Large Scale Systems Museum announcement
ard.p850ug1 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 21 23:27:59 CDT 2017
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Some words in English, such as "large" are just too subjective.
The one I object to, particularly in book titles is 'modern'. I have a wonderful
set of books entitled 'Modern Electrical Engineering' with no obvious date.
Wonderful in that they describe with full diagrams things like the Baudot
Quadruplex telegraph and the electromechanical FIFO buffer and decoder
used for signalling on the London Underground.
> In photography, I consider 8x10" and 5x7" to be "large". 4x5" (9x12cm) is
> barely "large". It annoys me when people refer to 2.25 x 3.25" (6x9cm) and
I tend to class '5 by 4' as 'large format' as it tends to be sheet film (rather
than roll film) and you often have full camera movements. It is more like
the larger formats than, say, 120 roll film.
> 3.25 x 4.25" as "large format". (and it infuriates me when people express
> focal length of lenses in units of "35mm equivalent mm", instead of the
> actual mm. (my 47mm super-angulon vignettes on long distance of 4x5, but it
> damn sure ain't a "longer than 'normal'" focal length!))
Agreed. The focal length of a lens is an optical property of said
lens, it does not have anything to do with the format of the film.
This idea of '35mm equivalent focal length' came in AFAIK with
digital cameras, I never saw it before, and I've used film cameras
from Minox up to large format. Every lens on every camera was
marked with the optical focal length.
Oh, and the next person who clams that the focal length of the
lens affects the perspective is going to regret it!
> Alas, the general public are going to insist that anyghing bigger than a PC
> is "large scale".
> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
More information about the cctalk