On Fri, 11 May 2001 11:05:06 +0200, you wrote:
>In fact, at 28mm it provides some protection but a low one.
>A wide angle hood wich provides a good protection needs to be bulky.
Again, pardon my ignorance, but do you mean like a very wide-mouth
funnel? I'm picturing some of those huge cinema camera hoods...
would you characterize them as "optimal?"
I'm interested by this, and never did quite fully understand the
rationale behind the tulip design. Why are the corners cut back if,
like you say, the shade is treating the lens as though it were round?
The cut corners imply an allowance for the rectangular negative. And
why the lower petal other than reversability? Seems like most of the
time light will be coming from above. The design is so widespread
that I'm assuming actual research has been done.
I could imagine a hood designed sort of like a traffic light visor.
In fact, it seems to me that a good hood design should be shiftable
for vertical shooting, that is if it isn't a 360 design.
Thanks again
Ken Durling
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/
Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
