Re: Testing magnification. Am I doing something wrong?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark M, Aug 18, 2003.

  1. Mark M

    Mark M Guest

    "Rich Bail" <> wrote in message
    news:5%80b.339$...
    > I bought a "3X" Kenko lens for my F717 and wanted to test if the
    > magnification was really 3X. I was surprised at the result, which I double
    > checked.
    >
    > Took a photo using my camera lens at max zoom and got an image of (height
    > times width) of 1,900 square inches.
    > Did the same with the Kenko and got 307.5 SI.
    > Divided 307.5 into 1,900 and got a result of 6.2, thus my 3X lens seems to
    > be covering an area that is 1/6.2 of the base lens or a 6.2X lens.
    > Seems strange that they call it a 3X if it is really 6.2X. Also strange if
    > my simple math is wrong.
    > I used yardsticks in the photo so I could not mis-measure.
    > If accurate with the Kenko I have a 1,178 mm telephoto in 35 mm

    equivalent.
    >
    > Any thoughts?


    "3x" refers to multiplication of the lens' focal length...not the field of
    view.
    So...If you have a 50mm lens, it will behave as a 150mm lens--exhibiting a
    similar field fo view.
     
    Mark M, Aug 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark M

    Rich Bail Guest

    OK. Lots of different responses. Let me summarize. A 3X lens is supposed to
    triple the focal length of the basic lens whatever that is. On my F717 the
    effective focal length at full zoom is 190mm equivalent. I take a photo of
    something and then measure the height and width of the scene. Specifically
    the scene was 50" by 38" high. This means that the 190mm lens covered an
    area of 50 X 38 = 1,900 square inches at some distance.

    At the same distance and at full zoom (190mm) my 2X lens came out to 37" X
    29" = 1,073 square inches. Dividing 1,900 by 1073 = 1.8X not 2X but close
    enough.

    At the same distance and still at full zoom using my "3X" lens, the scene
    area was 20.5 X 15" = 307 square inches. Dividing 1,900 by 307 = 6.2X.

    Someone suggested that the way to do this is linear, by which I think he
    wants me to divide the relative lengths. Doing this the lens alone produces
    50" length, and the 2X produced 37". 50 divided by 37 is 1.4. Not close to
    the 2X claim.

    Doing the same for the 3X would result in 50" divided by 20.5" or 2.4X way
    under the 3X claim.

    Logically, we expect the field of view of a 190mm lens to be twice that of a
    380 and 3 times that of a 570. Field of view must mean coverage. Coverage
    (of a rectangle) is height times width.

    Long winded, but still confused.







    "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:rAb0b.9421$nf3.3776@fed1read07...
    >
    > "Rich Bail" <> wrote in message
    > news:5%80b.339$...
    > > I bought a "3X" Kenko lens for my F717 and wanted to test if the
    > > magnification was really 3X. I was surprised at the result, which I

    double
    > > checked.
    > >
    > > Took a photo using my camera lens at max zoom and got an image of

    (height
    > > times width) of 1,900 square inches.
    > > Did the same with the Kenko and got 307.5 SI.
    > > Divided 307.5 into 1,900 and got a result of 6.2, thus my 3X lens seems

    to
    > > be covering an area that is 1/6.2 of the base lens or a 6.2X lens.
    > > Seems strange that they call it a 3X if it is really 6.2X. Also strange

    if
    > > my simple math is wrong.
    > > I used yardsticks in the photo so I could not mis-measure.
    > > If accurate with the Kenko I have a 1,178 mm telephoto in 35 mm

    > equivalent.
    > >
    > > Any thoughts?

    >
    > "3x" refers to multiplication of the lens' focal length...not the field of
    > view.
    > So...If you have a 50mm lens, it will behave as a 150mm lens--exhibiting a
    > similar field fo view.
    >
    >
     
    Rich Bail, Aug 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark M

    Mark M Guest

    > Logically, we expect the field of view of a 190mm lens to be twice that of
    a
    > 380 and 3 times that of a 570. Field of view must mean coverage. Coverage
    > (of a rectangle) is height times width.


    No.
    You are mistaking area for field of view.
    Two different things.
    Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same thing)...you
    actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.
    So... Doubling or tripling the field fo view does not translate to doubling
    or tripling the area covered by the rectangle (or square).
    Draw a picture. You'll get it.

    >
    > Long winded, but still confused.
     
    Mark M, Aug 19, 2003
    #3
  4. Mark M

    SD Guest

    Mark M wrote:

    >>Logically, we expect the field of view of a 190mm lens to be twice that of

    >
    > a
    >
    >>380 and 3 times that of a 570. Field of view must mean coverage. Coverage
    >>(of a rectangle) is height times width.

    >
    >
    > No.
    > You are mistaking area for field of view.
    > Two different things.
    > Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same thing)...you
    > actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.


    Area = height * width

    If I double the height or width then

    Area = (2*height) * width = (2*width) * height

    Where did the quadruple come from?
     
    SD, Aug 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Mark M

    Charlie D Guest

    > Mark M wrote:
    > > No.
    > > You are mistaking area for field of view.
    > > Two different things.
    > > Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same thing)...you
    > > actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.



    In article <bhtb9t$cdc$>,
    SD <> wrote:

    > Area = height * width
    > If I double the height or width then
    > Area = (2*height) * width = (2*width) * height
    > Where did the quadruple come from?


    You come from a .EDU account??? ;)

    Example; H=2, W=2 Area =4
    Double W and H
    H=4, W=4 Area = 16
    Quadruple

    Let's forget about the area measurements.
    They have no place in the discussion.
    That's where the OP got off base in the beginning.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Aug 19, 2003
    #5
  6. Charlie D <> writes:

    > > Mark M wrote:
    > > > Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same thing)...you
    > > > actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.

    >
    >
    > In article <bhtb9t$cdc$>,
    > SD <> wrote:
    >
    > > Area = height * width
    > > If I double the height or width then
    > > Area = (2*height) * width = (2*width) * height
    > > Where did the quadruple come from?

    >
    > You come from a .EDU account??? ;)
    >
    > Example; H=2, W=2 Area =4
    > Double W and H
    > H=4, W=4 Area = 16
    > Quadruple
    >


    Yes, but you doubled both height _and_ the width. In everydays' language,
    'OR' is usually exclusive (although in mathematics it is not).

    Bye, Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
     
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Aug 19, 2003
    #6
  7. Mark M

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    Dragan Cvetkovic <> wrote:

    > Charlie D <> writes:
    >
    > > > Mark M wrote:
    > > > > Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same
    > > > > thing)...you
    > > > > actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.

    > >
    > >
    > > In article <bhtb9t$cdc$>,
    > > SD <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Area = height * width
    > > > If I double the height or width then
    > > > Area = (2*height) * width = (2*width) * height
    > > > Where did the quadruple come from?

    > >
    > > You come from a .EDU account??? ;)
    > >
    > > Example; H=2, W=2 Area =4
    > > Double W and H
    > > H=4, W=4 Area = 16
    > > Quadruple
    > >

    >
    > Yes, but you doubled both height _and_ the width. In everydays' language,
    > 'OR' is usually exclusive (although in mathematics it is not).


    Oops!
    At least I don't have a .EDU account. ;)
    I didn't read Mark's message well enough to see the "or."
    Of course siddharthgdalal was correct.
    I believe it has the same meaning in math.
    "And" is "and," and "or" is "or."
    "And" is both of them, "or" is either (1) of them.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Aug 19, 2003
    #7
  8. Charlie D <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > Dragan Cvetkovic <> wrote:


    > > Yes, but you doubled both height _and_ the width. In everydays' language,
    > > 'OR' is usually exclusive (although in mathematics it is not).

    >
    > Oops!
    > At least I don't have a .EDU account. ;)
    > I didn't read Mark's message well enough to see the "or."
    > Of course siddharthgdalal was correct.
    > I believe it has the same meaning in math.
    > "And" is "and," and "or" is "or."
    > "And" is both of them, "or" is either (1) of them.
    >


    In mathematics, 'x or y' means: x, y or both. If you want to ensure that
    only one is chosen, you use 'exclusive or (XOR)'.

    Bye, Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
     
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Aug 19, 2003
    #8
  9. Mark M

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    Dragan Cvetkovic <> wrote:

    > In mathematics, 'x or y' means: x, y or both. If you want to ensure that
    > only one is chosen, you use 'exclusive or (XOR)'.


    Is that something new to the "computer age,"
    or have I really forgotten that much since my last math class
    35 years ago?

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Aug 19, 2003
    #9
  10. Charlie D <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > Dragan Cvetkovic <> wrote:
    >
    > > In mathematics, 'x or y' means: x, y or both. If you want to ensure that
    > > only one is chosen, you use 'exclusive or (XOR)'.

    >
    > Is that something new to the "computer age,"
    > or have I really forgotten that much since my last math class
    > 35 years ago?
    >


    AFAIK, it dates at least back to G. Boole (1844, check eg.
    http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/boole.html). Remember the truth table for
    'or':


    1 or 1 = 1 or 0 = 0 or 1 = 1
    0 or 0 = 0.

    whereas the truth table for xor is

    1 xor 0 = 0 xor 1 = 1
    1 xor 1 = 0 xor 0 = 0

    Bye, Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
     
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Aug 19, 2003
    #10
  11. Mark M

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    Dragan Cvetkovic <> wrote:

    > If you interpret 0 as false and 1 as true, what is your interpretation of
    > 2? The usual Boolean functions work on {0,1} domain.


    You've dragged me around in circles.
    I was correct in the beginning to fault siddharthgdalal
    for finding fault with Mark's statement of "length OR height."

    Since the camera sensor has a fixed aspect ratio, if
    you double, triple, or whatever the length OR height,
    the other HAS to double, triple, or whatever also.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Aug 19, 2003
    #11
  12. Charlie D <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > Dragan Cvetkovic <> wrote:
    >
    > > If you interpret 0 as false and 1 as true, what is your interpretation of
    > > 2? The usual Boolean functions work on {0,1} domain.

    >
    > You've dragged me around in circles.


    Don't know what you are talking about.

    [snip]

    > Since the camera sensor has a fixed aspect ratio, if
    > you double, triple, or whatever the length OR height,
    > the other HAS to double, triple, or whatever also.


    Nobody said anything about a fixed aspect ratio, now you are just adding
    constraints.

    Anyway, never mind.

    Bye, Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
     
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Aug 19, 2003
    #12
  13. Mark M

    Paul H. Guest

    "Charlie D" <> wrote in message
    news:-berlin.de...
    > In article <>,
    > Dragan Cvetkovic <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > 1 or 1 = 1 or 0 = 0 or 1 = 1
    > > 0 or 0 = 0.

    >
    > That looks like an EXclusive "or."
    > If it were INclusive, there should be a "1 or 1 = 2" shouldn't there?


    You're joking, right? This is Boolean logic where "1" and "0" are formal
    conventions for the "true" and "false" of Aristotelian logic. There is no
    "2".

    OR:
    false or false is false
    true OR false is true
    false OR true is true
    true OR true is true

    AND:
    false and false is false
    false and true is false
    true and false is false
    true and true is true

    An exclusive OR between propositions A and B is equivalent to "(A or B) and
    (not (A and B))"

    P.S. or should be unless I made stupid typo or other mistake.
     
    Paul H., Aug 19, 2003
    #13
  14. Mark M

    Mark M Guest

    "Dragan Cvetkovic" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Charlie D <> writes:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Dragan Cvetkovic <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > If you interpret 0 as false and 1 as true, what is your interpretation

    of
    > > > 2? The usual Boolean functions work on {0,1} domain.

    > >
    > > You've dragged me around in circles.

    >
    > Don't know what you are talking about.
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > > Since the camera sensor has a fixed aspect ratio, if
    > > you double, triple, or whatever the length OR height,
    > > the other HAS to double, triple, or whatever also.

    >
    > Nobody said anything about a fixed aspect ratio, now you are just adding
    > constraints.


    Oh good gravy!!
    Since when would a teleconverter change the aspect ratio!!!???
    It does not...so aspect ratio remaining the same is assumed.

    You guys crack me up.
     
    Mark M, Aug 20, 2003
    #14
  15. "Mark M" <> writes:

    > "Dragan Cvetkovic" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Charlie D <> writes:
    > >
    > > > > Mark M wrote:
    > > > > > Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same

    > thing)...you
    > > > > > actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > In article <bhtb9t$cdc$>,
    > > > SD <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Area = height * width
    > > > > If I double the height or width then
    > > > > Area = (2*height) * width = (2*width) * height
    > > > > Where did the quadruple come from?
    > > >
    > > > You come from a .EDU account??? ;)
    > > >
    > > > Example; H=2, W=2 Area =4
    > > > Double W and H
    > > > H=4, W=4 Area = 16
    > > > Quadruple
    > > >

    > >
    > > Yes, but you doubled both height _and_ the width. In everydays' language,
    > > 'OR' is usually exclusive (although in mathematics it is not).

    >
    > Ummm... Show me a tele-converter that ONLY multiplies height and not width,
    > and I'll show you a pink elephant.
    > Also...Since when can you make a larger square that doesn't add both height
    > and width?????
    >


    It's OK Mark. I haven't seen your post (mentioning tele-converters), I was
    answering the following post where that context was lost (article copied
    and pasted below). Bye, Dragan

    > Mark M wrote:
    > > No.
    > > You are mistaking area for field of view.
    > > Two different things.
    > > Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same thing)...you
    > > actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.



    In article <bhtb9t$cdc$>,
    SD <> wrote:

    > Area = height * width
    > If I double the height or width then
    > Area = (2*height) * width = (2*width) * height
    > Where did the quadruple come from?


    You come from a .EDU account??? ;)

    Example; H=2, W=2 Area =4
    Double W and H
    H=4, W=4 Area = 16
    Quadruple

    Let's forget about the area measurements.
    They have no place in the discussion.
    That's where the OP got off base in the beginning.
     
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Aug 20, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tory Brown
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,817
    Tory Brown
    Jun 5, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    441
  3. I'm A Trampoline
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    934
    Jamie Walker
    Feb 3, 2006
  4. Peter Foldes

    Re: Am I doing something wrong? (again!)

    Peter Foldes, Oct 30, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    Peter Foldes
    Oct 30, 2010
  5. Mike Easter

    Re: Am I doing something wrong? (again!)

    Mike Easter, Oct 30, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,201
    Aardvark
    Nov 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page