Difference between revisions of "Talk:Argus C44"
m (edit GoogBooks link to more illuminating format) |
m (spacing) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I believe the computer used in calculating ray-traces for the 50mm f/2.8 Cintagon was the MIDAC at the University of Michigan's (offsite) Willow Run Research Center. The input method of that computer was actually punched tape, not punch-cards. I have a few references: page 6-7 [http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD694618 here] and page 5-6 [http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD694613 here]. There appears to be a [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michigan+Digital+Automatic+Computer%22+Cintagon&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 mention] of this in a 1956 Popular Photography (Vol. 39) article. I will update the article once I learn more. --[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 16:01, 10 March 2012 (PST) | I believe the computer used in calculating ray-traces for the 50mm f/2.8 Cintagon was the MIDAC at the University of Michigan's (offsite) Willow Run Research Center. The input method of that computer was actually punched tape, not punch-cards. I have a few references: page 6-7 [http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD694618 here] and page 5-6 [http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD694613 here]. There appears to be a [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michigan+Digital+Automatic+Computer%22+Cintagon&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 mention] of this in a 1956 Popular Photography (Vol. 39) article. I will update the article once I learn more. --[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 16:01, 10 March 2012 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Thanks to Henry Gambino, we have the reference—footnote now added. --[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 09:40, 13 March 2012 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:41, 13 March 2012
I believe the computer used in calculating ray-traces for the 50mm f/2.8 Cintagon was the MIDAC at the University of Michigan's (offsite) Willow Run Research Center. The input method of that computer was actually punched tape, not punch-cards. I have a few references: page 6-7 here and page 5-6 here. There appears to be a mention of this in a 1956 Popular Photography (Vol. 39) article. I will update the article once I learn more. --Vox 16:01, 10 March 2012 (PST)
- Thanks to Henry Gambino, we have the reference—footnote now added. --Vox 09:40, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
