that mean every randomly chosen ratio was intentionally utilized by all the artists? Or were they all employed unconsciously on the artist's intuition?
Does every random, arbitrary ratio have the ability to impart some mystical quality of beauty?
It seems that you have either amended or clarified your position to a point where it is nearly indistinguishible from Captain Video's.
I didn't say "The Golden Ratio is bullshit." I didn't say that artists never use it, or that it doesn't figure prominently in the layouts of some iconic works.
I didn't say "The Golden Ratio is bullshit." I didn't say that artists never use it, or that it doesn't figure prominently in the layouts of some iconic works.
To be clear,I wasn't referring to you, but to the thread title.