Re: [Leica] perforations

[Paul and Paula Butzi <butzi@halcyon.com>]

>I believe Leica was left out of the APS scam so why dont they hit back with
>a meaningful advance.  I am sure that Leica could do it.  Star Wars 2.  
>Flatten the opposition with precision engineering.  Or am I missing
>something obvious here. 

Assuming you wanted an aspect ratio of 4:5 (aka 1.25:1 or 8:10) and not
lengthen the frame, you'd get an image area of 28.8x36mm instead of
the current 35mm frame of 24x36mm.  Since the film base is actually
35mm wide, you'd have borders of 3.1mm on each edge, which is
more than enough to allow loading and development in a reel, which
I assume you'd want to be able to do.  You could get a bigger image
by using longer frames and narrower borders, but not by much.

Going from 24mm to 28.8 is a factor of 1.2 or 20% change in the
magnification needed to produce an image of a given size.  An
8x10 from the new size would be an enlargement factor of 7
instead of the factor of 8.46 for a 35mm negative with the end
cropped off to make it an 8x10.  An 8.46x enlargement from the
new negative would be 9.6 inches by 12.  A 7x enlargement from
a current 35mm negative is 6.6x9.9.

The image circle that the lenses would have to cover
would go from 43.2mm to 46.1.  Since lenses for 35mm typically
allow no movements, the designers usually arrange for the smallest
image circle that will cover the negative (or slightly smaller for
the Noctilux wide open :-).  Unless you wanted to lose 1.4mm off
each corner, you'd need new lenses.  If you wanted to retain
the familar 'focal length feel' you'd need new lenses recomputed
for a focal length increase of 1.06.

All your printing equipment would need to change.  My Schneider
APO-Componon 40mm f/4 lens actually covers far in excess of 46.1mm
so I'd not need a new enlarging lens, but I suspect that others might
run into falloff.  Certainly all automated printing equipment would have to
be replaced.

It might be interesting to see if slide projectors would manage without
new lenses, rather like super-slides.

All of this assumes that you actually want an image with an
aspect ratio of 1.25:1 instead of 1.5:1.  I kind of like the
longer aspect ratio.

Somehow I just can't see all that happening just for a 20% increase
in image size.  It would have been a good decision at the outset,
but it's too late now.

I'd rather see an M6 with a quieter shutter.  I don't give a rip about
flash sync or top speed, but I'd like them to cut the vibration as
much as humanly possible to allow better shooting at very low
shutter speeds.  I wouldn't mind shutter speeds in increments 
of 1/3 stop, either.  I'm undecided about more sophisticated metering
and aperture priority auto-exposure.  

But I'd sure like less noise and less vibration.  Yes, I know the M6
is quiet and low-vibration.  I'm greedy.

- -Paul