??? Let's see? 24x36mm film or sensor, 8x10 or 8-1/2x11 print or media image. 24x6mm = 144 sq mm or 13% waste. Or for a Golden Mean sized image 36x2mm = 72 sq mm or 8% waste. For a CD cover 24x12 mm wasted. 1 usable shot from 36, 24x36x35 = 30240 sq mm wasted. I don't think we have to worry too much about square negatives. where we still have a 56x42 usable negative compared to a 24x30 usable negative. 3 rolls of 35mm @ $10 per roll compared to 2 sheets of 4x5 at $5 per sheet. Come on let's really compare waste. La Di Da!
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:06 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) > John wrote: > > > > But one thing is clear. Only an amateur would obsess about "wasting" a > > centimetre! > > Whether one should worry about it not is another discussion. It is still a waste. The day you waste similar % of space on an expensive commodity like a digital sensor, then such excess will be seen as totally unacceptable. > > > Pål > >
