2F/2F;649387 So said:That is technically wrong because exposure increments are exponential and not linear. You might think I'm being pedantic about that, but I just don't volunteer to dumb down which some already have.
A third of a stop is ³√2 = 1.2599 used as an adjustment factor and not 1.3333.
The proof is simple.
1.0000 * 1.3333 = 1.3333
1.3333 * 1.3333 = 1.7777
1.7777 * 1.3333 = 2.3702 (this should have been = 2 )
whereas using the correct value:
1.0000 * 1.2599 = 1.2599
1.2599 * 1.2599 = 1.5873
1.5873 * 1.2599 = 1.9998 ( with rounding or working to more decimal places = 2 )
so the constant 1/3 stop factor is 1.2599
the constant 1/2 stop factor is 1.4142
Them thar other-type'n fancy maths done did it ta me a-ginn!
I know that f stops are not linear, but I always figgered that when it came to time, splitting a full shutter speed linearly into thirds made sense, like so: If light is entering for a certain length of time, cutting 1/3 of that time also cuts 1/3 of the amount of light that enters, so 2/3 of the exposure occurs. I viewed it as a division of one full shutter speed, rather than a series of exposure increments, with each based on the last one-third-speed.
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?