'b
}

HI

HINIIWHI‘

W

1
1

NH

I
l

00
#N

 

UTHS

PHENGMENAL DISTANCE EN PHOTOGRAPHS
AS A FUNCTION OF TAKING

LENS FOCAL LENGTH

‘i‘kem fior' Hm Degrac of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Thomas K. Eliiott
1963

.‘m‘

   

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University '

    
   

ABSTRACT
PHENOMENAL DISTANCE IN PHOTOGRAPHS AS A
FUNCTION OF TAKING LENS FOCAL LENGTH
by Thomas K. Elliott

Phenomenal distance, as opposed to metric distance,
may be defined as the apparent or perceived distance
between an observer and some object which he observes.
Previous studies have demonstrated that phenomenal
distance in photographs perceived as three dimensional
scenes is a function of several variables; among them,
metric distance, photograph size, horizontal asymmetry,
and higher order meanings. This study investigated the
effect of the focal length of lenses used to produce
photographic targets.

Twenty observers who met a visual acquity
criterion of 20/20 positioned three large photographic
targets so that the person appeared to be as far from
the observer in the large target as in the small station-
ary target of which there were also three. The person
in the scene depicted by the target was in the center
midground and faced the camera. In all large targets
and in all small targets the person's metric size was
fixed. The effect of lens focal length on the targets

was evident in the variation of the size of other objects

Thomas K. Elliott

in the pictures (trees, buildings, etc.) with variation
of lens focal length. 35 mm., 50 mm., and 135 mm.
Schneider lenses were used with a 35 mm. frame single

lens reflex camera.

The results of the study failed to show a
statistically significant relationship between lens

focal length and phenomenal distance.

Several suggestions for further research were

discussed.

Approved by: S/LSBAQILY

Date: 6,“. a. In;

PHENOMENAL DISTANCE IN PHOTOGRAPHS AS A
FUNCTION OF TAKING LENS FOCAL LENGTH

By

Thomas K3 Elliott

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1963

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere appreciation for
the inspiration and assistance offered throughout this
research by Dr. S. Howard Bartley. I wish, also, to
thank Dr. M. Ray Denny and Dr. Theodore Forbes for

reading and criticizing the manuscript.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Observers. . . . . . . . . . . . .

O\O\O\l—'

Apparatus. . . . .
Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IV. SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2O
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

iii

Table

II.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Obtained Group Mean Distances for Group I
on Each Value of the Independent Variable
for Each Scene and for Both Scenes. . . . . . . . 14
Obtained Group Mean Distances for Group II
on Each Value of the Independent Variable
for Each Scene and for Both Scenes. . . . . . . . 17

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Sample Target Scenes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Picture of the Appartus Showing Blank Targets . . ll

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

It is well known that objects located the same distance
from an observer may appear to him to be at different
distances. The reverse of this may also be true. Phen-
omenal distance, as Opposed to metric distance, then,
may be defined as the apparent or perceived distance be-
tween an observer and some object which he observes.

A great deal of work has been done in an attempt
to isolate and qualify the variables associated with
phenomenal distance and it will be useful to examine some
of what has been done to date.

In several studies ( 4, 12, 16, 3) it was shown that

metric viewing distance is related to phenomenal distance.

 

This would, of course, be predicted from the geometry

of the situation, but it appears that the geometry fails
to account completely for the research results. Bartley
and Adair, (4) Bartley and Thompson, (6) and Bartley (3 )
working with photographic targets have demonstrated that
the visual angle subtended by an object in a photograph
is not the sole determiner of the phenomenal distance of
that object from an observer. When a subject is asked
to make a distance judgement by comparing an item with a
standard, "metrically enlarging the comparison item

1

reduces its phenominal distance much faster than would be
expected from the angular subtense involved." Bartley

and Adair (A) report "a certain narrow range of percent-
ages (mostly 76-88%) of what would be expected according
to the law of visual angle.” In another study, Bartley
(3) found phenomenal distances to be roughly 200% of those
expected from the visual angles involved.

Gaffron's suggestion that the laws of composition
in pictures might be based upon differences in perception
of their right and left portions has led to a number of
studies the results of which indicate that horizontal

assymetry in photographs has broad effects on phenomenal

 

distance. Adair and Bartley, (l) and Bartley and
Thompson (6) showed that objects on the left side of a
photograph are seen nearer than when the same objects
appear on the right. And, there is evidence supporting
the position that, up to‘a point, the greater the
horizontal assymetry the greater the effect upon phen-
omenal distance.

The statements in the preceding paragraph apply
primarily to foreground and middleground items. In a
study of the effects of background items Bartley and
DeHardt (5) showed they are not necessarily seen as nearer
when they appear on the left than when they appear on the
right. However, Ranny (11) has shown that horizontal

imbalance of large background items has an effect on the

phenomenal distance of smaller midground items. Further,
this effect would seem to be prOportional to the position
and relative sizes of the midground and "irrelevant"
background objects.

Smith (13) and Bartley and Adair (A) in different

experimental situations have observed what they call

 

"distance constancy," i. e., relative to photographs, the
distance of objects in the print increases with print
siz§_and metric viewing distance.
Most of the studies mentioned to this point have
used monocularly viewed photographs rather than real
three-dimensional scenes as targets, and one might reason-
ably ask what effects the optical system used in making
these photographs could be expected to have upon the
phenomenal distance of objects in the scenes. The criti-
cal difference among photographic objective lens systems of
comparable good quality is focal length. More Specifically,
then, one might ask what is the effect on the geometry
of the visual field of a change in lens focal length.
As focal length increases, frame size remaining
constant, several things happen:
'1, The relative lateral displacement of objects from
the center of the picture increases.
2, The field of view angle decreases.
3, The depth dimension along the line of regard is

shortened. All of these effects are the result of Optical

4

magnification and so will be observed to occur in the enlarge—
ment of photographs. The point is this, in photographs of the
same scene taken with objective lenses of different focal
lengths the sizes of background objects and their locations
relative to midground and foreground objects may be
shown to vary as a function of the difference in the focal
lengths of the lenses. Since the size and displacement
of background objects have been shOwn to have an effect
on the phenomenal distance Of other objects in the picture,
one can argue that the Optical system employed in making
photographic targets to be used in research of this
nature should be much more explicitly defined than has
been common practice.

The primary purpose of this experiment is to
Observe the effects of variation in focal length on
phenomenal distance.’ It is predicted that as focal length
increases, and the absolute size of the critical object
remains constant, phenomenal distance will increase as
a result of the relative increase in size of background
objects as the visual field is shortened (due to magnifi-
cation) along the 1ine of regard.

In preparing to test this hypotheseis, a study of
the geometry of the visual field brought a rather interest-
ing fact to light. There should be only one viewing
distance which will produce the correct perspective
relationships in a photograph. That distance is the
focal length Of the Optical system used in making the

 

 

"IL. 1"

'9'

—L—— :-

 

I‘lfl 'l' I

 

negative multiplied by the number if diameters of
enlargement employed in making the print.(10)

The effect of departure from the theoretically
correct viewing distance is readily Observed as the
extremes. For example, a close-up photograph of a prone
figure taken from the feet with a relatively short
focus lens shows these appendages to be much too large
for the remainder of the figure. In order for the
perspective relationships to be correct here the picture
would have to be enlarged beyond reasonable prOportions
or the viewing distance reduced beyond the capability of
the eye to accomodate without special lenses. However,
if these lenses could be provided, the perSpective would
appear "realistic."

The Specific hypotheses to be tested in this
study, then, are:

.1. As focal length increases the phenomenal
distance of the critical object increases if
the size Of the Object remains constant.

2. When the theoretically correct viewing distance
is provided, phenomenal distance will
approximate metric prediction from the law Of

visual angle.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Observers

 

Subjects were University student volunteers, all
of whom met an acuity criterion of 20/20 corrected in
the right eye. Subjects were not checked for eye
dominance. (See Thompson, 1959). Group one was composed
of ten men; group two, of five men and five women. None
Of the subjects had knowledge of the purposes of the

experiment.

Apparatus

 

The targets furnishing the stimuli were photographs
of two outdoor scenes. Scene"Afl showed a woman in a
long coat, exactly centered in the picture, standing on
the edge of a road which was parallel to the line of
sight, formed the major part of the foreground, and
disappeared in the background. The other Objects in
the picture (trees, houses, etc) were behind the figure.

Scene'fiy' was essentially the same, but the figure
stood on the Opposite side of the road and the road was
lined with forest from foreground to background. (See

Figure l).

 

Scene A 135M.

Scene A. 50mm.

.m

 

 

 

 

 

 

as"

 

Q0...
'0‘

253’.

2.1:}...

 

Scene B 135m.

B 50mm.

Scene

Scene A and Scene B taken with 5mm. and 135mm. leneee.

Fig. 1.

The negatives were made on Kodak Panatomic-X
film with a Retina Reflex S and the following Schneider-
Kreutznach lenses: f/h, 135 mm; f/2.8, 50 mm.; and f/2.8
35 mm. One frame was made of each scene with each lens
making six frames in all. The camera, mounted on a
tripod, was at a height of five feet above the ground.
The figure was made to exactly fill vertically the ring
etched on viewfinder center. This occured at a figure to
lens-face distance Of 144.5 feet in the case of the
135 mm lens; 54.5 feet for the 50 mm lens; and 40 feet
for the 35 mm lens.

Eight by ten inch enlargements without cropping
were made on matte paper of each frame and the figure
measured to be certain that it was exactly centered and
the same size in all cases. Several attempts were made
before these conditions were met. The photographs thus
obtained were used with both groups of Observers and
Were referred to as the large or moveable targets.

For group'UV' a 2X enlargement on matte paper was
made Of the 135 mm and 50 mm frames of each scene. The
former for reasons mentioned in the previous section and
the latter because it represents a considerable departure,
as reguards perspective, from 135 mm, and, because it is
the lens which most nearly approximates the visual field of

the human eye.

The same series Of prints was used with group II,
but the enlargement in this case was 3X. The 2X and
3X enlargements were referred to as the small or stationary
targets.

All pictures had a standard 1/4 inch white border
and were mounted on identical flat black painted plywood
holders.

The apparatus was composed in part of a track 280
inches long calibrated in one inch intervals along
which the large moveable targets could be moved through
a distance Of 21 to 276 inches from the eye by turning
a crank on the left side.

The viewing end of the track was supplied with a
viewing stand having a nose slot and chin rest. The
small targets were placed on the right side of the stand
at a distance from the viewer's eye (measured with a
standard bar interposed between the eye and the target)
Of 270 mm in the case of group I, and 4-5 mm in the
case of group II. These distances represent the focal
length Of the lens, in this case, 135 mm times the
diameters of enlargement, two and three, reSpectively.

Both targets could be seen simultaneously and on
the same level. A large flat-black screen was positioned
at the end Of the track Opposite the viewer in order to
provide a more or less neutral and homogeneous viewing
background. The experimental room was uniformly illum-

inated by fluorescent lights with diffusion grates.

10

Figure 2 shows the apparatus provided with blank
targets in the setting in which the experiment took

place.

-Procedure

 

Each observer was given a black eye-patch and
asked to place it over his left eye. He was then comfor-
tably seated at the apparatus and given the following
instructions:

This is an experiment in distance perception.
Your task will be to position the large picture
using the crank at your left (crank pointed out)
so that the figure in the large picture (figure
pointed out) appears to be as far from you as
the figure in the small picture appears to be.
Is this clear? You will be asked to perform this
task with several sets of pictures. There is
no hurry. You may rest whenever you wish. At
the conclusion of the session I will try to
answer any questions you may have concerning
the experiment or your performance.

Now, I will give you six practice trials
to familiarize you with the task, then I will
begin to record your reSponses.

If 9_had questions about what he was to do,
pertinent parts of the instructions were repeated; how-
ever, this was seldom necessary.

The pairs of targets were presented to each subject
in a different random order. Six responses were recorded
for each target pair, three with the large target initially
near 9, and three far. Every large target was paired
with every small target. .9 then, made a total of 72
judgments, exclusive of practice trials. The time required

for this varied from 40 to 90 minutes, approximately.

ll

.fiouua» :53 5c. Sausage 2:. .m .3;

can. 1 . .In\uie3!
q .

Q.‘

(I. .m makers...

 

12

E recorded the judgments on a data sheet after each
trial and repositioned the target. He varied the position
of the target and his own position relative to the
apparatus so as not to provide any constant position
referent.

The measure of phenominal distance was in inches

from the eye of Q'to the large target.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows the Observed group mean distance in
inches for group I on each condition of the independant
variable for each scene and for both scenes.

Either because of the small visual angles involved
or because of the rather close placement of the small
stationary target, there was a great deal of variation
in the distance of the large moveable target for 9’s
in group I. Many st stated that the task was very diffi-
cult and indicated displeasure with their performance.

Qfs Often required several minutes to make a single
placement and remained dissatisfied with it after it was
made.

It was finally decided to make the task easier for
group II by increasing both the print size and the viewing
distance for the small stationary print. The visual angle
subtended by the critical Object was thus increased from
2°6.l' to 2°13.5' and the viewing distance from 10.63
inches (270 mm) to 15.94 inches (405 mm). The same
relationship between focal length and viewing distance was
maintained for group II as for group I, i. e., the viewing
distance was equal to the focal length of the taking lens
times the number of diameters of enlargement employed in
the print.

13

14

TABLE 1

OBSERVED GROUP MEAN DISTANCE IN INCHES
FOR GROUP I ON EACH CONDITION OF
THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FOR EACH

SCENE AND FOR BOTH SCENES

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scene 135L 135$ 50L 35L
A 112.9 107.1 102.6
E 99.2 92.7 88.6
M_ 106.0 99.9 .95.5
Scene 135L 508 50L 35L
A 96.1 98.8 100.7
B 102.5 106.8 101.5
g 99.3 102.8 101.1
A 13 103.0 1353 y; 98.4
B‘M_ 96.4 503 M_ 101.1
Group I‘M_ 99.7

 

15

The primary reason for thus altering the task per-
formed by 9_was to reduce the amount of time he Spent
in making his placements, and thus, the amount of time
during which extraneous features of the situation acted
upon him. The amount of time was, in fact, considerably
reduced as was variability in placement distance for
single_g's on single conditions.

The results for group II are shown in Table 2.

A simple analysis of variance was performed on the
data obtained from each group to test the significance of
the differences between the means for the six experimental
conditions. The differences were small, unsystematic,
and far from statistical significance at the 10% level of
confidence. In addition, a "t" test was performed on
the differences between the means for scene A and scene
B, for each group. These differences, too, were not
significant at the 10% level of confidence.

Since neither significant F's for the experimental
conditions nor t's for the scenes could be obtained,
conclusions based on selected mean differences would be
unwarranted. We must, therefore, conclude that the
results of this study fail to show that:

As focal length increases, the phenomenal distance

of the critical Object increases if the metric size

of the object remains constant.

 

16

TABLE 2

OBSERVED GROUP MEAN DISTANCE IN INCHES
FOR GROUP II ON EACH CONDITION OF THE
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FOR EACH SCENE

AND FOR BOTH SCENES

—_ W

 

 

 

 

Scene 135L 134s 50L 35L.
A 65.4 66.3 61.3
B 65.1 62.6 67.3
M. 65.2 64.4 64.3
Scene 135L 508 50L 35L
A 65.3 65.4 66.2
B 67.5 64.2 66.9
m_ 661+ 64.8 66.5
A M. 65.0 1353 M 64.6
B‘M. 65.6 508 m 65.9

Group II.M

65.2

 

1

17

The second hypothesis to be tested by this study
was:

When the theoretically correct viewing distance is

provided, phenomenal distance will approximate the

prediction from the law of visual angle.

 

The law of visual angle predicted a distance of 38.8
inches for the apprOpriate conditions in the case of group
I and 39.4 inches in the case of group II. The Observed
phenomenal distances were 106.0 inches and 65.2 inches
reSpectively. Again, we are forced to conclude that the
results of the study do not support the hypothesis
tested.

The fact that no statistically significant
differences between the means of experimental conditions
were found is significant at least two points. The first
is that we may now place more confidence in the relevance
of the results of studies, the photographic targets of
which were made with different lenses, to each other.

It might still be shown, however, that the effect we
were not able to demonstrate in this study is Observed
when extremely long or extremely short focal length
lenses are used or when very short camera to critical
object distances are employed. The Obvious perSpective
distortion resulting when these conditions obtain

would seem to justify further research on this question.

18

The second point of significance is that, though the
observers did not demonstrate them to be important, there
are clear differences between the photographs made with
different lenses. Metrically, the only thing which is
constant from one picture to the next is the size of the
critical item. Although it is clear that the law of
visual angle does not account for the data, the size of
the critical item seems to be the most important determiner
of phenemonenal distance.

Ranney (11) suggested varying the size of an irrele-
vant background object to test the hypothesis that
phenomenal distance is a function of the relative sizes
of the critical item and the irrelevant background item.
It will be Observed that the tree of the right of the
person (critical item) in scene A is approximately two
thirds the size of the person in the photograph made
with the 50 mm lens while it is roughly twice the size of
the person in the photograph made with the 135 mm lens.

It is also somewhat further away in the latter case due

to angular magnification. The results of the present
study fail to support the previously mentioned hypothesis,
but it is noteworthy that both the critical and irrelevant
item appear at or near the center of the target and that
the distance between them is not constant from picture to

picture. It is also true that the selection of the person

19

for the citical item is probably a poor one for the testing
of this hypothesis since the observations may be affected
by size constancy.

Two related features of photographic targets remain
to be examined: color and contrast. Color is related to
contrast by the selective reSponse of even the best
panchromatic films to different parts of the spectrum.

In this study every-effort was made to control contrast
in the targets by selecting a group of prints whose
contrast was about the same.

This study as several others (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11,
l4, 17) is predicted on the assumption that monocularly
viewed photographs are experienced as three dimensional
scenes. However, it does not follow that observers
experience monocularly viewed photographs in exactly the
same way that they would monocularly viewed actual scenes.
One would predict that as contrast in photographic targets
was diminished the phenomenal distance of the critical
item would increase. The conditions for aerial perSpective
are simulated. Decreasing contrast would also tend to
degrade the textural gradient. A test of this hypothesis
would be very useful since it is quite difficult to control
contrast in a series of prints.

In conclusion, the results of the present study fail
to show that taking-lens focal length is related to the
phenomenal distance of Objects in monocularly viewed photo-

_graphic targets.

 

SUMMARY

This study examined the effect of photographic
lens focal length on the phenominal distance of a person
in a scene photographed with three different lenses, 35 mm.,
50 mm., and 135 mm., on the same camera.

Twenty observers positioned three variable photo-
graphic targets so that the person in the picture appeared
to be as far from g in the large target as in the small
stationary target, of which there were also three. The
person in the scene was in the center midground and
faced the camera. In all large targets and in all small
targets the person was the same size. The effect of lens
focal length on the targets was evident in the variable
size of background objects (trees, buildings, etc.).

The results of the study failed to show a statis—
tically significant relationship between lens focal length
and phenominal distance.

Suggestions for further research were discussed.

20

10.

REFERENCES

Adair, H. J. and Bartley, S. H. Nearness~as~a Function
of Lateral Orientation in Pictures. Percept. and
Mot. Skills, 1958, 8, 135-141.

 

 

Bartley, S. H. Principles of Perceptions. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1958, 181—187.

 

Bartley S. H. Some Comparisons Between Print Size,
Object Position, and Object Size in Producing
Phenomenal Distance. J.Of Psychology. 1959,
fig: 347-351 .

Bartley, S. H. and Adair, H. J. Comparison of Phenomenal
Distance in Photographs of Various Sizes. J,
of Psychol., 1959, 41, 289-295-

 

Bartley, S. H and DeHardt, D. C. A Further Factor
in Determining Nearness as a Function of Lateral
Orientation in Pictures. J. of Psychol., 1960,

.29. 53-57.

Bartley, S. H. and Thompson, R. W. A Further Study
of Horizontal Assymetry in Perception of Pictures.
Percept. and Mot. Skills, 1959,_9, 135-138.

 

Dusek, E. R., Teichner, W. H., and Kobrick, J. L.,
The Effects of the Angular Relationship Between
the Observer and the Base—Surround on Relative
Depth Discrimination. Amer. J. of Psychol.,
1955: @1 438-443 .

Gogel, W. C. Perception of the Relative Distance
Position of Objects as a Function of Other Objects
in the Field of View. J. of Exp. Psychol.,

1954. 31; 335-342.

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology
and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill BOok
Company, Inc., 1956.

. _(

 

Hardy, A. C. and Perrin, F. H. The Principles Of Optics.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1932, 465-469.

21

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

22

Ranney, Jane Ellen. A Further Study of Determinants
of Phenomenal Distance in Plane Targets Perceived
as Three Dimensional Scenes. Unpublished Thesis,
Michigan State University, 1962.

Smith, 0. W. Comparison of Apparent Depth in a
Photograph Viewed from Two Distances. Percept.
and Mot. Skills, 1958, 8, 79-81.

 

Smith, 0. W. and Gruber, H. Perception of De th in
Photos. Percept. and Mot. Skills, 1958, _, 307-313.

 

Scholosberg, H. Stereoscopic Depth From a Single
Picture. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1941, S3,, 601-605.

 

Smith, 0. W., Smith, P. C., and Hubbard, D. Perceived
Distance as a Function of the Method of Repre-
senting Perspective. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1958,
1;, 662-674.

 

Teichner, W. H., Kobrick, J. L., and Werkamp, R. F.
The Effects of Terrain and Observation Distance
on Relative Depth Discrimination. Amer.J. Psychol,
1955. 98. 193-208.

Thompson, R. W. and Bartley S. H. Apparent Distance
Of Material in Pictures Associated with Higher
Order Meanings. J. Psychol., 1959, 48, 353-358.

 

APPENDIX

SCORES FOR EACH SUBJECT
ON EACH CONDITION

24

 

 

 

 

------ GROUP ONE

1358A 13531 135SA 5OSA 508A 503A

Sub. .135LA. 5OLA , 35LA. .135LA 5OLA . 35LA.
1) 49.1 45.9 47.8 47.3 45.9 40.0
2) 86.8 92.5 88.6 81.9 77.0 84.5
3) 120.4 144.2 101.6 88.3 113.5 108.0
4) 140.2 116.0 110.5 .101.5 119.0 118.3
5) 136.0 125.4 158.5 133.2 138.0 166.5
6) 120.0 102.6 102.0 103.2 111.6 91.6
7) 113.4 128.5 116.2 111.2 ~ 114.0 110.9
8) 148.0 99.7 98.3 103.7 70.7 86.5
9) 126.0 122.3 112.5 106.4 117.4 115.0
10) 89.0 93.5 90.3 83.9 81.1 85.4,
1358B 135SB 135SB 5OSB 5OSB 5OSB

135LB 50LB 35LB 135LB 5OLB 35LB

1) 36.5 36.1 39.3 35.1 35.4 34.2
2) 90.0 84.5 83.0 107.0 94.5 100.0
3) 124.2 143.0 128.0 114.4 147.2 116.5
4) 130.7 106.4 101.0 129.3 154.0 131.7
5) 99.2 112.6 92.4 118.4 125.5 119.3
6) 105.7 98.0 101.4 103.8 100.0 105.4
7) 105.8 92.2 89.0 108.6 103.8 104.5
8) 71.2 67.7 72.7 83.0 84.0 83.3
9) 118.0 99.3 95.5 119.0 126.0 118.2
10) 101.4 87.6 84.2 106.9 97.3 102.0

 

25

 

 

 

 

GROUP TWO

13531 135SA 13531 5031 5OSA~~ 50311

Sub._ 135LA 5OLA 35LA 135LA 50LA , 35LA,
1) 50.0 50.6 48.6 54.3 60.7 52.9

2) 44.1 44.7 47.0 56.0 58.6 51.1

3) 99.7 122.2 111.7 86.0 102.0 113.0

4) 86.7 93.2 93.7 82.2 84.5 98.5

5) 74.5 63.7 58.0 83.2 71.5 74.2

6) 88.0 89.5 89.5 79.7 80.7 77.5

7) 49.7 43.7 38.0 51.0 48.2 48.5

8) 54.0 42.0 41.5 46.0 42.0 37.7

9) 51.6 54.4 38.9 54.1 50.0 51.3

10) 55.5 59.1 N 47.2 60.2 56.3 57.2,
13533 13533 13533 5033 5033 5033

135LB 50L3 35LB 135L3 50LB. . 35LB

1) 36.4 44.5 59.9 51.6 41.7 53.1

2) 42.9 46.6 48.1 43.5 45.1 43.5

3) 117.5 112.7 117.7 119.5 117.0 129.5

4) 80.2 83.5 77.5 74.7 77.7 75.7

5) 90.7 81.7 93.5 99.0 82.0 87.5

6) 81.2 80.7 82.0 81.5 79.2 75.7

7) 54.5 37.0 48.2 54.5 51.5 53.2

8) 44.5 45.7 46.5 45.7 45.5 47.0

9) 56.1 46.3 51.0 56.7 54.9 55.5

10) 46.6 47.8 49.0 47.9 47.8 48.1