Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

"Sir John Howard" wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell wrote:
| On 2009-02-02 11:59:33 -0800, "Focus" said:
|
| http://atlantic-diesel.com/Miniferrari.jpg
|
| Of course the picture was taken with a normal lens. With PS, without
| filters, you can create this effect quite easily.
| Here's one tutorial:
|
|
http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/p...ftTutorial.htm
l
|
|
| If you Google Fake shift tilt, you can find some very funny,
interesting
| pictures. Specially those taken from above look like it's some
miniature
| street or scene.
|
| This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
| lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
| Photoshop with a single image.
|
| A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
| controls depth of field.

i think he meant plane of focus

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:24:33 +1100, Sir John Howard wrote:

This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
Photoshop with a single image.

A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
controls depth of field.

That's not entirely correct. Perspective can be manipulated with
shifts, but depth of field is controlled both by aperture and tilt.

[Page 20 of the 24mm PC-E Nikkor manual]
This is a retrofocus-type perspective control (PC) lens that lets you
emphasize or correct near and far perspective, or control depth of
field. It also lets you correct distortion caused by the camera angle.
Moreover, you can use the lens’ tilt and shift mechanism to achieve
focus of the entire subject plane when it is not parallel to the camera.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Sir John Howard wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2009-02-02 11:59:33 -0800, "Focus" said:

http://atlantic-diesel.com/Miniferrari.jpg

Of course the picture was taken with a normal lens. With PS, without
filters, you can create this effect quite easily.
Here's one tutorial:

http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/p...tTutorial.html


If you Google Fake shift tilt, you can find some very funny, interesting
pictures. Specially those taken from above look like it's some miniature
street or scene.

This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
Photoshop with a single image.

A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
controls depth of field.

Lens shift changes perspective. Lens tilt tilts the plane of
focus. This is a quite a different effect from aperture related depth
of field.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 2009-02-04 10:59:04 -0800, Pat said:

On Feb 3, 3:35*am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Sir John Howard" wrote in message
This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/s
hift
lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
Photoshop with a single image.

A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens apert
ure
controls depth of field.

Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute for a
full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow the
depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.

I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. *Of course, TS
lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.

--
Ray Fischer * * * *
*

There is software to handle the extended depth of field. You take a
series of pictures and merge them. Say you start by focusing 6 inches
out. Then if your DOF ends at 12", you take another picture and focus
8 inches out. If your DOF then ends at 16", your next picture is at
12" or so. You then merge the photos together and get one picture
with extended DOF. I've never used the software but I've read
articles about it and it's pretty slick (and easy).

It is the same concept of bracketing exposures and blending the images
to give a larger dynamic range.

Sure, but it is not always possible to take multiple exposures so that
you can merge them together.

After all, you can take two exposures and effectively double the pixels
in your camera, too. So why bother getting a 24 megapixel camera when
you can get nearly the same resolution with two 12 megapixel exposures?
Maybe the bride won't sit still?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2009-02-04 15:39:05 -0800, Pat said:

On Feb 4, 5:27*pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2009-02-04 10:59:04 -0800, Pat said:



On Feb 3, 3:35*am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Sir John Howard" wrote in message
This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/
s
hift
lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that i
n
Photoshop with a single image.

A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens ape
rt
ure
controls depth of field.

Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute fo
r a
full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow
the
depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.

I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. *Of course, TS
lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.

--
Ray Fischer * * * *
*

There is software to handle the extended depth of field. *You take a
series of pictures and merge them. *Say you start by focusing 6 inche
s
out. *Then if your DOF ends at 12", you take another picture and focu
s
8 inches out. *If your DOF then ends at 16", your next picture is at
12" or so. *You then merge the photos together and get one picture
with extended DOF. *I've never used the software but I've read
articles about it and it's pretty slick (and easy).

It is the same concept of bracketing exposures and blending the images
to give a larger dynamic range.

Sure, but it is not always possible to take multiple exposures so that
you can merge them together.

After all, you can take two exposures and effectively double the pixels
in your camera, too. So why bother getting a 24 megapixel camera when
you can get nearly the same resolution with two 12 megapixel exposures?
Maybe the bride won't sit still?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Actually, if you took 10 images where you did nothing except changed
the focus and you merge them together, you'd still have your original
resolution. You wouldn't be gaining any information, you'd just be
making sure that all of it was in focus.

I said nothing about changing focus.

As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2009020508360875249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)

I'll bet camera vibration will probably do that for you already :-)

MrT.

Pat wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:35*am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Sir John Howard" wrote in message
This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
Photoshop with a single image.

A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
controls depth of field.

Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute for a
full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow the
depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.

I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. *Of course, TS
lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.

There is software to handle the extended depth of field. You take a
series of pictures and merge them.

Ick.

Say you start by focusing 6 inches
out. Then if your DOF ends at 12", you take another picture and focus
8 inches out. If your DOF then ends at 16", your next picture is at
12" or so.

Which is okay if you have a tripod and a subject that isn't changing.
That is rarely the case for me.

--
Ray Fischer

On 2009-02-05 20:05:27 -0800, Pat said:

On Feb 5, 11:36*am, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2009-02-04 15:39:05 -0800, Pat said:



On Feb 4, 5:27*pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2009-02-04 10:59:04 -0800, Pat said
:

On Feb 3, 3:35*am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Sir John Howard" wrote in message
This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a til
t/
s
hift
lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that
i
n
Photoshop with a single image.

A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens a
pe
rt
ure
controls depth of field.

Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute
fo
r a
full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allo
w
the
depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.

I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. *Of course, T
S
lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.

--
Ray Fischer * * * *
*

There is software to handle the extended depth of field. *You take
a
series of pictures and merge them. *Say you start by focusing 6 inc
he
s
out. *Then if your DOF ends at 12", you take another picture and fo
cu
s
8 inches out. *If your DOF then ends at 16", your next picture is a
t
12" or so. *You then merge the photos together and get one picture
with extended DOF. *I've never used the software but I've read
articles about it and it's pretty slick (and easy).

It is the same concept of bracketing exposures and blending the image
s
to give a larger dynamic range.

Sure, but it is not always possible to take multiple exposures so that
you can merge them together.

After all, you can take two exposures and effectively double the pixel
s
in your camera, too. So why bother getting a 24 megapixel camera when
you can get nearly the same resolution with two 12 megapixel exposures
?
Maybe the bride won't sit still?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Actually, if you took 10 images where you did nothing except changed
the focus and you merge them together, you'd still have your original
resolution. *You wouldn't be gaining any information, you'd just be
making sure that all of it was in focus.

I said nothing about changing focus.

As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

I don't think you understood my 1st post re multiple exposures. You
take multiple exposures but don't move the camera -- just move the
focal point. That, obviously, changes what's in focus. My merging
the photos in much same way you would merge photos for a high-dynamic-
range photo; you can get a photo with a huge depth of field (which is
what the thread was about). It was not about merging to make a
panoramic or something.

No, Pat. We all know about this technique. I use it most often in macro shots.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"John A." wrote in message
...
As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)

I wonder if any of the cameras with in-body image stabilization could
be firmware-hacked to do that.

No way could they move only half a pixel, including vibration, unless by
accident :-)

MrT.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"John A." wrote in message
...
As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)

I wonder if any of the cameras with in-body image stabilization could
be firmware-hacked to do that.

No way could they move only half a pixel, including vibration, unless by
accident :-)

I don't know whether any of the current in-body stabilisers can
actually do it, but very similar technology has been employed for
decades now to adjust the position of slides in automated microscopy,
and that technology is certainly capable of well under half a pixel
adjustments.

--
Chris Malcolm