Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: A4
From: Christer Almqvist <christer@almqvist.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:46:52 +0100
References: <200007201841.LAA29411@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>

The A0 size (which is double the A1 size, which in turn is double the A2
size etc etc) covers exactly the area of one square meter and the side
relationship is 1 to the square root of 2 (which is 1.414 or something). I
think the 1 to 1.414 or someting relationship was used so that one would
_always_     get   _exactly_   the same aspect ratio if one doubled,
quadrupled, halved, quartered etc etc the size.

BTW, in Europe at least Ilford sells paper in the A4 size, and I often
print as close as I can get  to A4  size but I do it on 10 x 12 Kodak paper
which is much much cheaper.. When cut, the paper then fits nicely into the
C4 envelopes. Good, eh?   (At least Kodak Xtol is sold in metric
measurements   ,-)

>> What i wanna know is why is not the A4 paper 200x300 metric?
>> Nice round numbers, same ratio as our film!
>> Is it like a 2x4 pine stud? (had to clarify that)
>>
>> Mark :-) Rabiner
>>
>It's a rationalized golden rectangle. Double it (A3), or halve it (A5),
>and you've got very nearly the the same aspect ratio. Looks better
>with full-frame 35mm than Letter size does as well.
>
>--
>Tim Spragens
>http://www.borderless-photos.com


- --
Christer Almqvist
D-20255 Hamburg, Germany and/or
F-50590 Regnéville-sur-Mer, France