johnmarkpainter Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I am shooting some 4x5 that will be transferred to 35mm slide. How close is the 4x5 aspect ratio to 35mm Slide Film? I have to figure out how loose to shoot. Thanks,jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 The "active" part or 4x5 is actually 95x120 mm if I remember corrrectly. A 35mm transfer will only cover 80x120 mm. My ground glass has centimeter-spaced marks, so I know that it would be about 8 squares vertically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob fowler Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 From one musician to another, I hope this helps...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neal_shields Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 "help...I am a musician"... So was Ansel Adams and he articulated if not invented the zone system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 A 35mm negative is 24mm x 36mm, or 2:3 ratio. If you crop a 4x5 to that same ratio, the "4" side would be 5 x 2/3 or 3.33 instead of 4. Or you could compose full-frame on the 4x5 and just have some black area at the ends of the 35mm frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 Thanks to all.....not so painful. Neal, I bet Ansel's music sucked ;) like my photography jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Actually he was supposedly a pretty good concert pianist. Music has a mathematical basis, and I know a lot of mathematicians and physicists who are musicians on the side (Einstein played the violin). But I guess not so many musicians who are mathematicians or physicists on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerald_brodkey Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Adams was actually a very good musician and even considered becoming a concert pianist at one point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_ilomaki Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 John MANY musicians are great mathematicians and vice versa- I know a few. One friend could do post graduate calculus in grade 8 and graduated from the Toronto Conservatory in Piano and Theory the same year as Glenn Gould( An autistic Savant most likely) only 2 marks behind, at 13 yrs. old!!! I am an amateur musician and photographer, so the relationeship holds, but much further down the scale, so to speak. The last visiter Adams saw 2 days before he died was Vladimir Ashkenazy, an old friend. D-76, F-A-C-E, DSLR, G-B-D-F, Deardorff, Bosendorfer. Zone System, tempered 12 tone scale - both used roots of 2: Zone - 2 to the 10th and the 12 tone scale, 12th root of 2- all math of one kind or another. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoryofpaul Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 4:5 is otherwise known as the interval of the just major third, which is about 386 cents. The Pythagorean major third, or "ditone" -- made up of two 9:8 whole steps -- is actually closer to the equal-tempered major third though (81:64 == 408 cents.) The equal-tempered major third -- the one we hear on Steinway pianos -- is actually horribly out of tune, being 400 cents. The just 4:5 third is the only one that will sound without "beating" since it is part of the harmonic overtone series. <br><br> One cent, by the way, is not in this context the amount you need to buy 1/213,900 of a Toyo 45AII at B&H. It is 1/1200 of a perfect 1:2 octave. That means that each equal-tempered half-step is 100 cents. It's basically a linear metric that is used to help us mere mortals to understand the logarithmic nature of the pitch continuum. I think that it was Alexander Ellis who devised the cents system in his translation of Helmholtz's "On the Sensations of Tone" -- one of the great 19th century scientific works on psychoacoustics and music theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cole_petersburg Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 It's frequently convenient to express aspect ratios with one on one side. This allows you to draw one frame inside another frame with each width or each height equal to one.<BR> TV = 1.33:1 or 1:0.75<BR> 35mm = 1.5 :1 or 1:0.66 (Two original movie frames stuck together)<BR> 4x5 = 1.25 or 0.80 <BR> (0.8-0.666)/2 = 8.33% lost off each side, not accounting for viewfinder and printing crop factors.<BR> 35mm is thus one of the longer standard formats.<BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 Jeez.... I gotta get my Pocket Protector out in this Forum! (not a slam...I'm here too you know) I did put a big ;) next to my comment above. BTW, I am aware of the relationship of music and math (I am writing a Filmscore right now). It is just that the people that do it well don't tend to think of it that way....just like Photography. You have to learn loads of Theory, study the masters and then try to forget it all and make music. The theory is there mostly just attempt to explain the music that flowed out of a composers head. It is also there to help you out when you have 'painted yourself into a corner'. Thanks again for the tech help. I really do hate the math required for LF...I prefer that German Engineers tell me what Lens and Bellows to use so I can just go out and have fun. The Physics aspect of it is quite interesting though. With practice, I think I will learn to see the 2:3 ratio automatically. I have gotten pretty good at it on Medium Format anyway. THANKS, jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 As an alternative to Stephen's suggestion to shoot full frame on to 4x5 I think I would draw a 5 x 3.33inch wide frame on my ground glass with a sharp pencil. The resulting 3.33 x 5 frame would be the right aspect ratio for transfer full frame to 35mm and you would be losing film area where you can afford it. There was a thread once about LF and music and it was surprising how many LF's were keen musicians too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_turner2 Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 There is also a relationship between music and computers. A lot of musos (I was pro for 20 years) are involved in programming, design etc. All I could think of (in a strange esoteric moment) was the numeric base e.g. computers - 8/16/32 and 64 bit --- music - quaver = 8 beats per bar, semiquaver = 16 beats per bar and so on. In addition reading a computer program is similar to reading a score, you have loops, iteration etc. To cap it all I photograph solely in 120 and 5x4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 There isn't really any relationship between math and music, only math and music theory. I always sucked equally at math and music theory, but I can play my ass off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_wilson1 Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 I dispise music theory. I always sucked at theory. I played violin for 13 years and I STILL suck at theory. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_young3 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 As for shooting it: put a lens of similar focal length on the 4x5, and point it in the general direction. Crop as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now