I plead guilty by reason of a slightly ambiguous antecedent. Upon
a second or third reading, after I had already sent my response
off into the electricity, it dawned on me that I may have
misinterpreted what John had written. Upon reflection, taking
into account John's considerable knowledge and expertise, I came
to the conclusion that this was so, that he, in all probability,
would not make such an error and that he was referring to the
travel time of the shutter curtains, not the speed set.
This is the sort of communication that I think has made our Mars
exploration so interesting. :-) My bad. The computer has
an "undelete" function, but where the heck is the "unsend" button?
Walt Wayman
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:00:31 -0500
>At 10:51 3/25/02, you wrote:
>>Actually, at a shutter speed of 1/250, wouldn't each point on the
>>film be exposed for precisely 1/250 of a second? Otherwise, the
>>effective shutter speed would be something else, in this example,
>>1/1000.
>>
>>Walt Wayman
>
>Clarification: "1/4th of that" refers to 1/4th of a 1/60th
>shutter curtain travel time which works out to 1/250th. For an
>exposure of 1/250th with focal plane shutter curtains that
>require 1/60th second to traverse the entire film gate, the slit
>will be about 1/4th the width of the film gate.
>
>Mea Culpa for imprecision/ambiguity in how I phrased it.
>
(SNIP)
< 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 >
|