Talk:Rule of thirds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
This page uses the second person, which may be acceptable, but probably isn't. I'm not changing anything because I haven't read the editing guidelines, so I don't know if this really is acceptable or not.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.35.195 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Golden Ratio?
The rule of thirds has little if anything to do with the golden ratio.
In simple terms: 0.618... != 0.666....
The only reason to cite the golden ratio is for the usual pseudoscientific reasons: trying to find "scientific" or "objective" backing that isn't there. Especially given the wording ("based on the theory of the golden ratio").
It's certainly possible that whoever came up with the rule of thirds was an idiot, but that seems unlikely considering how well it works. So I'm guessing the golden ratio hooey was added later.
At least in the golden ratio page, it says "is said to be roughly...." 69.107.70.159 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
The comment about the image being excellent is unnecessary and a more classical example (and simpler) example of the rule would be good with possibly a human.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.191.28.13 (talk • contribs).
- I wouldn't agree that it's an "excellent" example, simply because as currently marked up and shaded, it's difficult to tell what's depicted. (Shameless self-promotion to follow...) I believe a better choice from a licensing and pedagogical perspective would be one of my images, shown at right. I'd be happy to overlay a grid on it and make it a replacement for the existing image. -- Moondigger 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the current image does not have a valid license for wikipedia, I support the replacement. A rewrite of the article will be needed as it talks mostly about the current image. HighInBC 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reduced the current image in size, it should now qualify as fair use(as a commentary of the style of the art). However I agree that it is too cluttered to properly illustrate the concept. I still prefer Image:Rivertree_1_md.jpg(once the diagram is layed ontop and the text of the article is changed to reflect it). HighInBC 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Any comments about the changes I made? I ended up going with an animated GIF as I thought the previous graphic was too busy. I can change the timing on the animated GIF to be longer if need be. It's changing every 3.5 seconds right now, but maybe it needs to change less often? I wouldn't want it to change any faster, as I want to avoid a "blinking" look. -- Moondigger 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of going completely greyscale you could just reduce the saturation a bit. I think this will have the same effect with a less blinky feel. However perhaps the technical constraints of animated gifs prevent that. I certainly think it is far better than the other one. HighInBC 04:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here's one as you suggested, with reduced saturation instead of black & white. It is less blinky, but I think the other one looks better for some reason. Thoughts? -- Moondigger 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your right, the one that goes completely black and white is better, good job. HighInBC 01:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
-- (Passing comment by a user who learned) : The tree/grid image is really most excellent for explaining the idea. I read the text, looked at the image, and instantly 'got it'. Thanks, great work.
It's a great photo to use as an example, but I think the animation is a mistake - you're forcing the reader to look at particular aspects at particular times, to wait 3.5 seconds if they were examining some aspect of the grid when it disappeared. I think a static version of the colour image, with the white grid overlaid, would be equally illustrative (and more suitable for printing). --McGeddon 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Size
The picture's size should be a 3:2 aspect ratio like most photographic pictures instead of 1:1. At the very least, there should be a 4:3 ratio. --68.239.240.144 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why? The rule of thirds applies to photographs of any common aspect ratio. In any case this particular image was square from the start (taken with a Mamiya C220f on a 6x6cm square chunk of film). If you have or know of a better image demonstrating the rule of thirds, then post a link here. However unlike with most articles, changing the photo on this one necessitates changing large chunks of the article text to match. -- Moondigger 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
