Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,689   Posts: 1,548,771   Online: 1273
      

View Poll Results: What is your film speed unit?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • ASA, like everyone else

    24 64.86%
  • DIN, because it's superior

    0 0%
  • ISO, because I'm egalitarian

    11 29.73%
  • candle/foot-square, because I'M superior

    2 5.41%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132

    Do you think in DIN ?

    It's occuring to me more and more that the DIN system for film speed and exposure index is the smartest system, yet nobody writes articles using it, nor do we see many comments based on it on APUG. Unlike the ASA system which demands to memorize at least parts of the scale to know what numbers are following each other, the DIN system needs only two numbers: 1 and 3. Need to go up one stop? Add three. Need to go up by the minimal amount, i.e. 1/3 of a stop? Add one.

    So all you Europeans, have you followed the way of the majority or do you still believe in DIN? All of you Americans, do you wish you could convert to DIN and stop fussing with numbers?

  2. #2
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100

    I (heart) Deutsche Industrie Norm(en)

    I LOVE DIN. I LOVE meters. Feet and inches (SAE) is the most retarded system in the world. If you ACTUALLY stop and THINK about it - it's exactly as logical as using meters and inches together. What sense is there in a two unit system??

  3. #3
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    I find it easier to think in linear increments rather than logarithmic ones... As for feet/inches Vs metres: I don't know anyone who talks about a 0.050 metre lens - they use centimetres or millimetres: so now we have a THREE unit system...

    I wouldn't dream of using anything other than metric SI units in my technical life, but for everyday use, feet/inches/yards/miles/etc are more intuitive and practical ( I might draw the line at perch, chain and hand, but it's nice to know they are there if I ever need them )...

    Cheers, Bob.

  4. #4
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Well - NOT to be contrary - but the only reason they appear to be more intuitive and/or practical is simply because you are so used to them - don't you think? That's like how a german was once trying to convince me that the german language was the most natural based on the fact that it has natural onomatopoeia - that, for example - the word "fahrzeug" -meaning "airplane" - conjures the image of an airplane immediately. I'd say that's called association.

    As for metres/centimetres/millimetres - well - you can deal with that with a floating decimal point, right? Try THAT with SAE.

  5. #5
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    ISO must get everyone's vote, since it is a direct combination of ASA and DIN e.g. ISO 400/27° is ASA 400 and also DIN 27°. DIN has a small further benefit in that you can usually find DIN in comparison tables for the really old speed systems like Hurter & Driffield (H&D). I force myself to say ISO and not ASA (and also use metric units) in deference to the younger generation who have not been taught imperial units, but use common sense when referring to "metricated" products in the UK which of course have not been metricated at all - 4x5" film is an inch size, it always will be, no one in their right mind would make 10.2 x 12.7 cm a standard size when there is the perfectly good "real" metric size of 9 x 12 cm. And then there are the anomalies that you just learn to live with, like tire sizes - 165/13 means a tire with a tread width of 165 mm to fit a 13" wheel. And engine sizes - even before metrication we in the UK always specified engine capacity in cc, never cubic inches. And there's engineering hardware - down at the DIY supermarket screws are labelled for example 6 mm/1/4", which causes me to scream with pain - even if 1/4" were exactly 6 mm, it would still have a non-metric thread pitch. But what the hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    PS: German "Fahrzeug" means "vehicle" - an aeroplane is a "Flugzeug". "Ich habe Flugzeuge im Bauch" means "I've got butterflies in my stomach."

  6. #6
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    I voted ISO, but I really think in SI
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #7
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,320
    Images
    20
    I voted ASA, but I really think in EI.

    I'm also glad there are units around like the hogshead in case I ever get a big enough darkroom.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  8. #8
    medform-norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    863
    Images
    1
    When measuring light, we mostly work with the EV scale - anyone else does that?

  9. #9
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by medform-norm
    When measuring light, we mostly work with the EV scale - anyone else does that?
    This can be convenient but confusing - for some people, EV1 is just the combination of the aperture f1.4 and an exposure time of 1 sec., without regard to film speed, and LV1 is a brightness level that needs an exposure of 1 sec. at f1.4 with ISO 100 film. Others use EV for this and specify the sensitivity of, for example, exposure meters in EV. As the number of cameras with Compur shutters with the irritating EV interlock grows less, the EV=LV usage is probably the only one worth worrying about.

  10. #10
    medform-norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    863
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
    The EV=LV usage is probably the only one worth worrying about.
    Yes, that's the one we use mostly. I should have been more precise, but thank you for the clarifying note, David!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin