No need for a tilt shift lens.

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.
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

"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.

You really ought to post this in the large format ng as well.
rec.photo.equipment.large-format

(I'm familiar with both techniques.)

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

Malcolm Stewart wrote:

You really ought to post this in the large format ng as well.
rec.photo.equipment.large-format

I thought about that but it seemed to me that would be a bit of a
troll.

Most of those people have no interest in digital, those who do will see
the post here.

I am amazed at how much improvement this has been in the stitching
tools.

Scott

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.
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


Nice, but that fat assed lady completely ruined it

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.

That's the "shift" part of a tilt-shift lens. What the "tilt" part
does is change the plane of focus so that it's not parallel to the
sensor plane.

--
Ray Fischer

John A. Stovall wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 10:18:53 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

Why do you assume only LF cameras use a tilt shift lens?

They are very common among FF Digital shooters who do architecture and
product photos. Canon make three different models.

Yes I know of these lenses but I was under the impression that they
were more limited then on a LF camera.

Nor can your little trick produce the increased DOF one get with a
true tilt and shift lens.

This is true but then tilting a lens to extend the field of view it
fairly limited as well, the scene has to go from close to far fairly
smoothly as you go up the photo, if there is say a large bolder or tree
in the foreground then tilting is of limited use.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...categoryid=156

There is always a need for a tilt and shift lens when quality is what
one strives for.

There will be cases where a tilt shift lens is needed, but in many
cases it is not if one is using a good stitching tool.

Scott

In article .com,
"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.
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

Not a big enough difference between the two to justify your
assertion IMOP & I sort like the distortion in the first ;-)

Many perspective corrections in LF work
are from side to side or near far vanishing point etc. What you fail to
account for is that a LF negative-slide can be scanned at any resolution
not just the relative 300 dpi per segment that the average digital slr
reproduces at.

Therefore the small sensor area for a given image does not
particularly match what can be gotten from a LF film original,....being
that you could and can scan that film original at 8400 dpi-as an
example, and if you chose to do so.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Scott W" writes:

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.

Yep. Of course, you are stretching out (i.e. reducing) the resolution
in parts of the photo when you make the perspective adjustment.

Also, it *only* helps on perspective rendering; it doesn't do anything
for depth of field control (which is where tilting comes in).

I find myself doing perspective corrections in snapshots now -- if the
rendering bothers me at a quick glance, I fix it.
--
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/

223rem wrote:
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.
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


Nice, but that fat assed lady completely ruined it

Better to have an ass than to BE an ass, such as yourself.
Think.

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.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.