FX vs DX
May 16, 2019 15:38:18 #
Chris T wrote:
HALF of 36x24 - would be 18x12 … you'd better take that General Math course over, again, e ... 
Well, as an 18x24 frame is half the area of a 36x24 frame, calling DX half frame is appropriate.
May 16, 2019 15:41:23 #
DaveO wrote:
LOL, like others on here, Bing is not an unquestionable authority on anything.
"I saw it on the internet so it must be true."
Same crap different day...lol!
"I saw it on the internet so it must be true."
Same crap different day...lol!
BING - is MS's search engine, which Edge uses as a default. Edge is the browser incorporated into Win 10.
You can't fault a search engine - it just picks up the top 10-12 entries - it sees on a quick scan.
All of those entries which come up first, have been highlighted, in order to catch the attention of the Search Engine in use. There will be some differences, based on which search engine is utilized, but, essentially, all browsers will come up with the same, or similar - lists - try it for yourself, Dave.
May 16, 2019 15:43:32 #
ecurb1105 wrote:
Well, as an 18x24 frame is half the area of a 36x24 frame, calling DX half frame is appropriate.
This is NOT correct, e … the DX full frame image is an area approximately equivalent to two thirds of a FF!
May 16, 2019 15:43:32 #
ecurb1105 wrote:
Well, as an 18x24 frame is half the area of a 36x24 frame, calling DX half frame is appropriate.
This is NOT correct, e … the DX full frame image is an area approximately equivalent to two thirds of a FF!
May 16, 2019 15:48:31 #
Chris T wrote:
BING - is MS's search engine, which Edge uses as a... (show quote)
You need not give a dissertation regarding Bing. Obviously the intent of my post missed its mark.
May 16, 2019 15:48:39 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
I have to agree with you. All to often terminology gets misused and for lack of understanding people just continue to repeat the inaccurate use and soon enough it becomes the accepted norm. Doesn't make it right. And when one points out the inaccuracy, they become the "bad guy".
Very well, R ... now that you've brought it to our attention, suppose you come up w/ an alternate term.
Perhaps, in time - if acceptable - it will drift down ... and ALL will start to use it ...
You can't use CROP - as that term ALSO applies to images created by MFT designs.
So - we need something OTHER than CROP … CROP is also used in PP … it's just TOO confusing!!!
May 16, 2019 15:51:02 #
DaveO wrote:
You need not give a dissertation regarding Bing. Obviously the intent of my post missed its mark.
Think I just did, Dave …
The intent of your post - was to make a snide comment about BING - which made absolutely NO SENSE!
May 16, 2019 15:51:02 #
DaveO wrote:
You need not give a dissertation regarding Bing. Obviously the intent of my post missed its mark.
Think I just did, Dave …
The intent of your post - was to make a snide comment about BING - which made absolutely NO SENSE!
May 16, 2019 15:55:56 #
Chris T wrote:
Think I just did, Dave …
The intent of your post - was to make a snide comment about BING - which made absolutely NO SENSE!
The intent of your post - was to make a snide comment about BING - which made absolutely NO SENSE!
Snide? The point was that because you see something on the net, it does not mean what you select is gosphal. Checking dates and multiple sources is often necessary, but even a genius should know that. Some even believe all that they glean from Wikipedia is infallible.
May 16, 2019 16:02:44 #
DaveO wrote:
Snide? The point was that because you see something on the net, it does not mean what you select is gosphal. Checking dates and multiple sources is often necessary, but even a genius should know that. Some even believe all that they glean from Wikipedia is infallible.
I agree, Dave … WIKI makes some mistakes, too … but, overall - when you compare their coverage, with coverage from Britannica - you will find them to be correct on just about everything - which concerns them both. Where they tend to fall apart - is on the subject matter, Britannica DOESN'T cover …
BTW, Dave - if you look at those entries I copied - and actually READ them - you will see that most of them - all say - pretty much - the same thing … the Search I phrased - asked for a definition of APS-C … thassit!
May 16, 2019 16:22:14 #
Chris T wrote:
This is NOT correct, e … the DX full frame image is an area approximately equivalent to two thirds of a FF!
Incorrect, 'DX' is two-thirds 'FX' in linear measure - it is two-thirds as high and two-thirds as wide. As any high school 'A' student can tell you, that means area of 'DX' is (2/3)*(2/3) = 4/9-th area of 'FX'.
May 16, 2019 16:33:38 #
rehess wrote:
Incorrect, 'DX' is two-thirds 'FX' in linear measure - it is two-thirds as high and two-thirds as wide. As any high school 'A' student can tell you, that means area of 'DX' is (2/3)*(2/3) = 4/9-th area of 'FX'.
You're just playing with the formula, RE … compare the actual numbers - FF area vs. APS-C area …
Then deduct the smaller number from the larger number, and you will see you're left with a THIRD!
May 16, 2019 17:01:53 #
Chris T wrote:
You're just playing with the formula, RE … compare the actual numbers - FF area vs. APS-C area …
Then deduct the smaller number from the larger number, and you will see you're left with a THIRD!
Then deduct the smaller number from the larger number, and you will see you're left with a THIRD!
What actual numbers are you using in your subtraction??
May 16, 2019 17:05:03 #
Chris T wrote:
This is NOT correct, e … the DX full frame image is an area approximately equivalent to two thirds of a FF!
DX image area is less than half FX area.
May 16, 2019 17:10:23 #
rehess wrote:
What actual numbers are you using in your subtraction??
I only KNOW one number, off-hand, RE … and that is - 864sq. mm … which is 36x24mm …
Since there are so many variables in DX and APS-C designs, I've lost track of the lower number - sorry.
Maybe some enterprising reader of this thread can find it ….
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.