No need for a tilt shift lens.

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.

-------Snipped

stitched together look like.

BTW I am using PTGui to stitch the photos.

Scott


Hi.

There is an element of truth in what you say.

However I would like to see the results of Stitching, being applied to a
very tall building. Even if it was photographed from another building, at
around half of its height, there would be considerable distortion.

The Distortion (Converging Verticals) on show in Bryce Canyon is quite
considerable, but with irregular shapes like those pinnacles it does not
matter too much.

If a Pro was engaged to photograph a Developers New Multi Million Building,
and produced a result like yours, he would most likely never get paid, and
would certainly never get another commission.

Field Cameras and Tilt and Shift lenses, will still be required. It is a
case of "Horses for Courses"

Roy G.

As you point out, the effects of shift can be accomplished through
resampling in a Pantools-type application.

Tilt, however, is a completely different matter. Here's what you can do with
tilt:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Tilt.jpg

I took that on an MPP VII 4x5 view camera using a Schneider 150mm Symmar
using both front and rear-tilt. Note that the focus plane actually runs
*horizontally*, parallel to the axis of the lens.

Another way of taking it would be to have the focal plane vertical, but at
an incline, so it ran through both bottles, using horizontal-tilt instead of
vertical tilt.

If you took a picture with a very large depth of field, you might be able to
selectively blur bits of it to try and get the same effect, but it;s going
to be hard work, and for close-ups you may not be able to get the DoF in the
first place. I doubt I would have been able to get both bottles in focus if
I'd taken it on my 5D, even if the lens let me stop down all the way to
f/32.

Image details - 150mm, f/22, 1/400, 400 ISO Polaroid B&W. I could probably
have got the tops looking sharp as well if I'd stopped down to f/64, but I
specifically wanted something that demonstrated tilt.

Scott W wrote:
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.

But with today's panoramic tools this seems like much less of an
issue.
This is what a very wide angle photos looks like without shifting the
lens in software.

I had to comeback and check. You did only say shift and not shift tilt
that others seem to have picked up. Good, as no digital tools are going to
take care of tilt. :-)

Digital tools do a good job, and I believe good enough for most uses.
However for those who are really serious there is still a real difference in
the final result when comparing both results where both have been well done.
The stretched parts just are not the same as a good shifted result. Of
course lenses are not all the same and there are many factors to consider.

Back in the old days we use to do much of this kind of thing in the
darkroom buy tilting the paper holder.


http://www.pbase.com/camping05/image/51504534/large
Note how everything seems to be pointing in as you good up in the
photos.

This is the same panoramic but with shifting the center of view
http://www.pbase.com/camping05/image/51504652/large

To see a higher resolution view of either of these two photos click on
original.

Now this photos does not have the resolution of a LF camera, but then
this was made from just four photos stitched together. There is
little limit to the resolution, just add more photos. This is what
16 photos stitched together look like.

BTW I am using PTGui to stitch the photos.

Scott

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

In article ,
Bob Salomon wrote:
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:

I could probably
have got the tops looking sharp as well if I'd stopped down to f/64

You would also have been well into diffraction with that lens at f64.

On a 400 ISO Polaroid, I don't think I'd care!

I am glad to see that this has gotten interest.
As many have pointed out it is hard to do tilt with digital tools, but
tilt is a pretty limited adjustment and only works for some cases.

As to correcting for shift panoramic tools have a huge advantage, a
shift lens needs a very large field of view. When shooting the photos
to be stitched you can use a long focal length, what you are basically
after is high angular resolution. Once you have a date base of pixels
for any given angle you can reconstruct what the image would look like
with any give camera configuration.

Here is a wide angle shot of a building using panoramic stitching, yes
I know the lighting was terrible, but I think the building did not come
out too bad.

http://www.pbase.com/camping05/image/50543206/original

Scott

"Chris Brown" wrote:
Bob Salomon wrote:
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:

I could probably
have got the tops looking sharp as well if I'd stopped down to f/64

You would also have been well into diffraction with that lens at f64.

On a 400 ISO Polaroid, I don't think I'd care!

Diffraction is roughly a 50% MTF hit at 800/(f number) and a zero MTF at
1600/(f number).

For f/64, those are 12.5 and 25 lp/mm, respectively. So a 16x20 (4x, with
usable detail with sharpening in the 3 to 4 lp/mm range) from a 4x5 at f/64
would look better than a 16x20 from a 5D (17x, well under 3 lp/mm (since
whatever lens and f stop you use, the 5D will be well under 50% MTF at 40
lp/mm)).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.

But with today's panoramic tools this seems like much less of an
issue.
Yes, the software makes photos like this much easier. LF cameras, though,
do have the advantage being able to tilt the image plane For this reason,
there are still photographs which are quite difficult to make without an LF
camera.
Jim

Chris Brown writes:

As you point out, the effects of shift can be accomplished through
resampling in a Pantools-type application.

Tilt, however, is a completely different matter. Here's what you can do with
tilt:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Tilt.jpg

Now *that's* scary! I'm fairly comfortable with shift, and can
stumble through simple little tilts, but these extremes still impress
me. That's just *weird*!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Chris Brown writes:

As you point out, the effects of shift can be accomplished through
resampling in a Pantools-type application.

Tilt, however, is a completely different matter. Here's what you can do with
tilt:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Tilt.jpg

Now *that's* scary! I'm fairly comfortable with shift, and can
stumble through simple little tilts, but these extremes still impress
me. That's just *weird*!

Should have seen the way the tripod legs were splayed, almost at the
horizontal, and the rather uncomfortable way I had to lay across them, head
practically under the floor, with the dark cloth sort of sitting atop like a
dead jellyfish. Most undignified. ;-)

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.
[...]

Fairly good examples. Many people do not use digital correction properly;
usually they forget to stretch the image.

What is missing in digital make-up is a means to change object focus so that
near and far objects are closer to equal focus. Another thing of a different
nature that is missing in the digital make-up is the virtue of front rise
or back fall.