Re: Basic Formula

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> Okay, I let myself fall through the wormhole, and I understand what you
> are saying (1/3 = .33, right? <g>). All the more reason to specify
> reducers with a simple multiplier (as most people do these days), and
> avoid confusion. We were both using the same values for all the focal
> lengths involved, I just screwed up converting back to terms of
> reduction.
>
> In any case, however, I think we both agree that a 0.33 reducer that is
> functioning as a 0.46 reducer is probably far enough from its design
> spec to be introducing serious aberrations.

Probably.

I knew all along you knew what the right situation was--I just couldn't
figure out whether you had made an error in computation, or just put the
multiplication sign on the wrong side.

--
Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
.

Quantcast