Don't forget, a roomful of people with one abacus each can substitute for a spreadsheet, if you need it badly enough...
Was not my point. Having seen some ancient manuscripts with thousands of pages of nothing but calculations, it remains amazing to me the track keeping required to keep it going, and arrive after months or years of poking at it, with results that continue to stand centuries later.Computers haven't redefined math. They've simply made it faster. Most of the calculations in building and launching the Apollo Saturn V rockets was done with slide-rules. The whole point of the massively complicated, hardwired, and very limited computers on Apollo was to keep the astronauts from needing to be mathematicians and pilots.
Even the Greeks could precisely cut gears using hand tools (see "antikythera mechanism"). The industrial revolution, again, simply made it faster.
I hope you have seen my earlier post: information is from Adox's production line, not ISO standard, which should match anyways. Sure there are tolerances in ISO listed, but I'm gonna trust Adox how they set up their meat slicer for this sheet. After all they are the only ones making 6.5x9 available out of stock, so I'm not so concerned how Ilford cuts it, when they feel like it is about time to do so.Uh, odd conversation about mathematics aside, those numbers are directly out of the ISO standard for sheet film sizes.
Careful, though, the standard sizing is not a *single* number, but rather a range of dimensions for L x W. In other words, a nominal dimension with associated acceptable tolerance (*both* are important).
Don't forget, a roomful of people with one abacus each can substitute for a spreadsheet, if you need it badly enough...
These measurements are for 4x5" not 9x12 cm.We speak of 90 x 120mm dimension of sheet film, but actual measurement of Kodak sheet film is 99mm x 124.3mm, while the image area is 93mm x 120mm when shot in a Lisco film holder.
These measurements are for 4x5" not 9x12 cm.
That I cannot do as I do not have one processed, I'm only getting into metric sizes due to some acquired film in same. But what you showed is 4x5 inch sheet actual dimensions, give or take, but smaller than nominal. 9x12 is 100% less than 9x12 and also around 2-3 mm narrower each side.Since you are in the metric part of the world, can you measure and post outside dimensions of 9x12 film, and the image area?
I hope you have seen my earlier post: information is from Adox's production line, not ISO standard, which should match anyways. Sure there are tolerances in ISO listed, but I'm gonna trust Adox how they set up their meat slicer for this sheet. After all they are the only ones making 6.5x9 available out of stock, so I'm not so concerned how Ilford cuts it, when they feel like it is about time to do so.
You might check your SP-445 holders to see how much play there is in the groove in addition to the dimension of the film, so you can incorporate the same amount of extra space in your 6.5x9 holders. It’s probably about 1.5mm. In my experience from the Nikor tank, which is adjustible, if the slot is too tight, it will be hard to load.
Even Adox will have a tolerance on their nominal dimensions. Things aren’t made by magic...they’re made on real machinery and will have an associated tolerance. With all due respect to Adox, they only provided the nominal dimension that they cut to.
To your original question: 6x9 is defined by the ISO standard, and all the available film out there will land within the specified amount.
Adox is not tge inly one making 6.5x9 format stuff. For my “6.5x9” aka 6th plate dry plates, the dimensions are 63mm x 88mm +/- 0.5 mm
SP-445 doesn't have quite that much play. They accommodate about 0.9 mm thick stuff (give or take). For 1.5mm thick substrates, you’d need their dry plate adapter.
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?