View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
hellerharris
Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Posts: 46 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:38 am Post subject: 3X4 |
|
|
Anyone know of a focal length equivalence chart that includes 3X4 size negatives?
thanks in advance.
________
F1-86
Last edited by hellerharris on Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI
|
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Using the "focal lenght of a normal lens is equal to the diagonal of the format" rule
the true normal lens for 35mm is 62mm,. The normal lens for 3x4 is 135.89mm.
sqrt of [(3.25)2]+[(4.25)2] x 25.4mm
If you divide 135 by 62 you'll get 2.17. Now multiply any focal lenght lens from your 35mm by 2.17 and you'll get the equivelent focal lenght in 3x4
If you want to compare 3x4 to 4x5, then you'll need to find the diagonal of 4x5 sqrt(a^2+b^2)
and go from there
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
AWT
Joined: 05 Sep 2002 Posts: 57 Location: Upstate SC
|
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Um, Les...
Isn't the true normal lens for 35mm closer to 43mm?
The 35mm negative is 24mm x 36mm. The diagonal would therefore be the square root of [(24*24)+(36*36)] or 43.27mm.
That being said, dividing 135 by 43 would yield 3.14, the factor you'd want to multiply a 35mm lens by to get the equivalent in 3x4 lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI
|
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn! foisted on my own slide rule! yes you are right it's 43mm not 62mm.
Les
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
km
Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 10 Location: Northern Indiana
|
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL Les, I ain't the only old guy who still owns a slide rule. but we both may be forgeting how to use one.
thanks for all your informative posts.
Keith |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On 2002-12-30 14:36, km wrote:
LOL Les, I ain't the only old guy who still owns a slide rule. but we both may be forgeting how to use one.
thanks for all your informative posts.
Keith
| Its an analog multiplier/divider/exponentiator, not an adder. That's the problem.
Gratuitous slide rule story. When I was in grad school I took a linear programming course. One day our instructor filled three slates with a numerical example. The answer came out 4/2. Undaunted, he pulled his trusty 12" log log decitrig ... from its holster, fiddled with it a little, and announced that the answer was
1.99
This really happened.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI
|
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now if he had a 6" circular ruler he could have brought that out two more digits!
The slide part I remember, it's what to do with all those tiny marks that give me fits!
[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2002-12-30 17:55 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
45PSS
Joined: 28 Sep 2001 Posts: 4081 Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.
|
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sq.Rt.[{4x25.4}2 +{5x25.4}2]
sq.rt.[{101.6}2+{127}2]
sq.rt [10322.56+16129]
sq.rt.[26451.56]
=162.63935
or
sq.rt.[{4}2+{5}2]x25.4
sq.rt.[16+25]x25.4
sq.rt.[41]x25.4
6.4031242x25.4
=162.63935
4 X 5 "normal" 162mm
divided by 35mm "normal" of 43mm
=3.7674418 or 3.77
3.77x43=162.11
Basic math formulas and electric caculator!
All steps shown for the benefit of those that need them.
_________________ The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
hellerharris
Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Posts: 46 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forget the arithmetic; the principle is just a linear comparison of diagonal of the film frame, right?
The slide-rule stories are a little scary.
thanks,
Heller
________
marijuana seeds
Last edited by hellerharris on Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On 2002-12-30 23:14, hellerharris wrote:
Forget the arithmetic; the principle is just a linear comparison of diagonal of the film frame, right?
The slide-rule stories are a little scary.
thanks,
Heller
| Well, slide rules aside, it depends. Comparing diagonals works for frames that have the same aspect ratio.
It can mislead a little for frames that have different aspect ratios, e.g., 2.25 x 3.25 (1.44:1) and 4x5 (1.25:1). My practice when looking for ways to cram the same view into frames that have different proportions is to use lenses that have the same horizontal angles of view given their respective frames. So I give up some of the vertical ...
Cheers,
Dan
Back to slide rules. What I found astonishing was that my instructor, a PhD economist with a masters in engineering, had lost the idea of doing arithmetic in his head. Of course, he was pretty odd. Everyone else made do with electromechanichal desk calculators (Friden, SC, Marchant, ...), but he used a hand-cranked Curta to be safe from power outages. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Nick
Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494
|
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Back to slide rules. What I found astonishing was that my instructor, a PhD economist with a masters in engineering, had lost the idea of doing arithmetic in his head."
Well I think most kids today have to. When I went to school we were near the dividing line. We weren't allowed to use calculators or any other device the kids a few years behind us got allowed anything short of a cray computer-)
I still think it hurt them more then it hurt us. I can easily function using my head,paper or even my toes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
45PSS
Joined: 28 Sep 2001 Posts: 4081 Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.
|
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just used the caculator as it is faster and less likely to be questioned here. My math is a little rusty but still there.
2+2 is still equal to 3.97835 plus or minus .001 isn"t it?
_________________
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a quality photograph is worth a million.
[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2002-12-31 22:35 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|