Re: actual vs ratio sizes

[Andy Buck <buckwiet@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bob -

Every Fuji 6x17 I've seen was 56x168, not 156. Which
ones are 156?

Also, the Horseman 6x12 is 56x112.

And the back for sale on eBay at
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=301965526
certainly looks like a torpedo back to me.

Andy
> On  3 Apr 00 at 14:31, 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.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com