Re: actual vs ratio sizes

[GAPiccagli@xxxxxxx]

Actually, I think getting the actual sizes, including major variations (often 
no more than two or three for each nominal size), would be a wonderful 
service for some people, especially those people interested in home-brews. 
Knowing that a nominal 6X12 is actually 56X112 means all the difference in 
whether it is worth someone's while to convert some cameras or not. A number 
of modifications have used camera bodies that, with a little filing out, 
would accommodate 56X112, but would never accommodate 60X120. If you're 
thinking of using available transparency mounts or presentation mats, this is 
also significant. But it is true that for some applications, close enough is 
fine. Panoramically yours,

Giorgio Piccagli

In a message dated 4/3/00 12:19:01 PM, evphoto@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

<< i think trying to do such strict measurements will be fruitless. The
Horseman 6x12 cm film gate is different in size from the Linhof and both
are different from the size of the Noblex film gate. And the V-pan 6x17
cm film gate is going to be different from the Art Pan, Fuji and Linhof
gates, much less the Noblex and homemade 6x17 backs made from old Navy
"torpedo" backs, plus we are all still waiting to see what the 6x17 back
from Canham will look like. I think the best you can do is make the
rough assumption that 17 cm means 17 cm, 12 cm means 12 cm, etc. I think
none but the most anal of us are all that concerned with the actual
dimensions of the film gate on a specific camera or film back. meanest 

Ellis Vener

Robert Monaghan wrote:
> 
> I would like to extend my actual vs ratio size table on my medium format FAQ
> pages at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/mffaq.html, but before I do so,
> I wanted to confirm that 6x12cm is really 2:1 based on 55mm (56?) x 110mm
> or thereabouts, and 6x17cm is really 2.83:1 or 55mm x 156mm etc. Since
> the "6cm" is really 55mm or 56mm long, then the longer axis has to be
> less to keep the (printing) ratio. But I want to verify this assumption!
> 
> Are the formats of the Fuji 6x17cm the same as the Linhof 6x17 etc.? 6x12?
> 
> Thanks! it is a bit counter intuitive that 6x12 is really 11 cm long, or
> that 6x17cm is really 15 1/2 cm long etc.
> 
> regards bobm
> 
> * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmonagha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
*


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <Steven.Morton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from  rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (rly-zc04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.4]) by 
air-zc02.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:19:01 -0500
Received: from  ALPHA1.CC.MONASH.EDU.AU (vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au [130.194.1.1]) 
by rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (v70.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:18:35 -0500
Received: from process2.vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au by vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
 (PMDF V5.2-31 #43886) id <01JNTT7PH6B49BVY3X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 (original mail from evphoto@xxxxxxxxxx); Tue, 4 Apr 2000 06:10:25 +1000
Received: from sneety.insync.net ([209.113.65.5])
 by vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (PMDF V5.2-31 #43886)
 with ESMTP id <01JNTT7MABWE9AMZFG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for
 panorama-expand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 (ORCPT rfc822;panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); Tue, 04 Apr 2000 06:10:20 +1000
Received: from insync.net (209-113-110-112.insync.net [209.113.110.112])
 by sneety.insync.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04558  for
 <panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:10:14 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:07:26 -0500
From: Ellis Vener <evphoto@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: actual vs ratio sizes
To: panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-to: Steven.Morton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Resent-reply-to: panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-to: evphoto@xxxxxxxxxx
Message-id: <38E8F9FB.C0F94BA5@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Ellis Vener Photography
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Accept-Language: en
References: <Pine.3.89.10004031425.B23613-0100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 >>