[lithos]

Real photogs don't need no steenkin' screen.

And real artists don't need no steenkin' maths nerds to tell them how to compose a picture.

[GoremanX]

Did I miss something? From the picture, it looks like the focusing screen is divided into equal thirds, no φ to be seen — I think it's just mistakenly labeled.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "Golden Rule". I've just done a bunch of research on the web regarding this, and it seems the term is used interchangeably for 2 different things.

# 1) a lot of people call the rule of thirds the "Golden Rule". This is generally considered incorrect, but all the same, I'd say over half the articles I read used "rule of thirds" and "golden rule" in the same meaning.

# 2) all the people correcting those who use #1 state that the rule of thirds is actually 1.618:1, which means the "Golden Rule" line should be slightly inward of the 1/3 line. The idea is to have the ratio of the inside section vs outside section be equal to the ratio of the outside section vs full dimension.

If you take #1 as the "Golden Rule", then the focusing screen does a pretty good job, but that's nothing new. I do think those added lines are pretty innovative.

If you take #2 as the "Golden Rule", then it could be argued that the top and bottom edge of the outer brackets line up perfectly with where the horizontal lines should be at 1.1618:1. You can then extrapolate the proper vertical lines by using the inside "X" as a reference.

I also don't think we're getting a full viewfinder view in any of these pictures. The "picture" of the focusing screen by itself is just a drawn-up diagram, it's not a real picture. The front view of the camera showing the focusing screen on the mirror is missing part of the top, and the picture of a scene with the focusing marks superimposed is missing some of the bottom. For all we know, this might not even be the final version.

In my opinion, this new focusing screen actually does a pretty good job of incorporating both the rule of thirds and some aspects of the Golden Rule at the same time.

If it had a focusing aid, I'd consider this to be the perfect focusing screen. Unfortunately, it does not

edit: see? (1.618:1 lines in GOOOOLD for GOLDEN Rule )

[ogl]

It's focus screen is not REAL GOLDEN RULE screen, this grid is of the rule of thirds.
Yes.

It's wrong name, but it's good for advertising material.

And it's just layout view for presentation. It's hard to say anything about proportions.

[philippe]

I guess it all depends on your definition of "Golden Rule". I've just done a bunch of research on the web regarding this, and it seems the term is used interchangeably for 2 different things.

# 1) a lot of people call the rule of thirds the "Golden Rule". This is generally considered incorrect, but all the same, I'd say over half the articles I read used "rule of thirds" and "golden rule" in the same meaning.

# 2) all the people correcting those who use #1 state that the rule of thirds is actually 1.618:1, which means the "Golden Rule" line should be slightly inward of the 1/3 line. The idea is to have the ratio of the inside section vs outside section be equal to the ratio of the outside section vs full dimension.

If you take #1 as the "Golden Rule", then the focusing screen does a pretty good job, but that's nothing new. I do think those added lines are pretty innovative.

If you take #2 as the "Golden Rule", then it could be argued that the top and bottom edge of the outer brackets line up perfectly with where the horizontal lines should be at 1.1618:1. You can then extrapolate the proper vertical lines by using the inside "X" as a reference.

I also don't think we're getting a full viewfinder view in any of these pictures. The "picture" of the focusing screen by itself is just a drawn-up diagram, it's not a real picture. The front view of the camera showing the focusing screen on the mirror is missing part of the top, and the picture of a scene with the focusing marks superimposed is missing some of the bottom. For all we know, this might not even be the final version.

In my opinion, this new focusing screen actually does a pretty good job of incorporating both the rule of thirds and some aspects of the Golden Rule at the same time.

If it had a focusing aid, I'd consider this to be the perfect focusing screen. Unfortunately, it does not

edit: see? (1.618:1 lines in GOOOOLD for GOLDEN Rule )
Attachment 55172

The real ‘golden rule’ is the one by Fibonacci..

---

Last edited by philippe; 01-14-2011 at 01:08 AM.

[GoremanX]

The real ‘golden rule’ is the one by Fibonacci..

...right, which is 1:1.618, as I mentioned.

[Class A]

I guess it all depends on your definition of "Golden Rule".

Everyone can have their own, but there is only one correct official one.

I'd say over half the articles I read used "rule of thirds" and "golden rule" in the same meaning.

I wouldn't refer to these as "articles". Perhaps "blogs"?

# 2) all the people correcting those who use #1 state that the rule of thirds is actually 1.618:1, which means the "Golden Rule" line should be slightly inward of the 1/3 line.

"1.618" is just an approximation (as is 8/5) since the real ratio is an irrational number. As your image (or my comparison) shows, the golden ratio intersections are not only slightly inward but rather markedly so.

Too bad, if Pentax indeed went for the thirds.

[ogl]

This type of screen is better for me than real golden ratio.
I don't see any problem to use such grid to compose picture with golden rule. It's easy. Any golden rule is approximate in real life.
No need to shoot mathematically correct photos all the time...

---

Last edited by ogl; 02-24-2010 at 05:13 AM.

[falconeye]

Did I miss something? From the picture, it looks like the focusing screen is divided into equal thirds, no φ to be seen — I think it's just mistakenly labeled.

You're right, my mistake.

I believed this piece in the Pentax marketing too easily:

By the technique of painting "golden ratio" based on the guidelines

(assuming Google translated correctly ...)

real artists don't need no steenkin' maths nerds to tell them how to compose a picture.

You mean math nerds like Luca Pacioli and Leonardo Da Vinci?
Sorry, but if you think art flourishes in an isolated environment then you're no artist. "Real" artists need inspiration.

edit: see? (1.618:1 lines in GOOOOLD for GOLDEN Rule :lol: )

Thanks for your illustration.

And there is no 3:2 version of the golden ratio. Just oversimplification like the rule in some countries to compute cylinder volume of car motors using pi=3 in fiscal calculations...

The definition of φ is here: Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "approximation by fractions" series for φ is:

1:1, 3:2, 5:3, 8:5, 13:8, ..... (1+sqrt(5))/2=1.61803...


I have drawn and now attach three focussing screens for your convenience:

1. Rule of thirds screen for 3:2 aspect ratio
2. Golden ratio screen for 3:2 aspect ratio
3. Golden ratio screen for golden aspect ratio (3:(2*92.7%))

The transparent screen is the part within the black outer borders.

I see no reason why nobody produces golden ratio grid focussing screens. Or at least displays corresponding grid lines in LV as it is software only anyway ...

[thibs]

Imaging Resource Interview: Ned Bunnell, President, Pentax Imaging

Thank you
Russell

And how does it contradict my statement in any way?

[GoremanX]

I wouldn't refer to these as "articles". Perhaps "blogs"?

Ouch, don't start discrediting bloggers. They're a finicky bunch. Do you realize they're considered "reporters" in the eye of the law now? Besides, I think some bloggers do more research than real journalists do. I certainly wouldn't necessarily trust a reporter over a blogger, they're all self-serving and biased.

"1.618" is just an approximation (as is 8/5) since the real ratio is an irrational number.

Seeing as it's 1.61803blablabla, I think it's safe to cut it off at 1.618. Any further precision would not actually change the position of the lines.

[braver]

Instead of degenerating into minutiae, you guys better tell us where this hot body can be had!

[Ratmagiclady]

Besides the bicycle inner tube around the lens, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the look of this camera:

Hey, you tried it. Working well?

Now that you're in the innertube club, we can have Pentax make an Innertube Edition.

Maybe a whole Ratlady Edition with my only slightly-copyright-infringing Ratzeye (tm) Screen, speaking of focusing aids. (See, if only Katzeye had screen manufacturing of their own, I bet they could do this: A nice snappy microprism ring designed for faster lenses, around a smooth matte center for AF confirmation and fine focus. Yum. )

I do think it really would stand Pentax in good stead to make some screens for all the MF glass that's the reason so many of us are here.

I don't know I'd care about a use of the Golden Mean on the screen, anyway: I suspect I might well unconsciously use them as a referent as *if* they were Rule of Thirds lines: I hardly *follow* the Rule of Thirds, but it's kind of a habitual referent for how I actually do go about things.

I suppose they're a pretty convenient kind of vicinity to put lines to level by, though, either way: not too far from anywhere. I can apparently tune out an astounding amount of viewfinder clutter, either way, till I go looking for something.

[Canada_Rockies]

Hey, you tried it. Working well?

Now that you're in the innertube club, we can have Pentax make an Innertube Edition.

Maybe a whole Ratlady Edition with my only slightly-copyright-infringing Ratzeye (tm) Screen, speaking of focusing aids. (See, if only Katzeye had screen manufacturing of their own, I bet they could do this: A nice snappy microprism ring designed for faster lenses, around a smooth matte center for AF confirmation and fine focus. Yum. )

That's a new source of income to feed your LBA RatLady! What a great Idea. Imagine a lens with focusing aids that doesn't foul up the centre weighted and spot metering. You can make a fortune!

I do think it really would stand Pentax in good stead to make some screens for all the MF glass that's the reason so many of us are here.

I don't know I'd care about a use of the Golden Mean on the screen, anyway: I suspect I might well unconsciously use them as a referent as *if* they were Rule of Thirds lines: I hardly *follow* the Rule of Thirds, but it's kind of a habitual referent for how I actually do go about things.

In a recent class I taught to beginners, I suggested that the best use for the rule of thirds was to keep the subject out of the centre rectangle unless there was a good reason to have it there. I have grid screens in all my cameras. It helps me to keep things on an even keel. I use them for levelling mostly.

I suppose they're a pretty convenient kind of vicinity to put lines to level by, though, either way: not too far from anywhere. I can apparently tune out an astounding amount of viewfinder clutter, either way, till I go looking for something.

[kryss]

FACT: Pentax will be buying sensors from Sony (as do Canon & Nikon) in future, dumping Samsung.
FACT: Pentax WILL be launching new DSLR some time this year.
HEARSAY: It won'n be FF.

[knoxploration]

I also don't think we're getting a full viewfinder view in any of these pictures. The "picture" of the focusing screen by itself is just a drawn-up diagram, it's not a real picture.

I think this is the important thing almost everybody's missing here. It's just a diagram, and until the K-7 Silver is available, none of us have any idea for sure whether these grid lines match the rule of thirds, the Golden rule, something in between, or none of the above.

That said, since everybody else is speculating too, I'll put my money on the grid matching the rule of thirds. Reason: If you fill your screen with the image GoremanX posted, and then aim your camera at it and adjust focus, zoom and camera position until the AF area brackets in your viewfinder are perfectly on top of those on the picture, the grid lines will neatly split your viewfinder into thirds horizontally and vertically. ;-)