- Original Message -
From: "Colin Talcroft"
To:
> By the way, the formula I eventually used simply says
> divide the square of the new length by the square of
> the old length to get the bellows factor, so in my
> example that was 32.5 centimeters squared (1056)
> divided by 5 centimeter
would have to multiply the exposure by
> 5.4- Original
> Message -----
> From: "Guy Glorieux"
> To: "Pinhole List"
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:14 AM
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Bellows factor
>
>
> >
> >
> >
That will be a good start
have fun
andy
-Original Message-
From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???
[mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of G.Penate
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 12:40 PM
To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re
- Original Message -
From: "Guy Glorieux"
> > just plain physics of light.
> > This case is in no way different than if you were using a glass lens.
> >
> > 84.5 seconds (uncorrected for reciprocity, time)
>
> Guillermo,
> Can you remind me how you worked this out.
> Guy
Guy, sorry the
, November 30, 2001 3:14 AM
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Re: Bellows factor
>
>
> "G.Penate" wrote:
>
> > just plain physics of light.
> > This case is in no way different than if you were using a glass lens.
> >
> > 84.5 seconds (uncorrect
"G.Penate" wrote:
> just plain physics of light.
> This case is in no way different than if you were using a glass lens.
>
> 84.5 seconds (uncorrected for reciprocity, time)
Guillermo,
Can you remind me how you worked this out.
Guy
