http://www.astro.umsystem.edu/apml/ARCHIVES/JAN01/msg00571.html
Alin,
This is not the original source accessed, (kept
getting "PAGE COULD NOT BE FOUND" when attempted to
send URL). FRUSTRATING!!!
Actually, I had to try this one a couple times before
it took.
The conversion factor is, again, expressed here as
"print film RMS x2.5 to compare to slide RMS."
Whether compelling evidance to everyone or not, it
supports info I read some years ago.
Jack
--- Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jack,
>
> I would appreciate you providing a link. I haven't
> done a thorough
> search, but what I stumbled on so far are just
> unsupported
> statements through web forums, no authoritative
> source. This is
> while all film technical documents I came across
> specify the same
> conditions for measuring RMS: 48 micrometer
> aperture, visual density
> of 1.0, etc. regardless it's negative or positive.
> I'd like to know
> what I am missing. Thanks.
>
> Servus, Alin
>
> Jack wrote:
>
> JD> I provided conversion factor in my email (re:
> Pos vs
> JD> neg grain(RMS conversion).
> JD> You may have missed it. If you wish, I'll supply
> URL.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
