Weird LF Question - 16:9 aspect ratio custom camera?

[wildforlight]

I am a professional Landscape Photographer who has a LF idea, but with no LF

experience.

 

The idea is to have someone build me a custom 16:9 aspect ratio LF film camera

intended for very high resolution. I'd like to view the scene at 16:9. I know

I'll certainly likely have to cut the film. I want to work exclusively in Fuji

Velvia. I need the resolution to be comparable to 5x7 or even better, 8x10. I

do huge fine art landscape gallery prints. I know I won't be able to use the

camera in a lot of the work I do (high winds, very dynamic work...) but for

some things I think it would work. I do not want to shoot 8x10 and then crop

the image. I am not too concerned about cost (within reason).

 

So, I am wondering if and how it could be done?

 

Mark

[brucecahn]

You can order a custom made camera from one of the top camera makers. The problem is with the film and filmholders. Do you mean 16x9 inches? Does Fuji make sheets big enough to cut that size? If you can get the film then get the holders made next. I would recommend Lotus for that job, AWB in CA is also good. The problem is light tightness. Many other holder makers have problems in this area. I hope you are aware that the costs of this project will be very high. Contact me if you need further help.

[bruce_watson1]

Richard Ritter comes to mind:

 

http://www.lg4mat.net/

 

Richard makes custom cameras and can almost certainly make custom film holders to match. The "easy" thing would be to have him (or someone like him) make you a 5.62 x 10 camera. You could then cut down 8 x 10 inch film using any film you want that comes in that standard size.

 

But what you are asking for is... strange. The 16:9 ratio is only used in American Hi-Def TV AFAIK; I've never seen it anywhere else. I would have thought if one were to pick an aspect ratio based on, say, nature that the golden rectangle would be considerably more interesting. That's a 1.618:1 ratio that is classically beautiful (I mean that in the strictest sense -- the ancient Greeks and others used the golden ratio as the basis for their architecture and the golden ratio shows up over and over and over again in nature; humans really do think that ratio is beautiful). Even 4:3 shows up a fair amount in nature. And the Japanese were and are big on ratios involving the square root of 5 which is about 2.24:1 -- many a Japanese temple garden has this proportion.

 

So please tell me, why 16:9???

[christopher_graham1]

<i>Primitive Photography</i> by Earl Alan Greene has plans for LF cameras and plans for film holders. If you have any kind of carpentry competence it should be pretty straight forward and the adaptation shouldn't be too tough. You are looking for something roughly like 8 x 4.5 format or 5 x 9 best I can tell.

[michael_briggs2]

Since you don't have any LF experience, my advice is to try some LF photography before you try something this difficult and expensive. (I also remember your previous question: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PD49). The most practical way to get the film is probably to buy 8x10 and cut it down. Why not buy a used 8x10 camera to try out LF photography and see whether you like it, whether it accomplishes your goals, can make the size prints that you want, etc.? Otherwise you may spend a large amount of money and end up disappointed. If you don't like the aspect ratio of 8x10, just put tape over the ground glass to get the aspect ratio that you want so that you will compose to the aspect ratio that you want. Then just crop the film when you scan it. A custom camera for 5.6 x 10 inches would be slightly lighter, but the effort and cost will be much higher. If you investigate, custom film holders are not cheap. (I think few amateur woodworkers could make a quality film holder.) Then there is the cost of a custom camera, and to use it you would have to cut film. If after trying LF photography you still want to commission a 5.6 x 10 inch camera, you can reuse the lenses that you were using for the 8x10.

 

I found at least one US dealer that listed 8x10 Velvia as in stock. AFAIK, Velvia isn't made in 5x7 (e.g., http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/professional/films/fujichrome_velvia50.html). Larger sizes would be custom. I don't know whether Fuji does that or what the minimum order would be.

[michael_briggs2]

Searching the web, probably 5x7 Velvia is available in Japan, but not exported elsewhere. You can also investigate 13x18 cm, which uses holders which fit 5x7 cameras.

 

If using Velvia is important to you, I'd find a source for the size that you want to use before buying a camera.

[christopher_graham1]

Don't know about Velvia but I found a place that imports the Acros that isn't Quickload for 4x5 so if it is made and sold in Japan there is someone here that either does import it or will if you make it worth their while.

[brucecahn]

Oh, you mean centimeters, not inches. That will be much easier. Ebony has a 6.5" x 8.5" camera in their catalog, or will make one exactly the size you want. But maybe you should listen to Michael Briggs and try an 8x10 or 5x7 first. I do not think you should try to make the filmholders.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Just crop when printing or scanning. it isn't that different from a 4x5 or 8x10 ratio.

[razzledog]

Why not introduce a 16:9 mask into either a 4x5 or 8x10 camera? This could be simply attached to a ground glass screen....not a line but a black frame so you can see what you're going to get. Alternatively a better method is to attach a mask internally. The small amount of waste film would far out weigh the cost of a camera made to suit that format. I am considering building an 8x10 with a drop back that shoots two frames on a single sheet. I would then vary the exposure slightly, shooting one for the highlights, one for the shadows so increasing the film's exposure latitude.

I could also shoot two frames horizontally then stitch them in PS...effectively giving a film size of 4x20 INCHES!

Do you plan to view the images on a 16:9 HDTV? Well why not build a 16:9 projector to view these big 'slides'?

[wildforlight]

Thanks everyone for the wonderful responses so far!

 

I am working about 16 hrs a day right now, so I can not respond until tomorrow. I can say I mean 16:9 ASPECT RATIO not inches, so yes, 5.62 X 10 might be a good option.

 

And yes the golden rectangle might also be a very good option. I am familiar with that one too. Good suggestion.

 

I'll get back to the rest of the questions tomorrow.

 

Thanks again very much everyone!

 

Mark

[bruce_watson1]

You've made me scratch my head over this. The question of the "correct" aspect ratio for me to shoot has been floating around in the back of my mind for years.

 

I'm thinking right now that what I really want is 5x8 (not 5x7). This would let me shoot square-ish ratios by cropping off the short sides, golden ratios just using 5x8 (which is an excellent approximation of the golden ratio), and pano-ish shots by cropping off the long sides. IOW, this is a good compromise for me.

 

There are other recognized formats that might do better for you. You could go 4x10 (a 10x enlargement makes a print around 96 x 250 cm (38 x 98 in). Such a print would be nearly grainless and very smooth based on my experience with 10x enlargements from 4x5 film. And you get film with a single cut down the middle of 8x10 film.

 

But really, with no LF experience, you might want to start out with 4x5. LF comes with a definite learning curve. The biggest of which is a completely different way of working. It's a big change from hand held, where you can put the camera to your face and compose with your feet. LF doesn't easily work that way. With LF you tend to walk the scene until you find the right perspective from which to make the photograph, then you set up your tripod and camera, select a lens (we don't have zooms), make camera adjustments (through movements like tilt, swing, and rise). Many LF photographers walk away from a scene having made exactly one exposure. And this sometimes makes 35mm and digital capture photographers cringe.

 

I'm just saying, this way of working may not be for you. And the easiest way to find out is with 4x5.

[erlend sæteren]

Before you custommake filmolders- ask your lab if they are able to hang this filmsize on their filmdevelopingframes. I think that the 16:9 format is a crop I often goes for when I use a moderate wideangle lens, such as a 180 mm lens on 7 inches width of film. I think 5x8" would be an ok format- then you could cut 8x10" on the middle, and get two exposures.It is possible that you should ask the cameramanufacturer KB Canham about these issues.

[donald_hutton]

Sharpie on the ground glass... All these odd formats are very appealing until you need film within the next 6 months, or an extra holder ot two. I even gave up 5x7 because the color neg situation is so dire. 4x5 and 8x10 have heaps of options from cheap second hand cameras to readily available film choices. You're the guy composing - choose what you want and don't flap about what's going on outside the area you choose. I don't see all these guys with P45 backs complaining about the ratio of the sensor and demanding something else because it doesn't perfectly "match" their vision... With 8x10 you can end up with almost limitless potential for extremely large prints of a great variety of different ratios. I frequently shoot 4x10 type panos on 8x10 film. With very good technique, lenses and suitable emulsions, you should be able to make 100 inch wide prints from these negatives which can stand up to nose range inspection.

 

What is your issue with cropping?

[rodeo_joe1]

I agree with the simple masking solution. After all, you're going to "waste" a whole sheet of 10x8 or 5x7 film on each shot anyway, so why bother to make special holders and try to cut the film down in the dark? All you need is some black tape across the focusing screen of an otherwise unmodified camera.

 

Incidentally, what's the current attraction to pano formats? If you look at historical art, particularly painting, there are hardly any great works of art that use a long-thin format. Most of the old masters stuck to formats that were far nearer to square than to the so-called "golden ratio", despite being able to shape their canvases as they saw fit. This tradition has carried forward to even the most radical of modern painters (viz Rothko, Bacon, Kandinsky et al.) with extreme oblong formats being the exception rather than the rule.

 

It's my understanding that the golden mean was invented and intended as a guide for the division of composition WITHIN the frame, not as a measurement system for constructing the frame itself. But then what do I know? I only studied classical Greek and Renaissance thinking on composition during my 3 years at art college.

 

In any case, if the Golden ratio is so important, then 16:9 is a piss-poor approximation to it. It should be 1.618:1, not the 1.78:1 that you get by dividing 16 by 9.

[wildforlight]

Sorry I have not responded in full yet (16+ hour work days recently) I'll try to in the next day or two.

 

A lot of questions about 16:9 and WHY?...

 

Mainly because I like a very wide sweeping image, but am not generally drawn toward true panoramas and feel a bit restrained with 2:3 often. I think the 16:9 is a fantastic middle ground. Also people are getting used to viewing at 16:9 so that is an extra plus. I like to pioneer, and don't like to follow the crowd.

 

Joe you said: "If you look at historical art, particularly painting, there are hardly any great works of art that use a long-thin format. Most of the old masters..."

 

True. I studied art history in school and who I think were the true "masters" were creative people who never limited themselves to "in the box" type of thinking. Also, in modern times there have been many incredably successful images in 16:9. I think an image's success stands for itself completely apart from its aspect ratio.

 

I have experimenting with 16:9 now for about a year and a half with, I think great results (maybe see "Roxy's Tree" at http://www.towardsthelightphotography.com/gallery/4743450_5zaKb/1/281015793_hSAuw/Large).

 

I also like the "golden rectangle" quite a bit but see nothing magical about it. The "magic" is in the moment IMO.

 

Anyways, like I said, I'll get back here to answer in full in the next day or two. Thanks everyone for their patience.

 

Thanks everyone for the wonderful suggestions and feedback as well!

 

Mark

[keith_lubow]

Cropping a piece of 8x10 film to 5-1/2 by 9-3/4 inches won't result in that much waste; only 1-1/4 inches on each top and bottom.

 

Good to have anyhow in case you decide that one or a couple of individual images might benefit from a sliver more on top or bottom.

 

Also, good to have to grab a hold of the film! 8x10 film is very easy to damage, and since the damage often occurs near the edges, it is often advised to shoot a bit "loosely" anyhow; to give yourself some "wiggle" room and to help contain any damage to the edges.

 

This also opens up several short (wide-angle) lens opportunities that are not quite workable on full frame 8x10.

 

Finally, the cost of acquiring and shooting 8x10, which is high, is going to be NOTHING compared to having a camera custom built, holders custom built. You will have to buy 8x10 film anyhow, and then cut it down to size.

 

So, in short, 8x10 is the way to go, economically and otherwise.

 

Good luck. Let us know if you have any more questions.

 

I have a question: are you doing your work in black and white or color?

 

Keith

[keith_lubow]

I forgot to mention this, because I figured it was obvious, but you can just mask your ground glass with a piece of black 8x10 construction paper with a 5-1/2 by 9-3/4 inch rectangle cut in it.

 

Keith

[johan_de_groote]

"If you look at historical art, particularly painting, there are hardly any great works of art that use a long-thin format."

 

Got me thinking about Canaletto.

[wildforlight]

Thanks everyone. I love the net feedback. I now have come to believe that shooting 8x10 but masking it to 16:9 would be the best approach. When I get to that phase, I'll have to show the results here on Photo.net LF forum. Thanks again for all the help!

 

 

 

Mark

[erlend sæteren]

There is a chamonix 5x8" on ebay now .

[ashton_lee3]

Don't forget the simpliest solution... a 6x12 roll film adaptor for a 4x5 camera. This greatly simplifies learning and expense for a LF novice. 4x5 equipment is so much cheaper than 8x10 based equipment. There are also specially cut masks made from film holder slides which let you shoot 2 panoramic images per sheet of 4x5.

[rodeo_joe1]

Canaletto? Nope! Not many 16:9 or even 1.618:1 pictures among his catalogue either.

 

Incidentally, I think a lot of the Canaletto "look" is in the technique he used of following the light around as he painted. The shadows from side-to-side of his paintings are totally inconsistent; for example, falling to the left on the left side of his paintings, and to the right on the right-hand side.

 

It might be interesting to try and emulate this effect photographically.