Or is there perhaps a way I can determine it on my own?
I know it's not usually that different from an F-stop, from what I understand, I'm mostly just curious.
T stop? I've never seen that and I have some cameras from the 1910's how old is that "system"?
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. It's the standard measurement used for cinema lenses, it's the F-stop corrected for absorbance and reflectance. It is usually very close to the F-stop, I was just curious as to whether some manufacturers' lenses might be more affected by absorbance and reflectance than others. But I guess guess if the T-stop was never given by the manufacturer, it'd be pretty hard to figure out.T-stops are used primarily for motion picture lenses - they provide a more exact measurement of the light transmission of a lens then the slightly more theoretical f-stops.
The difference is usually small, and generally only relevant in the exacting circumstances of motion picture work.
T-stops are used primarily for motion picture lenses - they provide a more exact measurement of the light transmission of a lens then the slightly more theoretical f-stops.
The difference is usually small, and generally only relevant in the exacting circumstances of motion picture work.
Or is there perhaps a way I can determine it on my own?
I know it's not usually that different from an F-stop, from what I understand, I'm mostly just curious.
before WW II the old f-stop system was often used: 2.2 / 3.2 / 4.5 / 6.3 / 9 / 12.5 / 18
The old lens reviews listed the T-number of the lenses. In this page a Rokkor 50mm f1.4 with a T-number 1.53, 28mm f2.0 with a T-number 2.25 and a 135mm f2.8 with a T-number 3.11. In these examples it doesn't seem significantly off.
The difference is usually small, and generally only relevant in the exacting circumstances of motion picture work.
Les, you have the small child's concept of old.
Perhaps you're just ancient... The fact it's written on paper in a magazine means its old... Hehe
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
No, no, no. The fact that it's in a magazine means it's not old. If it was on a parchment scroll, it'd be old.
Let's keep some perspective here.
In this world older than 10 years is old... I was driving these kids in a car that was 7 years old and they said "wow this car is so old look at all the knobs and buttons!" Because their patents owned a new car with touch panel displays etc.
It's a new generation and everything is fast and obsoleteor rather
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Usually small? Perhaps, but not always. Consider the 8-64/1.9 Angenieux 8x8B as was supplied with the Beaulieu 4008ZM. It t stops around t/3.3. Mine taught me to check all of my cine camera zooms for transmission, against the evil day when the camera's on-board meter failed.
This is a difference of 1 1/2 stops!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?