On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:26:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:
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.
It is if you are close up.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens