Since there is no universally accpeted standard for the term "coverage"
or "covers", in this context, it really depends on the specific photo's
requirements.
Earl
Andrew Gullen wrote:
>on 2005/01/10 4:16 PM, Chuck Norcutt at chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
>>You may recall my recent post where I measured these light falloff
>>values for a T-32 at coverage angles for a 24mm lens.
>>
>>...
>>Fall-off from the center as 0 point: T-32 @ 28mm
>>
>>Top center -1/3 stop
>>Left center -1 stop
>>Top left corner -1 stop
>>
>>
>
>What were you using for a target and how far away was it?
> - If it's too shiny instead of matte, light will bounce away
> from the lens instead of scattering in all directions
> - If it's too close even a matte surface will have falloff
> as it won't be perfectly "lambertian".
>
>Apologies if you've already taken this into account. Assuming you have,
>that's interesting. Perhaps they assumed a certain amount of vignetting was
>acceptable, given usual compositions - people in central areas of frame,
>distractions like half the dog at the edges. :-)
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|