The last days of analog
On Apr 24, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:51:35 -0400, wrote: In , Eric Stevens wrote: the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess, or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the need to guess. Have another look at https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 That's the result of technology applied to https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0 that's the result of not doing it correctly. There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was a lost cause before I took the picture. it wouldn't have been a lost cause had you known how to work within those constraints. What would you have done? Buy a Fujifilm GFX 50S and the Cambo Actus-GFX View Camera system: https://www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/actus-gfx-view-camera/ https://blog.cambo.com/2017/12/20/ca...gfx50s-camera- review/ I believe they also have systems for the X-T2 and Canon & Nikon DSLRs. -- Regards, Savageduck |
The last days of analog
On 2018-04-25 13:46:32 +0000, Savageduck said:
On Apr 24, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:51:35 -0400, wrote: In , Eric Stevens wrote: the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess, or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the need to guess. Have another look at https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 That's the result of technology applied to https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0 that's the result of not doing it correctly. There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was a lost cause before I took the picture. it wouldn't have been a lost cause had you known how to work within those constraints. What would you have done? Buy a Fujifilm GFX 50S and the Cambo Actus-GFX View Camera system: https://www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/actus-gfx-view-camera/ https://blog.cambo.com/2017/12/20/ca...gfx50s-camera- review/ I believe they also have systems for the X-T2 and Canon & Nikon DSLRs. Not as portable nor practical as tilt-shift lenses but it depends on your needs right? Here's the Horseman take on the concept: https://vimeo.com/6350947 There's also the stitching back approach: https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Pro-Lens-Mount-Adapter/dp/B004G17LFG -- teleportation kills |
The last days of analog
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:58:00 +0200, android wrote:
On 2018-04-25 08:56:09 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:56:36 +0200, android wrote: On 2018-04-25 05:23:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:08:57 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: regardless, stitching images is simple. in fact, it's almost entirely automatic. or were you planning on stitching them individually? I have done that and it works quite well. i used to do that long ago, and no it doesn't. In that case, operator error. it's a *huge* pain to get it right and the results are nowhere near as good as when a computer does it, especially when the computer makes the necessary adjustments to merge the images (and even gets the order correct). However I am happy to use software. of course, since it's much easier and produces far better results. We are talking about camera adjustments, remember? which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic. Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you were doing. i have long ago, and i do. let's not forget that you incorrectly claimed that to photograph a 'tall wall' would require tilting the *rear* standard, which is wrong. That's the problem with your surreptitious snips. You haven't quoted me correctly. I originally wrote: "There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the camera back". If you are going to keep the whole of the wall in focus the plane of the wall, the plane of the lens and the film plane must have a common point of intersection. The lens will have to be raised and tilted back. The film plane will have to be tilted back more. to the rear. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg is a diagram from a related case, where the photographer wants to keep the ground in focus. I don't know of a digital camera which will do quite that. http://www.hartbleilens.com/product_info.php?products_id=28 http://tinyurl.com/ydyyrcgt To do what I am talking about you have to be able to achieve vertical displacement of the lens while tilting it in the other direction. I dont see a Hartblei lens which will let you do that. The problem that you present is solved by a tilt and shift lense: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Scheimpflug.jpg That drawing is not accurate. The rays should pass through the optical center of the lens at equal angles. They should go on to meet the upper and lower edges of the sensor/film plane. The dotted line shown as passing through the lens mounting plate should pass through the optical center of the lens and be parallel to the plane of the lens. I will try and get time over the next few days to draw it all out accurately so I can show you what I mean. The linked one is one: http://www.hartbleilens.com/images/product_images/popup_images/28_7.jpg You could go Canon of course, if you have a problem with Hartblei: http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef401.html I would have a bigger problem with Canon. All my gear is Nikon. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
The last days of analog
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:46:13 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: We are talking about camera adjustments, remember? which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic. Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you were doing. i have long ago, and i do. let's not forget that you incorrectly claimed that to photograph a 'tall wall' would require tilting the *rear* standard, which is wrong. That's the problem with your surreptitious snips. You haven't quoted me correctly. i know exactly what you wrote. I originally wrote: "There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with digital. then you know wrong. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the camera back". as i said, the camera back is *not* tilted for a tall wall, or more commonly a tall building because walls are boring, however, the math is the same. Let's say it is the front of a 1000 year old building: and you have limited room: and you want to have all of the wall in the best possible focus. It's interesting and just making do with hyperfocal distance is not good enough. You *have* to use a camera setup that employs the same basic geometry of https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg (except that the assembly is pointing up rather than down). Alternatively, tilt the diagram 90 degrees anticlockwise.r the front standard (i.e., lens) is raised: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...f5b4b9/t/576c2 e495a655be13f013ab2/1467902630687/rise.gif If you are going to keep the whole of the wall in focus the plane of the wall, the plane of the lens and the film plane must have a common point of intersection. The lens will have to be raised and tilted back. The film plane will have to be tilted back more. to the rear. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg is a diagram from a related case, where the photographer wants to keep the ground in focus. I don't know of a digital camera which will do quite that. that's not relevant for the situation you described. So you say. That's the very point I have been trying to describe. here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is *parallel* to the building: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/576bd0f715d5dbd3def5b4b9/t/576c2e495a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
The last days of analog
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:46:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Apr 24, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:51:35 -0400, wrote: In , Eric Stevens wrote: the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess, or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the need to guess. Have another look at https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 That's the result of technology applied to https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0 that's the result of not doing it correctly. There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was a lost cause before I took the picture. it wouldn't have been a lost cause had you known how to work within those constraints. What would you have done? Buy a Fujifilm GFX 50S and the Cambo Actus-GFX View Camera system: https://www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/actus-gfx-view-camera/ Very nice - but $$$$$$ https://blog.cambo.com/2017/12/20/cambo-actus-gfx-and-fuji-gfx50s-camera-review/ I believe they also have systems for the X-T2 and Canon & Nikon DSLRs. I think I would like a little more tilt and swing than that camera offers. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
The last days of analog
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:19:19 +0200, android wrote:
On 2018-04-25 13:46:32 +0000, Savageduck said: On Apr 24, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:51:35 -0400, wrote: In , Eric Stevens wrote: the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess, or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the need to guess. Have another look at https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 That's the result of technology applied to https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0 that's the result of not doing it correctly. There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was a lost cause before I took the picture. it wouldn't have been a lost cause had you known how to work within those constraints. What would you have done? Buy a Fujifilm GFX 50S and the Cambo Actus-GFX View Camera system: https://www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/actus-gfx-view-camera/ https://blog.cambo.com/2017/12/20/ca...gfx50s-camera- review/ I believe they also have systems for the X-T2 and Canon & Nikon DSLRs. Not as portable nor practical as tilt-shift lenses but it depends on your needs right? Here's the Horseman take on the concept: https://vimeo.com/6350947 Very interesting but you should take into account the comment from Cambo site: "As the GFX50s is mirrorless it will focus with lenses wider than 60mm. DSLRs cannot do this due to the mirror box, the rear element is too far from the sensor." There's also the stitching back approach: https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Pro-Lens-Mount-Adapter/dp/B004G17LFG That might revitalise my old 4"x 5" field camera. If it only had a decent lens :-( -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
The last days of analog
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: The linked one is one: http://www.hartbleilens.com/images/product_images/popup_images/28_7.jpg You could go Canon of course, if you have a problem with Hartblei: http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef401.html I would have a bigger problem with Canon. All my gear is Nikon. then get all four nikon tilt/shift lenses: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...-lenses/pc-nik kor-19mm-f%252f4e-ed.html https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...-lenses/pc-e-n ikkor-24mm-f3.5d-ed.html https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...-lenses/pc-e-m icro-nikkor-45mm-f%252f2.8d-ed.html https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...-lenses/pc-e-m icro-nikkor-85mm-f%252f2.8d.html there's also a more affordable samyang/rokinon/etc., which is available in several mounts: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...f-3.5-Tilt-Shi ft-Lens-Review.aspx The Samyang 24mm f/3.5 Tilt-Shift Lens is, by far, the least expensive tilt-shift lens available in Nikon or Canon mounts - and possibly the only tilt-shift lens option for other brand DSLR cameras (Sony, Olympus & Pentax). |
The last days of analog
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: I originally wrote: "There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with digital. then you know wrong. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the camera back". as i said, the camera back is *not* tilted for a tall wall, or more commonly a tall building because walls are boring, however, the math is the same. Let's say it is the front of a 1000 year old building: and you have limited room: and you want to have all of the wall in the best possible focus. It's interesting and just making do with hyperfocal distance is not good enough. You *have* to use a camera setup that employs the same basic geometry of https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg (except that the assembly is pointing up rather than down). no, you don't *have* to use such a setup for a tall building. in fact, it would be a bad idea. here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is *parallel* to the building: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...b9/t/576c2e495 a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified. it doesn't. that's the whole point. scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building. |
The last days of analog
On 2018-04-26 04:12:38 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:19:19 +0200, android wrote: On 2018-04-25 13:46:32 +0000, Savageduck said: On Apr 24, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:51:35 -0400, wrote: In , Eric Stevens wrote: the corrections can be done *outside* of the camera, where you can guess all you want and undo it whenever you make an incorrect guess, or, let the computer do the calculations *for* you, eliminating the need to guess. Have another look at https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 That's the result of technology applied to https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgfbskbe4c...941-2.jpg?dl=0 that's the result of not doing it correctly. There were constraints around me that limited what I could do. I hoped that I would get enough image to be useful but I was wrong. If I had a camera with all the necessary movements I would have known that it was a lost cause before I took the picture. it wouldn't have been a lost cause had you known how to work within those constraints. What would you have done? Buy a Fujifilm GFX 50S and the Cambo Actus-GFX View Camera system: https://www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/actus-gfx-view-camera/ https://blog.cambo.com/2017/12/20/ca...gfx50s-camera- review/ I believe they also have systems for the X-T2 and Canon & Nikon DSLRs. Not as portable nor practical as tilt-shift lenses but it depends on your needs right? Here's the Horseman take on the concept: https://vimeo.com/6350947 Very interesting but you should take into account the comment from Cambo site: "As the GFX50s is mirrorless it will focus with lenses wider than 60mm. DSLRs cannot do this due to the mirror box, the rear element is too far from the sensor." I think that that gear is intended for professional studio work... There's also the stitching back approach: https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Pro-Lens-Mount-Adapter/dp/B004G17LFG That might revitalise my old 4"x 5" field camera. If it only had a decent lens :-( Go retro! :-)) -- teleportation kills |
The last days of analog
On 2018-04-26 04:26:20 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I originally wrote: "There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with digital. then you know wrong. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the camera back". as i said, the camera back is *not* tilted for a tall wall, or more commonly a tall building because walls are boring, however, the math is the same. Let's say it is the front of a 1000 year old building: and you have limited room: and you want to have all of the wall in the best possible focus. It's interesting and just making do with hyperfocal distance is not good enough. You *have* to use a camera setup that employs the same basic geometry of https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg (except that the assembly is pointing up rather than down). no, you don't *have* to use such a setup for a tall building. in fact, it would be a bad idea. here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is *parallel* to the building: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...b9/t/576c2e495 a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified. it doesn't. that's the whole point. scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building. Depends on how close you are... -- teleportation kills |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com