did anyone try this: cheap point-n-shoot on the back of a large format beast?

Paul Atreides wrote in news:Muad'dib-
:

Maybe even stuff that hasn't happened yet :-)

You should know that Muad'dib.


/Roland

Crownfield wrote in :

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE...cat.CatTree&ac
.cat.CatTree.prodIndex.param=09;Digital+Imaging;03 0;Digital+Image+Captu
re;005;Studio+View+Cameras;67;Cambo


All I got was - "your session has timed out".


/Roland

Crownfield wrote in :

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE...cat.CatTree&ac
.cat.CatTree.prodIndex.param=09;Digital+Imaging;03 0;Digital+Image+Captu
re;005;Studio+View+Cameras;67;Cambo


All I got was - "your session has timed out".


/Roland

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

Paul Atreides wrote in news:Muad'dib-
:

Maybe even stuff that hasn't happened yet :-)

You should know that Muad'dib.

/Roland

I do & I did.

--
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

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

Paul Atreides wrote in news:Muad'dib-
:

Maybe even stuff that hasn't happened yet :-)

You should know that Muad'dib.

/Roland

I do & I did.

--
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

Paul Atreides wrote:
In article ,
Leonard Evens wrote:



Otherwise they just continue off into space and it gets much more
complicated as to what you see with a lens placed at the right distance
from the aerial image.


So in theory although they may be very very dim, there are images
all around us, some are probably quite old and from galaxies far far
away.

Well, yes there are. To see them all you need is a powerful telescope.

But it is really more complicated than that. Geometric optics is one
theory for describing optical phenomena. It is used in lens design and
in studying things like depth of field. But it has been superceded by
wave optics, and that has even been superceded by quantum
electrodynamics. Also, general relativity has something to say about how
light travels through space. Ultimately most physicist believe there
will be a final theory which explains everything, perhaps some variant
of string theory. When you start talking about light from distant
galaxies, I think it gets more complicated than just using geometric optics.


Maybe even stuff that hasn't happened yet :-)

Well, when things have happened can be pretty complicated because of
relativity theory. But who knows?

Paul Atreides wrote:
In article ,
Leonard Evens wrote:



Otherwise they just continue off into space and it gets much more
complicated as to what you see with a lens placed at the right distance
from the aerial image.


So in theory although they may be very very dim, there are images
all around us, some are probably quite old and from galaxies far far
away.

Well, yes there are. To see them all you need is a powerful telescope.

But it is really more complicated than that. Geometric optics is one
theory for describing optical phenomena. It is used in lens design and
in studying things like depth of field. But it has been superceded by
wave optics, and that has even been superceded by quantum
electrodynamics. Also, general relativity has something to say about how
light travels through space. Ultimately most physicist believe there
will be a final theory which explains everything, perhaps some variant
of string theory. When you start talking about light from distant
galaxies, I think it gets more complicated than just using geometric optics.


Maybe even stuff that hasn't happened yet :-)

Well, when things have happened can be pretty complicated because of
relativity theory. But who knows?

Crownfield wrote:
chibitul wrote:

Did anyone try to use a large format camera to get an image (with all
the advantages of large format cameras: tilt, shift, etc) and then use a
small digicam instead of film to snap the picture?


close.
not quite what you were looking for,
but perhaps as close as you can get.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE...meras;67;Cambo

it would seem like you should be able to make a piggyback adapter
for cameras like the nikon, canon and fuji
that would allow them to lock onto the adapter instead of a lens.

This is a small, precise view camera, which allows for very fine control
of movements. You can plug a digital back into it or with an
appropriate adapter, one of a several digital SLRs without lens. You
then use one of several lenses designed for small to medium format use
on view cameras with digital backs.


if would fit into any graflok adapter,
and have a special lens
to match the LF camera to the digital camera.


I imagine if you make
some sort of fixture to attach the digicam to the back of the large
format camera, and focus on the glass plate, you should be able to snap
*that* image.


the problem would be that the image detail
will be limited by the glass texture.


I never used a large format camera and I do not intend to
venture into this field unless I can do it digitally. I am not into high
resolution stuff, I read some of Ansel Adams books and I am impressed
with what you can do with large format when you can tilt/shift the lens
and the negative as you want. Just wondering if I can "piggy-back" a
cheap point-n-shoot on the back of a large format beast?

Crownfield wrote:
chibitul wrote:

Did anyone try to use a large format camera to get an image (with all
the advantages of large format cameras: tilt, shift, etc) and then use a
small digicam instead of film to snap the picture?


close.
not quite what you were looking for,
but perhaps as close as you can get.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE...meras;67;Cambo

it would seem like you should be able to make a piggyback adapter
for cameras like the nikon, canon and fuji
that would allow them to lock onto the adapter instead of a lens.

This is a small, precise view camera, which allows for very fine control
of movements. You can plug a digital back into it or with an
appropriate adapter, one of a several digital SLRs without lens. You
then use one of several lenses designed for small to medium format use
on view cameras with digital backs.


if would fit into any graflok adapter,
and have a special lens
to match the LF camera to the digital camera.


I imagine if you make
some sort of fixture to attach the digicam to the back of the large
format camera, and focus on the glass plate, you should be able to snap
*that* image.


the problem would be that the image detail
will be limited by the glass texture.


I never used a large format camera and I do not intend to
venture into this field unless I can do it digitally. I am not into high
resolution stuff, I read some of Ansel Adams books and I am impressed
with what you can do with large format when you can tilt/shift the lens
and the negative as you want. Just wondering if I can "piggy-back" a
cheap point-n-shoot on the back of a large format beast?

Leonard Evens wrote in
:

When you start talking about light from distant
galaxies, I think it gets more complicated than just using geometric
optics.

It is the other way around. It is when looking at small things
that geometric optics fails. Even a gravitational lens follows
the laws of geometrical optics - in curved space time

Maybe even stuff that hasn't happened yet :-)

Well, when things have happened can be pretty complicated because of
relativity theory. But who knows?

There is a stringent definition of cause and effect in relativity theory.
You can talk about things that have not happened yet. Different
observers cannot in general agree upon when things happen. But if
I drop a crystal vase I can say that it has not hit the floor yet,
and all observers that see me dropping the vase will say the same.
Later, when the vase is spread all over the floor in small pieces,
everyone that sees the mess knows that it is after it has hit the
floor. But they can all see that I have not cleaned up the mess,
that has not happened yet. Of course, the observers will have a totally
different view on how long time the vase took to fall to the floor
and we can never agree upon when it happened; at least not if we
insist on using our own clocks. But if everyone used my clock and
everything happened where I am, then we could all agree upon the
order and timing of all events. But ... that is not the way it is


/Roland