I hope behind the smirking, you got my main message!
Roger
On 14 May 2008, at 10:22 PM, Alexander Georgiadis wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure we all pricked up on that and smirked.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Roger Eichhorn <eichhorn@xxxxxx>
wrote:
Okay, someone is going to point out that the reciprocal of 91.44 is
0.01094
(to five significant figures), not 0.1094 as I wrote. I might as
well do it
myself. My bad!
Roger
On 14 May 2008, at 5:14 PM, Roger Eichhorn wrote:
It's handy to regard unit conversions as though the units were
algebraic
symbols. They can then be cancelled. For example 2.54 cm/in X
12 in/ft =
30.48 cm/ft. Inch is in the denominator of the first and in the
numerator
of the second. The two cancel. Take the last result and multiply
by 3
ft/yd and you get 91.44 cm/yd as ft cancels. Take he reciprocal
of this
last result and you get 0.1094 yd/cm. It avoids a lot of errors.
Roger
On 14 May 2008, at 4:11 PM, PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx wrote:
So Jim, Michael is right
( Further, your math is wrong. 2100/25.4 = 82 lines, which
translates
into
41 lp/mm. Keep in mind that these tests are at full contrast
(i.e. Black
lines
on white background) so comparison to normal 50% MTF is difficult.
)
which makes digital APS-C no where near to 35mm film in terms of
resolution.
Thanks,
Roy
In a message dated 5/14/2008 8:48:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jimth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Your understanding of conversions between metric and imperial
measurements
is decidedly limited.
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists
on
family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
--
Alex Georgiadis
