Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]what's better than square? eastman's 1888 solution to maximizing film area: pi r squared! http://www.britannica.com/bps/image/636322/96360/Early-Kodak-snapshot-of-a-street-scene-in-Washington-DC -rei On 09/07/2010 11:12 PM, George Lottermoser wrote: > And what's very interesting, > if maximum acreage is the goal, > is that > 24x36 = 864 sq mm > where > 30.5x30.5 = 930.25 sq mm > > So if we want the most acreage per image circle > the square wins. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > > > > On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Rei Shinozuka wrote: > >> of another way of visualizing how the rectangular or square crops fit >> onto the image circle: >> >> http://www.rytterfalk.com/wp-content/upload/1253263718-sensors.jpg >> >> given a fixed image coverage circle, the maximally circumscribed >> rectangle cannot be extended into a maximally circumscribed square >> without reducing the longer dimension (36mm in this case.) >> >> for 35mm the square format which would fit into lens coverage would be >> 30.5mmx30.5mm. >> >> -rei >> >> >> On 09/07/2010 10:16 AM, George Lottermoser wrote: >>> The rectangular or square diagonal = diameter of circle >>> >>> < http://www.mathopenref.com/rectanglediagonals.html> >>> >>> Regards, >>> George Lottermoser >>> george at imagist.com >>> http://www.imagist.com >>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Douglas Sharp wrote: >>> >>>> George, >>>> >>>> not sure if my logic is a little off, but if a lens covers 36 mm >>>> horizontally and we are talking about an image CIRCLE not an OVAL, I >>>> expect it will cover a 36 mm square format too. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Douglas >>>> >>>> On 07.09.2010 15:41, George Lottermoser wrote: >>>>> As wonderful as that would be; >>>>> it would also cost way too much money (for me); >>>>> and I'm not sure the full line of R lenses would cover that image >>>>> circle. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> George Lottermoser >>>>> george at imagist.com >>>>> http://www.imagist.com >>>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Sonny Carter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why not a 36 x36? >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information