Re: 220 frame counting

[Paul Talbot <ptww@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Deering wrote:
 
> You expressed your results in 0.25 turn increments, Paul, and I
> expressed mine in 0.1 turns.  That's not much difference in
> precision.

150% difference.  ;-)

I use 1/4 turns because they are very easy to work with,
thanks to the line that divides the advance knob in half.
I always turn the line so it points to 12, 3, 6, or 9
o'clock--which can be simplified to 12 o'clock or 3 o'clock
because they look the same as 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock.

Actually there was another difference:  I don't try to
come up with a number of turns for each specific pair.
On that particular example, I used the same number of
turns 2, 3, or 4 times in a row.  Much simpler.  If I
had been a little more systematic, I would have settled
on changing the number of turns either every other or
every third pair.

> The only real difference between our methods is that mine is flat
> wrong.  :^)  :^)  I forgot that circumference is based on diameter,
> not radius.  Heh, heh.

:-)

> >Most likely,
> >however, I did lose the first and last (12th? 13th?) to
> >not having a full left and right frame on the film.
> 
> Two lost pair, which is the same as if you turned the knob a fixed
> three turns each time.

Except I think it was 2 lost out of 13.  (And I tend to use
the halves of the lost pairs for experimentation.)  But your
point is a good one that a constant number of turns to get
10 pair from a $1.89 roll of film is a decent quick-and-dirty
approach.

Paul Talbot