Spooky..... 44x33 - sounds like 4/3rds :-)
Some correlation here ?
Not really: outside of 35mm film format and its descendents, the 4:3 aspect ratio is widespred, even dominant, in photography (and in artist's drawing paper and in canvasses for painting):
- 645 medium format and all recent CCD's for use in MF and LF cameras
- almost all digital cameras in formats up to and including 4/3", which is to say about 95% of all digital cameras.
But MF probably came to 4:3 aspect ratio independently.
The mainstream digital cameras got it from computer monitors, which got it from TV screens, which got it from the early 35mm movie format of 24x18mm (before the arrival of "wide-screen", Cinemascope etc..)
Medium format probably got the 56x42.5mm, 4:3 shape of 645 format by using 120 roll film with its width of 56mm and length enough for 12 square frames, and cutting down to an oblong that fits closely to print formats like 8"x10" and 11"x14", getting 16 frames of 56x42.5mm. I wonder why they did not instead go for 15 frames per roll of 56x44mm, a slightly better fit to 8"x10" and a perfect fit for 11"x14"?
P. S. the 33x44mm dimensions do give a 55mm diagonal, fitting neatly with the existing Pentax 55/2.8 MF lens as the new "normal". And an autofocus update of that 55mm lens has just been announced this week: that
is probably not a coincidence!