[Leica] 24 x 36mm ?

[hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson)]

Robert, I follow what you are saying. I'll have to think about that, I have 
a suspicion that you may be tampering with some laws of
optics there ;-) 

Coming at it my post below from another direction, always 8 sprocket holes 
per frame, consistently much smaller gap between frames
over complete films shot with varying lenses, with the older cameras.

Today's useless trivia item for film photographers.
Now I'll shut up before someone beats me up with a bag full of broken 
digicams. 

Cheers
Hoppy

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [Leica] 24 x 36mm ?

If you shoot with a wide-angle lens, the negative image will be slightly 
larger, and the wider the lens, the larger the image gets.   The reason for 
this is that the greater angle of the light striking the film with a 
wide-angle spreads the light, and thus the image, slightly under the edges 
of the film gate.

----- Original Message ----- 

>>From neg samples here, widths of:
> 111c Width 36.84 mm     distinctly much tighter spacing
> M3 36.78mm      gaps visibly not quite as narrow as 111c
> M6 & M7 35.6mm
> The difference between the three is easily visible at arm's length. I 
> might speculate that the standard has altered over the long
> period to allow for ease of handling, for example. Certainly the oldest 
> camera is extremely precise.
>
> So, on these examples the range is actually more than 3.4%
>
> Cheers
> Hoppy
> -----Original Message-----
> Lew said:<lew1716@optonline.net>
>> I'm just off to my darkroom to confirm something that's been bothering
>> me for a while. The standard 35mm full frame format is supposed to be
>> 24 x 36mm or 1:1.5. This should mean that I can print full frame at
>> 6x9", but (this is the part that's bugging me...) the images from my
>> Leica negatives never quite fit an opening of this size on my easel.
>> The only thing I can think of to explain this is that the Leica negs
>> just aren't exactly 24x36mm.
>> OCD acknowledged, other comments ...?<<<<<<<