Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chris, But I wonder if even a small distance between the film plane and the white spot plane could actually account for that difference because we're only talking about a change in image size of 23x35 to 18x27, which doesn't seem all that huge a difference. Still big, but it's not the same ratio as 13 to 23% (which would be about a 75% increase in size). It's only about a 25% gain in image size over that distance that would be required for all the numbers to work out. In the end, I don't know. But at least it seems conceivable that the Leica folks worked out these numbers from sensible application of optics theory. I'm just trying to follow the logic. Mark >Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:32:41 +0200 >From: Christer Almqvist <chris@almqvist.net> >Subject: Re: [Leica] 13% and 23% <snipped> >I think you are correct in assuming that the distance between the >film plane and the white spot makes some difference in calculating >the area covered by the light meter. With the distance between film >plane and white spot being very small, this can never account for a >13% vs 23% difference. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html