Re: ? and 4 x 10 point and shoot
Donald Nelson -FT-~ (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:58:25 +22306039 (MST)
> >-> > Is this (or a simplified version)
> >-> > something an ORDINARY lunatic could in fact make, or is it another
> >-> one > of your advanced ploys (like making a "simple" pinhole with
> >-> laser & > microscope)!?!?
> >-> The only thing this relies on is a good lens - I happen to have one
> >-> or two modern lenses that should (one does, the other might) cover
> >-> 4x10 although not 8x10 so this might be an interesting thing to
> >-> explore. It's rapidly becoming obvious to me that I'll end up with a
> >-> camera that makes larger negatives at some point - contact prints can
> >-> be *so* nice.
> >If it covers 10" (as in 4x10") it should cover 8" (as in 8x10")
> > ^^ ^
> >Isn't it?
> >After all the lens' image circle is a "circle" not an oval.
> Actually, you need to cover the diagonal of the film (the real longest
> dimension). So for 4x10, it's about 10.8" and for 8x10 it's about 12.8".
> John Sparks
Exactly why Jay can get by with his Schneider 90mm XL on 4x10 but I
cannot use this lense for full coverage on my 8x10 (I wish!).