>> FOVET(35,APS)? > My hat's off, Doug... May I suggest we shorten it to FOV(35,APS). I am > going to use that notation. It rules :-).
That looks pretty good to me, Boris (and Doug) - it's short, it includes the pertinent info, and it looks like a programming function - <g>. Perhaps I might suggest FOVE(35,APS) instead. This includes the "equivalence" aspect (since it's not just the FOV, but the "apparent equivalent FOV" that is involved), and it reminds me of the "fovea" of the eyeball - <g>. Fred
