 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2007Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film
Hi: Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that the films were formatted differently in different countries? When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC, France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL. Thanks, Radium > Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that > the films were formatted differently in different countries? AFAIK no. > When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC, > France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL. Actually the videotape systems accomodated the TV systems of the countries. It wasn't quite so simple, the (former) Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact countries use SECAM broadcast using PAL type signals. Some Arab countries used it to, hence the name ME-SECAM on mnay VCRs. The UK, South Africa and Austrailia use the same system for transmission, which is different than the other PAL countries. It still exists in DVDs. While they are YUV encoded digital video, the frame rates are 24/1001, (NTSC film), 24 (PAL film), 25 (PAL) and 30/1001 (NTSC) frames per second. This has nothing to do with zones and depending upon the player, they convert it as needed to match the TV system. Geoff.  SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that >the films were formatted differently in different countries? No. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > Hi: > > Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that > the films were formatted differently in different countries? No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C. > > Hi: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which > were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C. By "metric size", are you referring to the size of the film or are you referring to the type of measurement used to measure the film? Radium spake thus: >>>Hi: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > By "metric size", are you referring to the size of the film or are you > referring to the type of measurement used to measure the film? "Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures, like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is smaller than 4x5 film. SignatureSave the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) > "Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures, > like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized > films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is > smaller than 4x5 film. Except metric film sizes aren't exactly what they say they are. The frame size of a 120 film tends to be not 6cm wide but about 5.8 cm, with 120 film being about 62mm across. The other variations likwise are a bit smaller than the nominal size. It allows a bit of masking in the film holder of the enlarger, but nevertheless is not as precise as metricists might like you to believe. I could claim that the pinhole camera I'm currently bashing from a Kodak Brownie 2A is a "6x12" because it works by winding through alternate frame numbers down the middle of the film (where the 6x6 numbers go) but the actual image size is 54 x 108mm, being the old Kodak 116 film gate with a strip of brass soldered each side to provide edge support for the slightly smaller 120 film. It'll be printed using a 5 x 4 imperial enlarger (DeVere 54) with a black card mask over the neg glasses to minimise Callier flare from the edges. Of course 9 x 12 is smaller than 4 x 5! Those of us used to dealing in metric know that 4 x 5 is 10 x 12.5cm - are at least it should be: if that's the sheet film size then image size will be smaller because of the little edge-retains in the film holder. Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was 10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this day in paper sizes. Am I wrong? Tony Clarke >>"Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures, >>like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > frame size of a 120 film tends to be not 6cm wide but about 5.8 cm, with 120 > film being about 62mm across. That not quite correct. With 120 film, the film is actualy 60mm wide and the paper backing is 62mm wide. > The other variations likwise are a bit smaller > than the nominal size. It allows a bit of masking in the film holder of the > enlarger, but nevertheless is not as precise as metricists might like you to > believe. With 120 film, most cameras have film rails that are about 1mm wide. This results in a negative where the exposed Area is about 58mm tall. > I could claim that the pinhole camera I'm currently bashing from a > Kodak Brownie 2A is a "6x12" because it works by winding through alternate [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the sheet film size then image size will be smaller because of the little > edge-retains in the film holder. Sometimes the conversion from Imperial measures to Metric isn't very exact. 1 inch equals 25.4mm, so 4 inches actualy equals 100.16mm 4"x5" is actualy 100.16mm x 126mm (10.02cm x 12.6cm). The film rails probably take up about 2mm on each edge. This makes the actual negative about 96.16mm x 122mm (96.2cm x 12.2cm) on a sheet of 4x5 film. > Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by > saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tony Clarke I think that would depend on which county you were asking for a "full plate" in. From memory, the UK usualy has smaller sizes and continental Europeam countries tends to have longer or taller formats (depending on which country). In Australia, we seem to have tended to go with the USA on film sizes and photographic paper. Here a "full" plate would be 8x10 inches. > [someone said] "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all > else was a division of that ... broadsheet > being 15" x 20", "full plate" was 10 x 8 inches I tried to figure this all out many times and gave up many times. As near as I can tell photographic paper sizes have nothing to do with common ordinary paper sizes, which in the US are: 8.5 x 11" - American 8.5 x 14" - American legal 9 x 12" - Architectural, some artists' pads A4 - DIN standard[s] - And see this for a mess'o'stanards: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html None of which evenly divide or multiply into 4x6, 8x10/4x5, 5x7 or 11x14. Which leads me to think that photographic sheet film and paper sizes are drawn from standard sizes of: o Pre-blanked sheet metal: Daguerreotypes & Tintypes o Window panes: Glass negatives All of which come in different standard sizes ... and then there is metric. > except when it [they aren't]. Which seems to be the general case. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Tony Clarke wrote (in part): > Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by > saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of > that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a > broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was > 10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this > day in paper sizes. Am I wrong? I do not know if there is any such thing as "full plate" in photography. Back in Daguerreotype days, the images were made on a sensitized sheet of copper plated on one side with silver and then sensitized by the user. These plates had standard sizes: Full Plate: 6½ by 8½ inches Half Plate: 4¼ by 5½ inches Quarter Plate: 3¼ by 4¼ inches Sixth Plate: 2¾ by 3¼ inches (a.k.a. "medium plate") Ninth Plate: 2 by 2½ inches Sixteenth Plate: 1 3/8 by 1 5/8 inches Now ordinary printing paper, in USA, came from the size of the frame commonly used for making paper by hand that turned out 17 by 22 inch sheets after the deckle edge was trimmed off. This was about the largest they could make sheets for a long time. These where cut in half both ways making 8½ by 11 sheets as standard for printing (and later, typewriting). Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 18:05:01 up 3 days, 19:32, 3 users, load average: 4.39, 4.20, 4.12 Jean-David Beyer spake thus: > Now ordinary printing paper, in USA, came from the size of the frame > commonly used for making paper by hand that turned out 17 by 22 inch sheets > after the deckle edge was trimmed off. This was about the largest they could > make sheets for a long time. These where cut in half both ways making 8½ by > 11 sheets as standard for printing (and later, typewriting). OK, so where did that Yurpeen standard, A4, come from? SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Jean-David Beyer spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > OK, so where did that Yurpeen standard, A4, come from? One of the first hits on Google: <http://www.paulschou.com/a4/> > One of the first hits on Google: > <http://www.paulschou.com/a4/> Perfect explanation, thanks for that. It is interesting that we have the tendency to prefer rectangles to squares, otherwise we would have gone to the Golden Mean (1.618) instead of 1.414. >> One of the first hits on Google: >> <http://www.paulschou.com/a4/> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It is interesting that we have the tendency to prefer rectangles to squares, >otherwise we would have gone to the Golden Mean (1.618) instead of 1.414. Worth noting that the aspect ratio of A4 is *very* handy for printing uncropped 35mm images (or any other images with 2:3 aspect ratios.) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >Jean-David Beyer spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >OK, so where did that Yurpeen standard, A4, come from? A4 is NOT European It is International and is used EVERYWHERE except the USA. see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html Some points from the link: "The United States, Canada, and in part Mexico, are today the only industrialized nations in which the ISO standard paper sizes are not yet widely used." "If you live in the U.S. and have never been abroad, you might not be aware that paper and accessories in the North-American sizes are not commonly available outside the U.S. or Canada. They are very difficult to obtain in any other country" Interestingly:- "Although it is rarely advertised, ISO A4 laser printer and copying paper, as well as suitable files and folders, are available today from many U.S. office supply companies. A4 paper and supplies are regularly ordered in the U.S. today, especially by companies and organizations with a lot of international correspondence, including patent lawyers, diplomats, universities, and some government agencies. It seems that in the U.S., at the moment, only higher-quality paper brands are easily available in A4, i.e. the types of paper preferred for important documents, such as international patent applications. Many of the larger stationery chains do offer at least one type of A4 paper in their catalogues, but not all shops keep it on stock routinely and might have to order it first." So eventually the US might start using standard paper sizes that fit in with the rest of the world. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Chris Hills spake thus: >> Jean-David Beyer spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > So eventually the US might start using standard paper sizes that fit in > with the rest of the world. And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we (the U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon our venerable measurement system in favor of the metric system? (Don't know if you're aware of it, but there's *trememdous* oppostion to metrificiation both here in the U.S. and abroad.) Why should I embrace a system that's cold and based on some abstract notions, such as an aspect ratio based on the square root of two, where the primary size (A0) from which the others are derived is defined, arbitrarily, as having an area of one square meter? It's all neat and consistent--and totally arbitrary, having nothing to do with real-world historical proportions and dimensions. No thanks. I'll stick to *my* "letter" and "legal" and "tabloid" sizes any day. Which is what appears to be the case for the forseeable future here, despite the urgent wishes of the Internationalizers and the Yurpeenizers. SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we (the > U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon our > venerable measurement system in favor of the metric system? (Don't know if > you're aware of it, but there's *trememdous* oppostion to metrificiation > both here in the U.S. and abroad.) Much more rational to measure things based on the standard of the Supreme Leader's body parts! The USA has its head up its a.s in far more ways than I can enumerate in one post... But then again, we've long since given up being "reality based." rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com rafe b spake thus: >>And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we (the >>U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon our [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Much more rational to measure things based on the > standard of the Supreme Leader's body parts! Well, at least it was based on *someone's* body parts, instead of an arbitrary, disembodied, intangible numerical concept. > The USA has its head up its a.s in far more ways > than I can enumerate in one post... But then again, > we've long since given up being "reality based." Certainly no argument there from this quarter, Rafe. But in this case, we're right: kind of like the stopped clock and all that. SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Well, at least it was based on *someone's* body parts, instead of an > arbitrary, disembodied, intangible numerical concept. What's so arbitrary about this: one cubic centimeter of water equals one gram. Sounds pretty rational to me. Is there any substance more ubiquitous (or more germane to human life) than H2O? I've lived with them all my life but English units of weight, length and volume are utterly irrational. 5280 feet per mile. What were they thinking? For smallish distances I'm much more comfortable with millimeters than fractions-of-an-inch. For smallish volumes, I'm much more comfortable with milliliters than "ounces." First-order conversion is trivial. A meter is a yard. A liter = a quart. An inch = 2.5 cm. Etc. etc. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >First-order conversion is trivial. A meter is a yard. >A liter = a quart. An inch = 2.5 cm. Etc. etc. But as has been said before "The Devil is in the details". == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >Well, at least it was based on *someone's* body parts, instead of an >arbitrary, disembodied, intangible numerical concept. So you would prefer "de pedibus Sancti Pauli" ???? As Jefferson stated "There exists not in nature, as far as has been hitherto observed, a single subject or species of subject, accessible to man, which presents one constant and uniform dimension.". Of course Jefferson didn't know a whole lot about energy. Perhaps someday the meter will be finally defined as the distance light travels in 1/300,000,000 of a second. I like round numbers ;>) == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > The USA has its head up its a.s in far more ways > than I can enumerate in one post... But then again, > we've long since given up being "reality based." Tell your leaders to declare War on the USA. You might end up getting a marvelous postwar settlement. See "The Mouse that Roared" Yes, certainly, the USA is truly f*ed up. >See "The Mouse that Roared" Most excellent flick, as was most anything made by or starring Peter Sellers. "Dr. Strangelove" is a classic, quite literally. And "Being There" is altogther too real to want to think about, really. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >Yes, certainly, the USA is truly f*ed up. With such wonderful leadership, one can only wonder why. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >> Yes, certainly, the USA is truly f*ed up. > > With such wonderful leadership, one can only wonder why. When I was growing up in a first-generation family in America, we were told, "Anyone can become President", but for God's sake, we never expected it to become true! We got an Anyone! Q: What is the difference between a C grade at any state university and the same at Yale or Harvard? A: Money.... and you have to WORK for a C at a state university. >The USA has its head up its a.s in far more ways >than I can enumerate in one post... But then again, >we've long since given up being "reality based." > >rafe b Right on the money Rafe. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >Chris Hills spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we >(the U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) The UK has been metric for some time. In fact you will be hard pressed to find anyone under the age of 35 who even knows what the non-metric systems are. >should abandon our venerable measurement system Venerable.... How old is the US? There is nothing Venerable it the USA. >in favor of the metric system? (Don't know if you're aware of it, but >there's *trememdous* oppostion to metrificiation both here in the U.S. >and abroad.) There is tremendous opposition in the US but I have not seen any opposition in industry or commerce anywhere else in the world. Where it is it is from people over 50 who want to use the old systems in the markets. >Why should I embrace a system that's Universally used in the rest of the world? >No thanks. I'll stick to *my* "letter" and "legal" and "tabloid" sizes >any day. Which is what appears to be the case for the forseeable future >here, despite the urgent wishes of the Internationalizers and the >Yurpeenizers. The don't expect to be part of the rest of the world. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>Why should I embrace a system that's > >Universally used in the rest of the world? And agreed upon by the US government on May 20, 1875 ? But then we don't really want to hold our governments accountable for their agreements do we ? Heavens no ! The American Indians learned this better than anyone. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >Why should I embrace a system that's cold and based on some abstract >notions, such as an aspect ratio based on the square root of two, where >the primary size (A0) from which the others are derived is defined, >arbitrarily, as having an area of one square meter? It's all neat and >consistent--and totally arbitrary, having nothing to do with real-world >historical proportions and dimensions. Because in metric world the use of units is much more practical. I guess that people in the US want to slow down daily life, because of some false sense of tradition. You don't have to know whether a measurement is supposed to be expressed in centimeters or in meters, because most people can easily divide or multiply by hundred. I wonder how many people in US can converted between inches, feet, yards and miles without resorting to tables of calculators? The same thing with the ISO paper series. You always know the name of the size one bigger or smaller than the one you are currently using. If you layout for A3, you can just proof on A4. Or print two A4s on an A3 and put a staple in the middle. Fortunately, the US did decide to go metric for the electricity (Volt, Ampere, Watt). And for some strange reason, focal lengths are metric, and are using the strange square root of two series for aperture stops. Another strange thing is that money in the US is metric, whereas most European countries had very long traditions with non-metric systems. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Another strange thing is that money in the US is metric, whereas most > European countries had very long traditions with non-metric systems. Money in the US is now; however only a few years ago some US stock markets used something resembling a "pieces of eight" system for expressing stock prices. Philip Homburg spake thus: >>Why should I embrace a system that's cold and based on some abstract >>notions, such as an aspect ratio based on the square root of two, where [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that people in the US want to slow down daily life, because of some false > sense of tradition. "More practical"? Not necessarily; that's a glib assumption, based on the supposed ease of doing arithmetic in decimal units, that's not always borne out in reality. I can tell you that in at least two fields which rely heavily on measurements, here in the U.S., both the printing and building industries happily and reliably use non-metric measurements, and are likely to do so for the forseeable future. In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a measurement by 10. Not even if one is printing something 10-up on a sheet does this ever arise. So much for the vaunted advantage of metric measure. Every single shop I've worked in over here, including one I owned, used inches and fractions of inches exclusively. The one concession that printers must make to the great Metric gods is that foreign presses (namely Heidelberg) require you to make settings in mm and cm; what most printers do at this point is simply convert the sheet size in inches to mm and input it. Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more opportunities to divide a length into equal parts which might conceivably be easier with metric measures, happily, easily and accurately use feet, inches and fractions of inches. Also not likely to change in the forseeable future. > You don't have to know whether a measurement is supposed to be expressed in > centimeters or in meters, because most people can easily divide or multiply > by hundred. I wonder how many people in US can converted between inches, > feet, yards and miles without resorting to tables of calculators? For the most part, we can't "converted" (sic) without use of a calculator. But again, the much-hyped ability to multiply or divide by tens just by moving a decimal point is, in most cases, not useful. > The same thing with the ISO paper series. You always know the name of the > size one bigger or smaller than the one you are currently using. > If you layout for A3, you can just proof on A4. Or print two A4s on an > A3 and put a staple in the middle. Well, we primitives over here have the same thing. For instance, two letter-size sheets (8-1/2 x 11") fit exactly on one tabloid sheet (11 x 17"). And remembering a small number of paper sizes doesn't tax one's brain too much. > Fortunately, the US did decide to go metric for the electricity > (Volt, Ampere, Watt). Well, that's because there's no alternative system for those quantities. Besides, I don't see what's particularly "metric" about any of those measures, apart from the use of decimal multiples and divisions (millivolt, kilowatt, etc.). SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > I can tell you that in at least two fields which rely heavily on > measurements, here in the U.S., both the printing and building industries > happily and reliably use non-metric measurements, and are likely to do so > for the forseeable future. Fortunately in certain places where these things matter (eg., pure science, high-tech, wafer fabrication, etc.) metric measurements are well established and accepted. It still strikes me as strange that when I fire up Indesign I have to deal with points, picas, em-dashes, and similar arcanery. Kinda like my digicam with its synthesized shutter noise -- a pacifier for folks wedded to "tradition." rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >Kinda like >my digicam with its synthesized shutter noise -- >a pacifier for folks wedded to "tradition." And rooted in ignorance ? == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation >where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a >measurement by 10. Not even if one is printing something 10-up on a >sheet does this ever arise. So much for the vaunted advantage of metric >measure. So, if you have a roll of paper, is the length listed in inches? (Is that called a web-press?) Are billboards sized in inches? >Every single shop I've worked in over here, including one I owned, used >inches and fractions of inches exclusively. How how do you deal with the weight of paper. Is that the weight per square inch. >Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more >opportunities to divide a length into equal parts which might >conceivably be easier with metric measures, happily, easily and >accurately use feet, inches and fractions of inches. Also not likely to >change in the forseeable future. And I guess they also buy their wood in inches? >> The same thing with the ISO paper series. You always know the name of the >> size one bigger or smaller than the one you are currently using. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >17"). And remembering a small number of paper sizes doesn't tax one's >brain too much. So what is one bigger than tabloid of one smaller than letter? >> Fortunately, the US did decide to go metric for the electricity >> (Volt, Ampere, Watt). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >measures, apart from the use of decimal multiples and divisions >(millivolt, kilowatt, etc.). Apart from the factor that a watt is one joule per second and a joule is one newton meter, and a newton is one kilogram meter per second squared. And the ampere is specified as two (infinite) parallel wires at a distance of one meter with a resulting force of 2e-7 N per meter wire. No, it has nothing to do with metric. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Philip Homburg spake thus: >>In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation >>where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So, if you have a roll of paper, is the length listed in inches? (Is that > called a web-press?) Yep, although we dispense with the hyphens; it's just a web press. (The paper is the web.) > Are billboards sized in inches? Yep. >>Every single shop I've worked in over here, including one I owned, used >>inches and fractions of inches exclusively. > > How how do you deal with the weight of paper. Is that the weight per > square inch. Now *that* is a mess under our system; every type of paper has what's called a "basis weight", which is the weight of 500 sheets (a ream) at the "basis size", which of course is different for every type of paper. So we have, for example, 50 lb. "offset" or text paper, which is (approx.) the same weight as 20 lb. bond. Go figure. But we still manage, and it really doesn't make that much difference. Why? Because you never have to do arithmetic with the weights; they're simply used to specify weights of paper, and everyone in the trade (designers & printers) knows what they are. (Unless, of course, you're a paper manufacturer or wholesaler and have to figure shipping costs or something.) >>Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more >>opportunities to divide a length into equal parts which might [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And I guess they also buy their wood in inches? Yep. 2x4s (nominally 2 x 4", actually 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" due to planing), and almost everything flat comes in 4x8' sheets. >>>The same thing with the ISO paper series. You always know the name of the >>>size one bigger or smaller than the one you are currently using. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So what is one bigger than tabloid of one smaller than letter? If I understand your question, that would be 17 x 22", long a standard size of paper. SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) >(Unless, of course, you're a >paper manufacturer or wholesaler and have to figure shipping costs or >something.) That's why metric works so well. It also works for the 'unless of course' cases. >>>Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more >>>opportunities to divide a length into equal parts which might [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Yep. 2x4s (nominally 2 x 4", actually 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" due to planing), >and almost everything flat comes in 4x8' sheets. So, they do have to constantly convert between inches and feet. That is why metric was invented. >> So what is one bigger than tabloid of one smaller than letter? > >If I understand your question, that would be 17 x 22", long a standard >size of paper. Ah, so you do have a perfectly rational series of paper based on factors of two, but instead of keeping a constant aspect ratio, you have to deal with a more complicated system. Thinking about, it looks like a missed opportunity to switch to a sqrt(2) aspect ratio in digital cameras. Sqrt(2) is sort of the average between 4/3 and 3/2, and you can print to ISO standard paper without cropping. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Philip Homburg spake thus: >>>>Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more >>>>opportunities to divide a length into equal parts which might [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So, they do have to constantly convert between inches and feet. > That is why metric was invented. You sound as if carpenters and cabinetmakers have subnormal intelligence and can't handle these sorts of simple calculations. Not true. They've managed to deal with this problem for centuries with little difficulty. Yours is a solution in search of a problem. SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) >You sound as if carpenters and cabinetmakers have subnormal intelligence >and can't handle these sorts of simple calculations. Not true. They've >managed to deal with this problem for centuries with little difficulty. And imagine how much better they would have done with a more precise and easier to use system of measurement ? The mind simply reels at the waste of time and effort spent supporting an antiquated system of measurements that was superceded by international agreement in 1875. 131 years later we're still using a system based on kernels of corn, the width of a finger or using 7000 Troy grains to define a pound. Hmmmm, a metric system based on the measurements of light and water is starting to sound pretty good isn't it ? == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net Philip Homburg spake thus: >>Well, we primitives over here have the same thing. For instance, two >>letter-size sheets (8-1/2 x 11") fit exactly on one tabloid sheet (11 x >>17"). And remembering a small number of paper sizes doesn't tax one's >>brain too much. > > So what is one bigger than tabloid of one smaller than letter? Forgot the smaller one: that would be "invoice", which is 5-1/2" x 8-1/2". SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Forgot the smaller one: that would be "invoice", which is 5-1/2" x 8-1/2". That gives me a chuckle. Everybody I know has always called it "math paper", because that was the size of the buff-coloured sheets of paper we were given in grade school on which to do math problems. >Apart from the factor that a watt is one joule per second and a >joule is one newton meter, and a newton is one kilogram meter per >second squared. And the ampere is specified as two (infinite) parallel wires >at a distance of one meter with a resulting force of 2e-7 N per meter wire. > >No, it has nothing to do with metric. LOL ! Yeah, nothin' at all ! == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >"More practical"? Not necessarily; that's a glib assumption, based on >the supposed ease of doing arithmetic in decimal units, that's not >always borne out in reality. You obviously never had to measure in 64's ! == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation >where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a >measurement by 10. Shoot ! What I'd give to see papers made in10X15,20X30 and 30X45 cm ! == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > Another strange thing is that money in the US is metric, whereas most > European countries had very long traditions with non-metric systems. I presume for "metric" you meant "decimal". Metric has nothing to do with the base, but more to do with the standardisation around the density of water, which seems reasinable enough, and the linking of most measurements to each other so that 1kg water = 1l water. Helpfully, the base-10 numbering system we use was chosen instead of vulgar fractions. Signatureinvalid = com >> Another strange thing is that money in the US is metric, whereas most >> European countries had very long traditions with non-metric systems. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >water = 1l water. Helpfully, the base-10 numbering system we use was >chosen instead of vulgar fractions. No metric has everything to do with the base. The whole idea is to get rid of all the weird factors in the inch/feet/yard/mile. Same story with weights. Even worse, it was common that there would be different units for the same quantity. In most countries, the power of internal combustion engines is expressed in bhp, and electrical power is expressed in watt. Fortunately, in countries that went metric a long time ago, that is just a rare exception. (The calorie is another) The fact that the mass of 1 l of water is about 1 kg is only moderately useful in practice. But it is important that the other units are derived from that in a rational manner, instead of coming up with things like a foot-pound of torque. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >Because in metric world the use of units is much more practical. I guess >that people in the US want to slow down daily life, because of some false >sense of tradition. Nope. It's the engineers and machinists that are slowing down the whole show. They would rather use what is loosely a base 8 system than a more natural and precise base 10 system. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > Nope. It's the engineers and machinists that are slowing down the > whole show. They would rather use what is loosely a base 8 system than > a more natural and precise base 10 system. I don't see any basis for saying that the US system of measures is "loosely a base 8" system, any more than it's a base 4 system or base 16 system. I can only agree that measures based on things like the size of kernel of corn (however one happens to define corn), the width of somebody's finger, etc is pretty arbitrary. OTOH, the distance from the equator to the pole seems like a pretty arbitrary way to define a meter. (or is that "urban" legend?) Anyway, while counting and dividing and multiplying things by 10 seems natural (unless, of course, you happen to be one of those people with a different number of "fingers" (in which definition we arbitrarily include thumbs, for some reason)), I would think that multiplying and dividing and ... yes ... counting by 2 is natural, too. Most people I know are reasonably adept at cutting a piece of paper (or wood) in half. I don't know many people, though, who are very successful at cutting a piece of paper (or wood) into 5 equal parts. While we're at it, what's with this thing with 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, and 24 hours o'clock? Why not divide the day into 10 hours of 10 minutes apiece, each 10 seconds long, etc? Oh, but then again, that's pretty arbitrary too ... Maybe we should divide the *year* into a hundred (or maybe 1000?) equal days. Oh, except our planet doesn't turn around 100 or 1000 times in the time it takes it to go around our star -- oh, dear, how *arbitrary* of the them not to behave in a metric fashion. This started out as a question about the size of paper used by photo labs in different parts of the world, or something like that, did it not? <O_o> > While we're at it, what's with this thing with 60 seconds per minute, > 60 minutes per hour, and 24 hours o'clock? > Why not divide the day into 10 hours of 10 minutes apiece, each 10 > seconds long, etc? The reason for 60 seconds per minute and 60 minutes per hour is that 60 is evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. The reason for 24 hours in a day is that 24 is evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12. > Chris Hills spake thus: >> So eventually the US might start using standard paper sizes that fit in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > consistent--and totally arbitrary, having nothing to do with real-world > historical proportions and dimensions. Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change? :-) -- Jeff R. QUICK: What's the next standard drill size down from 13/64" ? > Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the > change? I lived in England for some time through their conversion from the British monetary system to decimal. It was slightly painful, but it worked out. If the British can handle it, then anyone can... except the USA (for things other than the dollar), although the USA does label just about everything in Amerikan and also metric, there are no Amerikans who understand EITHER. They are just stupid. The only measure Amerikans understand is the gallon, as in a gallon of gasoline. Or wine. They keep to what's important to them. > I lived in England for some time through their conversion from the > British monetary system to decimal. It was slightly painful, but it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The only measure Amerikans understand is the gallon, as in a gallon of > gasoline. Or wine. They keep to what's important to them. :-) In fact at the moment there is talk of changing our road signs to decimal here in the UK. that'll kick up a stink for about 10 years so no giovernment wants to do it. Eventually all cars will have km/h speedos and everyone'll forget how far a mile is anyway. Perhaps they'll learn how much there is in a kg at the same time. Personally I don't give a sh.t whch system is used but was brought up on decimal and find multiplication by powers of ten easier - I defy anyone not to. I bemoan the difficulty dividing by three in decimal but that's another issue. Signatureinvalid = com > In fact at the moment there is talk of changing our road signs to > decimal here in the UK. that'll kick up a stink for about 10 years so > no giovernment wants to do it. Eventually all cars will have km/h > speedos and everyone'll forget how far a mile is anyway. At least your government hasn't proposed that you all drive on the other side of the road. I was in England when Sweden (methinks) switched over like that. They dropped the national speed limit to something like 20kph for the transition. >> In fact at the moment there is talk of changing our road signs to >> decimal here in the UK. that'll kick up a stink for about 10 years so >> no giovernment wants to do it. Eventually all cars will have km/h >> speedos and everyone'll forget how far a mile is anyway. The nice thing about killometer is that it sounds so much grawnder than "mile", having four times as many syllables and all. Now if the EU's (or is that ewes) could just come up with a *ten*-syllable word that meant the same thing, that would be even better. In the meantime, we can condole ourselves with the fact that it's so much easier to write poetry in the metric system -- all the sizes and distances end in meter and rhyme with Peter, and all the weights end in gram and rhyme with d--n. However, the picture (remember pictures, and photography, and stuff?) of automobiles wearing metric bathing suits boggles my mind. >The only measure Amerikans understand is the gallon, as in a gallon of >gasoline. Or wine. They keep to what's important to them. In the US, wine now comes in liters and 750ml volumes. We still have a "fifth" of whiskey, but it's normally rounded off to the nearest 50ml increment. The growth of the drug culture, however, has done more to familiarize the younger generation with metric measurements than anything else. Alcohol and illicit drugs are probably the two most familiar things the average American sees in metric measurements. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > The growth of the drug culture, however, has done more to familiarize > the younger generation with metric measurements than anything else. Well, subtrefuge is a good thing, eh? Enlighten the b*st*ards. >Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change? We tried that in 1976. The problem is we keep getting new young fogies. --scott From my standpoint, I'm happy with English or Metric, just as long as folks make up their MIND about it. I have too much equipment with BOTH English and metric parts.... Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > From my standpoint, I'm happy with English or Metric, just as long as folks > make up their MIND about it. I have too much equipment with BOTH English > and metric parts.... Get used to it. Actually, don't. Eventually, all those English (well, Amurricane) units will disappear from your equipment, to be replaced by everything written in *six* languages, as they do in the civilized parts of the world. > Eventually, all those English (well, Amurricane) units will disappear > from your equipment, > to be replaced by everything written in *six* languages, > as they do in the civilized parts of the world. Funny, but when manufacturers here were told they had to have directions/content lists in two languages, one English, they chose French. There is a political message there. > Funny, but when manufacturers here were told they had to have > directions/content lists in two languages, one English, they chose French. > There is a political message there. Since you did not specify where "here" is, I'll assume that you were speaking about the U.S. The reason for choosing French as a second language is that a large portion of the Canadian population speaks French. Most of them speak English too, but they would be more inclined to buy something with French on it too. Based on my perception of the current politcal climate in the U.S., far more inclined than your average U.S. shopper would be if it were English and Spanish. You could also note that French was the language of international commerce for several hundered years. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> Funny, but when manufacturers here were told they had to have >> directions/content lists in two languages, one English, they chose [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > language is that a large portion of the Canadian population speaks > French. Nope. That's not the case. It is political. When told that they had to have a second language, they chose something other than Spanish/Mexican. It's a Big Deal here, this second language political thing. FWIW, the largest part of family is Canuck; they all speak English. No need for French with commerce. (My greatest grandfather was on Champlain's ship, stayed in Canada (now Quebec), married a pan-american and here we are today.) > Nope. That's not the case. It is political. When told that they had to have > a second language, they chose something other than Spanish/Mexican. It's a > Big Deal here, this second language political thing. It's certainly a big deal in the US (too?). Given my ancestry, I too would prefer French if we had to have a second language. However, noboody's asking me. If things are labeled in exactly two languages around here, it's English and Spanish (or English and Portuguese). But, in my rather narrow experience outside the US, labeling everything in *six* languages is the rule -- English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, and ???. (I forget now.) > FWIW, the largest part of family is Canuck; they all speak English. No need > for French with commerce. (My greatest grandfather was on Champlain's ship, > stayed in Canada (now Quebec), married a pan-american and here we are > today.) Yawell. My father came to the US straight from Paris in 1918. Was France using metric at that point? Bet they were -- they even tried a decimal *week* at one point. Anyway, in all my life, I never *once* heard him bemoan the use of non-metric measures. Also, he had no use for bilingualism. He spoke French with his sisters, and over the phone with a friend in France, but that was it. >> Eventually, all those English (well, Amurricane) units will disappear >> from your equipment, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > directions/content lists in two languages, one English, they chose French. > There is a political message there. Probably. Why were mfrs told to use English at all? And why only two languages, when there are so many others? And what was the political message in choosing French over, say, Italian or German? >Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change? > >:-) That is what's happening but unfortunately there was a tremendous number of "boomers" born into "tradition" in the 50's. They resisted change in the 70's when America made a significant effort to get standardized on both decimal and metric standards. Fortunately many are now retiring and their tools are wearing down and being replaced with digital equipment which makes the conversion process simpler. Eventually America will migrate completely to the metric system however it will probably take another 60 years. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >>Why not just wait 'til all the old fogies die out - THEN make the change? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Eventually America will migrate completely to the metric system >however it will probably take another 60 years. Ah yes, it's been a while since you had a good anti-boomer rant, John. We surely are the root of all evil. I for one have every intention of stealing as much as I can of your inheritance. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >Ah yes, it's been a while since you had a good >anti-boomer rant, John. We surely are the root >of all evil. I for one have every intention of >stealing as much as I can of your inheritance. Don't worry. Dubya's doin' it for ya ! == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >Ah yes, it's been a while since you had a good >anti-boomer rant, John. We surely are the root >of all evil. I for one have every intention of >stealing as much as I can of your inheritance. And I might be wrong but aren't you more than a little untraditional ? == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >>Ah yes, it's been a while since you had a good >>anti-boomer rant, John. We surely are the root >>of all evil. I for one have every intention of >>stealing as much as I can of your inheritance. > > And I might be wrong but aren't you more than a little untraditional ? I might take that as a compliment but I doubt you meant it as such. What exactly do you mean by that, anyway? And yes, I'm sure you're right -- Dubya will surely get his cut (of your inheritance) long before I do. I plan to squander mine on digital gear. The plan is already well underway. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> And I might be wrong but aren't you more than a little untraditional ? > >I might take that as a compliment but I doubt you >meant it as such. What exactly do you mean by >that, anyway? LOL ! Please take it as a compliment as it was meant as such. I look around me at the "traditionalists" and my mind simply reels in disbelief. I'm surrounded by Bush-hogs who are simply the most stubborn and pathetic bunch I have ever had to contend with. >And yes, I'm sure you're right -- Dubya will surely >get his cut (of your inheritance) long before I do. As will every politico on "The Hill" along with the warmongers and contractors like Haliburton. >I plan to squander mine on digital gear. The plan >is already well underway. Ouch ! Well I'm still saving up for a Canham. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > That is what's happening but unfortunately there was a tremendous > number of "boomers" born into "tradition" in the 50's. They resisted > change in the 70's when America made a significant effort to get > standardized on both decimal and metric standards. Yup. Tis true. But I am older than the boomers and ain't one of them. Now what IS strange is the fraction system is in accord with the metrics (forgive me) of the Ancient Greeks, but Amerikans know nothing of that whole thang. So, let's Go Metric! Hey, that's got musical potential. Country Joe and the Fish? Give me an M! Give me an E.... > QUICK: What's the next standard drill size down from 13/64" ? The next one down the line in my box of drill bits. >> QUICK: What's the next standard drill size down from 13/64" ? > > The next one down the line in my box of drill bits. Do you mean the next actual drill bit, or the next empty hole where there's _supposed_ to be a drill bit?! (Where the hell is that 3/16" bit?!) BTW, in a 1/64" bit set (which I assume because the question asks the next size expressed as X/64"), the next size down from 13/64" would be 12/64". However, we do the math, and find that 12/64" equals 6/32" which equals 3/16". Now where the hell is that chuck key?! >>> QUICK: What's the next standard drill size down from 13/64" ? >> The next one down the line in my box of drill bits. > > Do you mean the next actual drill bit, or the next empty hole where there's > _supposed_ to be a drill bit?! (Where the hell is that 3/16" bit?!) Er, no, where bit is supposed to be. Some people put there bits back in the organizer. OTOH, there are plenty of people who don't need organizers, and would just say "Oh, the next size smaller? It's under the red rag, next to the 11/16" box-open-end wrench." > BTW, in a 1/64" bit set (which I assume because the question asks the next > size expressed as X/64"), the next size down from 13/64" would be 12/64". > However, we do the math, and find that 12/64" equals 6/32" which equals > 3/16". Well, *some* of us do the math. I'm one of those that has to, because I don't use those tools often enough these days. But when I did (when I worked on my own car (an original Beetle)), I just *knew* what wrench was smaller or larger and would fit. Interestingly, my relatively small collection of "English" wrenches would fit not only the "English" (well, they *were* English, then) nuts and bolts but the metric ones as well -- but very few of the metric wrenches were good for anything but the exact size they were. > Now where the hell is that chuck key?! On it's tether to the drill cord! :-) > Now where the hell is that chuck key?! In love. Sorry, bad joke. (Apologies to Rickie Lee Jones). rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> QUICK: What's the next standard drill size down from 13/64" ? > > The next one down the line in my box of drill bits. Only if you have a complete lettered and numbered set. >>> QUICK: What's the next standard drill size down from 13/64" ? >> The next one down the line in my box of drill bits. > > Only if you have a complete lettered and numbered set. Well, that's one way to do it. Or have a complete set and just be awake when using it. It's not rocket science. It requires a miniscule portion of my brain to keep track of these things. If I *need* to figure it out, say for a pop quiz, I can figure it out, because I learned how to multiply and divide by two in 3rd and 4th grade, and learned how to add and subtract in 1st and 2nd grade. >And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we >(the U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon >our venerable measurement system in favor of the metric system? (Don't >know if you're aware of it, but there's *trememdous* oppostion to >metrificiation both here in the U.S. and abroad.) As someone who considered being a machinist, I can think of a huge number of instances where the metric system is vastly superior. For starters is't a base 10 system. How many fingers do you have ? It's natural to use a base 10 system of measurements. Now it might have been quite different if we were all born with 5 fingers + 1 thumb ;>) But just think of the implications of using a base 10 system of centimeters/decimeters/meters and milliters/decaliters/liters versus inches/feet/yards and ounces/pints/quarts/gallons. It's much the same as using the precision of decimal versus fractions. It's still my opinion that this was one of the major factors that helped Japan production quality outstrip American engineering in the late 50's ~ 70's. Have you ever worked on cars built in those years ? Man did they have quality issues ! In short the metric system is far more precise and natural than using any other common set of measurements. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >>And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we >>(the U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >In short the metric system is far more precise and natural than using >any other common set of measurements. Actually the reasoned justification is irrelevant. As the metric system and in particular the paper sizes are in use world wide (including in parts of the USA) why use a different and dying set of systems. If you look at the comments and references in this discussion you will find that even in the USA the metric system and ISO paper sizes are in use. It is just that it is not in wide spread use as it is in every other country in the world. The world has standardised we just need the last few people in the US to get with reality. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > >And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we > >(the U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > In short the metric system is far more precise and natural than using > any other common set of measurements. I would say it's more precise, but not more natural. Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of simply noting I'm 6 feet even seems rather clumsy.. In any case, I function perfectly well with both systems (because I choose to...) and would always resist any "one size fits all" system being forced onto us citizens by any government. >I would say it's more precise, but not more natural. >Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of >simply noting I'm 6 feet even seems rather clumsy.. The issue you illustrate has nothing to do with English vs. metric units. It has to do with significant digits. You're conflating issues. If you're going to limit the English-unit value to 1 digit, there's no rationale for using 11 digits on the metric value. There are conversions you do in a hurry, and others you do when lives depend on the numbers. There's no law about what units to use for casual use. There may -- and should be -- laws regarding units for commercial use or in civil engineering, aviation, medicine, etc. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com snip... >I would say it's more precise, but not more natural. >Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of >simply noting I'm 6 feet even seems rather clumsy.. So, you are exactly 6 feet, 1/54.239581" high. Wow, how did measure that? If it wasn't so sad, it would funny how many people don't understand significant digits, and make a fool of themselves by holding that against the metric system. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>I would say it's more precise, but not more natural. >>Listing my height as 1.8292682927 meters instead of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >significant digits, and make a fool of themselves by holding that against >the metric system. Exactly... I am 6 feet or 1.8 metres either is just as accurate. It is irrelevant as the whole world is metric apart from *some parts* of the USA. To come back to the original questions on paper the whole world uses A4 etc including the parts of the US that need to work internationally. It is only time before the fits in with the rest of the world. BTW I did hear that just after the US announced that it was building a Communist-Berlin style Iron Curtain wall between the US and Mexico the Canadians started surveying for a wall on their southern border too. :-) Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\ |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message