next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Dear All, Jan 31, 2014
The Feb. issue of National Geographic has an article on the brain which
nicely illustrates a common convention for expressing magnification in terms
of area as opposed to length (foldout after page 43; magnification by 100
decreases length to 1/10).
But when something is represented at say 1/3 natural size the linear
dimensions are decreased to 1/3 of natural.
Does anyone know the background of the convention for expressing
magnification in terms of area ? Does this convention apply only to objects
viewed through some optical instrument; mike, telescope, binoc.?
Is it perhaps because, for equal image brightness, light
intensity/capture/sensitivity must be increased to the same extent as does
magnification expressed on an area basis ?
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
.
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects