Bob Meyer wrote:
The 35mm frame is actually an accident of history. Leica created it by turning 35mm movie film (18mm by 24mm) on it's side, and simply doubling the width of the frame from 18mm to 36mm. If acheiving the golden mean had really been the goal, we'd be shooting 24x39mm frames. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You're right. And if only the Occupation forces, under General MacArthur, would have allowed Japanese cameras made for export to the US to use the 24 x 32 format they were made with we would be far better off since it was much closer to the print sizes we use today (8x10, 5x7, etc.) and would allow 40 frames per roll of film. Problem was this was not compatible with Kodachrome slide mounts and the cameras were not allowed to be exported to the US. There are still some Nikon 1 Rangefinders out there with "Made in Occupied Japan" stamped on them that date from 1948/9. They were sold to US Forces with that 24x32mm format. Quite a collectible.
Peter K
But why do we use those print sizes????.
I shoot 6x12 in a couple of different cameras and the Xpan format of 24x65. As well as a Hasselblad SWC style 6x6. One isn't better than another. Coexistence is possible; in fact its inevitable if you don't always shoot the same thing in the same place.
Computers facilitate QTVR with stitching things into cubic VR scenes we can roam around in. Frames are contraints; don't let them limit you, just use them to focus.
-- * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
