That's what happens when the simple-minded, especially those who
suffer from inumeracy, try to do math in their heads after
midnight. It may also help to explain why my wife won't let me
carry the checkbook. :-)
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Mickey Trageser" <vze3m2s8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:55:32 -0500
>But it's worse, Walt. The magnification for 8x10 from 35mm is
>nearly 8.5x....
>-Mickey
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 12:32 AM
>Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Dipping our Toe Into Digital (LONG)
>
>
>>I'm on your side, Mark. I shoot big stuff too. I actually
>>thought some of the numbers were quite impressive, especially
>>considering that an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative is only a 2X
>>enlargement, not 6X like 35mm. That means a 35mm lens would have
>>to resolve 200 lpm to equal a large format lens at 50 lpm. I
>>haven't seen any of those.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|