A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 7th 09, 01:35 PM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mulperi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

I have found that from russia you can have tilt and shift lenses:
http://www.rugift.com/index.html
which are not so expensive.


--
Juha Heinonen
FINLAND
Mobile: +358 405492347
E-mail:
URL:
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/juha.heinonen


  #22  
Old February 7th 09, 01:36 PM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mulperi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

I have found that from russia you can have tilt and shift lenses:
http://www.rugift.com/index.html
which are not so expensive.


--
Juha Heinonen
FINLAND
Mobile: +358 405492347
E-mail:
URL:
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/juha.heinonen



  #23  
Old February 7th 09, 03:06 PM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

Mr.T 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 :-)


You have no idea what translation resolution is.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
  #24  
Old February 9th 09, 04:58 AM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens


"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
| In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Mr.T [email protected] 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.


and moving half a pixel gives you..?


moving 2 might give something useful

  #25  
Old February 9th 09, 06:56 AM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mr.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens


"k" wrote in message
...
and moving half a pixel gives you..?


Theoretically some of the information you lost in between pixels.

moving 2 might give something useful


What, a few hundred extra pixels in image size? Far better to move a full
screens worth in that case!

MrT.


  #26  
Old February 9th 09, 08:40 AM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:32:10 -0500, John A. wrote:

and moving half a pixel gives you..?


moving 2 might give something useful


Moving a half pixel horizontally, then vertically, then back
horizontally for a total of four exposures would give full coverage
for each color in a Bayer pattern. (Double coverage for green,
actually.)


Moving 1/2 pixel isn't enough. Starting from a point centrally
located between 4 pixels, one way for a movable filter array to have
each filter color reach of the 4 pixels would be :

0. Move down 1/2 pixel and right 1/2 pixel

1. Click! Move up 1 full pixel

2. Click! Move left 1 full pixel

3. Click! Move down 1 full pixel

4. Click! Move right 1 full pixel

5. Go to #1 for each successive photo

The same four positions could also be reached by either shifting
or rotating the filter array along a circular path, where the
diameter of the circle would be equal to the distance between 2
non-adjacent pixels, presumably the distance between an Red/Blue
pair or a Green/Green pair.

  #27  
Old February 9th 09, 06:24 PM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John A.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:40:39 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:32:10 -0500, John A. wrote:

and moving half a pixel gives you..?


moving 2 might give something useful


Moving a half pixel horizontally, then vertically, then back
horizontally for a total of four exposures would give full coverage
for each color in a Bayer pattern. (Double coverage for green,
actually.)


Moving 1/2 pixel isn't enough. Starting from a point centrally
located between 4 pixels, one way for a movable filter array to have
each filter color reach of the 4 pixels would be :

0. Move down 1/2 pixel and right 1/2 pixel

1. Click! Move up 1 full pixel

2. Click! Move left 1 full pixel

3. Click! Move down 1 full pixel

4. Click! Move right 1 full pixel

5. Go to #1 for each successive photo

The same four positions could also be reached by either shifting
or rotating the filter array along a circular path, where the
diameter of the circle would be equal to the distance between 2
non-adjacent pixels, presumably the distance between an Red/Blue
pair or a Green/Green pair.


On a Bayer-filtered sensor 1/2 pixel = 1 photosite. In your sequence
remove step "0" (which is pretty much meaningless) and replace "pixel"
with "photosite" and you've pretty much got what I've described.
  #28  
Old February 9th 09, 07:19 PM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

In article , John A.
wrote:

On a Bayer-filtered sensor 1/2 pixel = 1 photosite.


that's incorrect.
  #29  
Old February 9th 09, 08:28 PM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:24:05 GMT, John A. wrote:

On a Bayer-filtered sensor 1/2 pixel = 1 photosite. In your sequence
remove step "0" (which is pretty much meaningless) and replace "pixel"
with "photosite" and you've pretty much got what I've described.


You still don't get it. First of all, the "0" step was only used
to identify the surrounding 4 pixels (sensels). Traversing from any
pixel to the next requires stepping the distance from one pixel to
another, which is *not* 1/2 the distance/size of a pixel. If it'll
help, place four hamburgers on a plate. How far is it from the
center of one hamburger to either of its adjacent neighbors (not the
diagonally opposite burger). If you say it's 1/2 of a hamburger's
diameter, you've bitten off more than you can chew.

  #30  
Old February 9th 09, 09:34 PM posted to aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John A.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:28:12 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:24:05 GMT, John A. wrote:

On a Bayer-filtered sensor 1/2 pixel = 1 photosite. In your sequence
remove step "0" (which is pretty much meaningless) and replace "pixel"
with "photosite" and you've pretty much got what I've described.


You still don't get it. First of all, the "0" step was only used
to identify the surrounding 4 pixels (sensels). Traversing from any
pixel to the next requires stepping the distance from one pixel to
another, which is *not* 1/2 the distance/size of a pixel. If it'll
help, place four hamburgers on a plate. How far is it from the
center of one hamburger to either of its adjacent neighbors (not the
diagonally opposite burger). If you say it's 1/2 of a hamburger's
diameter, you've bitten off more than you can chew.


I get it. You don't.

If a sensor is going to be moving like this its initial position will
already be where your step "0" is intended to put it, so that step is
not necessary. We can safely assume the sensor will be designed to
start out exactly where it needs to be for its first exposure. It's
just good engineering. Otherwise it's just added motion that only
serves to wear the mechanism. Seriously, why would it have a "home"
position somewhere other than where it needs to be for one of the four
exposures?

And a pixel IS made of 2x2 photosensors on a Bayer-filtered sensor
array. The sensors are arranged something like this:

G R
B G

Together, those four photosensors make up one pixel.

Ahhh... But I think I see what you're talking about. That's in a
single-exposure Bayer system. In the theoretical four-exposure system
we are discussing we would get four three-color synthesized pixels
from each 2x2 Bayer array. (Minus a row and a column for the image, I
believe, assuming we'd only keep the overlapping portions of the four
exposures.) That was what you meant, right?

So maybe we both get it, and don't get it. =D
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon Telephoto Tilt-Shift TS-E EF 90mm f/2.8 Manual Focus Lens for Canon EOS Bodies cbgjr Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 October 24th 07 01:38 AM
Tilt-Shift Lens: Any Experiences? Annika1980 35mm Photo Equipment 44 April 9th 06 06:59 PM
No need for a tilt shift lens. Scott W Digital Photography 48 November 2nd 05 04:06 AM
ARSAT 2.8/35 tilt and shift lens clive Digital Photography 13 October 25th 04 12:29 AM
ARSAT 2.8/35 tilt and shift lens clive 35mm Photo Equipment 14 October 25th 04 12:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.