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

The last days of analog



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old April 25th 18, 01:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

regardless, stitching images is simple. in fact, it's almost entirely
automatic.

or were you planning on stitching them individually?


I have done that and it works quite well.


i used to do that long ago, and no it doesn't.

it's a *huge* pain to get it right and the results are nowhere near as
good as when a computer does it, especially when the computer makes the
necessary adjustments to merge the images (and even gets the order
correct).

However I am happy to use
software.


of course, since it's much easier and produces far better results.



We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?


which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic.


Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you
were doing.


i have long ago, and i do.

let's not forget that you incorrectly claimed that to photograph a
'tall wall' would require tilting the *rear* standard, which is wrong.
  #42  
Old April 25th 18, 02:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default The last days of analog

On 4/23/2018 7:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

so what?

A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.

what simpler means would that be?

Taking the photograph in just the one shot.

a 360 panorama with that level of detail taken in one shot????

one shot is also an artificial limitation.


We are after simplicity, remember?


how do you propose to shoot a 360 degree panorama in one shot?

360° Panoramic Camera Photo Lens
http://www.virtuavia.eu/shop/photo-3...ens.html?sl=EN

The 0-360 Panoramic Optic™
https://www.0-360.com/

...big snip...

  #43  
Old April 25th 18, 02:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default The last days of analog

In article , Ron C
wrote:

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

so what?

A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.

what simpler means would that be?

Taking the photograph in just the one shot.

a 360 panorama with that level of detail taken in one shot????

one shot is also an artificial limitation.

We are after simplicity, remember?


how do you propose to shoot a 360 degree panorama in one shot?

360° Panoramic Camera Photo Lens
http://www.virtuavia.eu/shop/photo-3...ens.html?sl=EN

The 0-360 Panoramic Optic
https://www.0-360.com/


both of which are junk.

neither will result in anything remotely close to the detail in this:
http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/
  #44  
Old April 25th 18, 03:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default The last days of analog

On 2018-04-25 01:38:15 +0000, Ron C said:

On 4/23/2018 7:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

so what?

A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.

what simpler means would that be?

Taking the photograph in just the one shot.

a 360 panorama with that level of detail taken in one shot????

one shot is also an artificial limitation.

We are after simplicity, remember?


how do you propose to shoot a 360 degree panorama in one shot?

360Ā° Panoramic Camera Photo Lens
http://www.virtuavia.eu/shop/photo-3...ens.html?sl=EN


"Contact us for a price"... ;-))

The 0-360 Panoramic Opticā„¢
https://www.0-360.com/

...big snip...



--
teleportation kills

  #45  
Old April 25th 18, 03:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default The last days of analog

On 2018-04-25 01:45:37 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Ron C
wrote:

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

so what?

A vast amount of work to achieve a result which in most cases could be
achieved by simpler means.

what simpler means would that be?

Taking the photograph in just the one shot.

a 360 panorama with that level of detail taken in one shot????

one shot is also an artificial limitation.

We are after simplicity, remember?

how do you propose to shoot a 360 degree panorama in one shot?

360° Panoramic Camera Photo Lens
http://www.virtuavia.eu/shop/photo-3...ens.html?sl=EN

The 0-360 Panoramic Optic
https://www.0-360.com/


both of which are junk.

neither will result in anything remotely close to the detail in this:
http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/


Panos are fun. Have about dozen or so on the HD with three to twenty
tiles in them but not a 360 yet.


--
teleportation kills

  #46  
Old April 25th 18, 06:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default The last days of analog

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:08:57 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

regardless, stitching images is simple. in fact, it's almost entirely
automatic.

or were you planning on stitching them individually?


I have done that and it works quite well.


i used to do that long ago, and no it doesn't.


In that case, operator error.

it's a *huge* pain to get it right and the results are nowhere near as
good as when a computer does it, especially when the computer makes the
necessary adjustments to merge the images (and even gets the order
correct).

However I am happy to use
software.


of course, since it's much easier and produces far better results.



We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?

which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic.


Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you
were doing.


i have long ago, and i do.

let's not forget that you incorrectly claimed that to photograph a
'tall wall' would require tilting the *rear* standard, which is wrong.


That's the problem with your surreptitious snips. You haven't quoted
me correctly. I originally wrote:

"There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up
while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes
with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the
camera back".

If you are going to keep the whole of the wall in focus the plane of
the wall, the plane of the lens and the film plane must have a common
point of intersection. The lens will have to be raised and tilted
back. The film plane will have to be tilted back more.
to the rear.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg
is a diagram from a related case, where the photographer wants to keep
the ground in focus. I don't know of a digital camera which will do
quite that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #47  
Old April 25th 18, 06:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default The last days of analog

On 2018-04-25 05:23:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:08:57 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

regardless, stitching images is simple. in fact, it's almost entirely
automatic.

or were you planning on stitching them individually?

I have done that and it works quite well.


i used to do that long ago, and no it doesn't.


In that case, operator error.

it's a *huge* pain to get it right and the results are nowhere near as
good as when a computer does it, especially when the computer makes the
necessary adjustments to merge the images (and even gets the order
correct).

However I am happy to use
software.


of course, since it's much easier and produces far better results.



We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?

which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic.

Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you
were doing.


i have long ago, and i do.

let's not forget that you incorrectly claimed that to photograph a
'tall wall' would require tilting the *rear* standard, which is wrong.


That's the problem with your surreptitious snips. You haven't quoted
me correctly. I originally wrote:

"There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up
while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes
with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the
camera back".

If you are going to keep the whole of the wall in focus the plane of
the wall, the plane of the lens and the film plane must have a common
point of intersection. The lens will have to be raised and tilted
back. The film plane will have to be tilted back more.
to the rear.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg
is a diagram from a related case, where the photographer wants to keep
the ground in focus. I don't know of a digital camera which will do
quite that.


http://www.hartbleilens.com/product_info.php?products_id=28

http://tinyurl.com/ydyyrcgt
--
teleportation kills

  #48  
Old April 25th 18, 09:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default The last days of analog

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:56:36 +0200, android wrote:

On 2018-04-25 05:23:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:08:57 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

regardless, stitching images is simple. in fact, it's almost entirely
automatic.

or were you planning on stitching them individually?

I have done that and it works quite well.

i used to do that long ago, and no it doesn't.


In that case, operator error.

it's a *huge* pain to get it right and the results are nowhere near as
good as when a computer does it, especially when the computer makes the
necessary adjustments to merge the images (and even gets the order
correct).

However I am happy to use
software.

of course, since it's much easier and produces far better results.



We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?

which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic.

Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you
were doing.

i have long ago, and i do.

let's not forget that you incorrectly claimed that to photograph a
'tall wall' would require tilting the *rear* standard, which is wrong.


That's the problem with your surreptitious snips. You haven't quoted
me correctly. I originally wrote:

"There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up
while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes
with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the
camera back".

If you are going to keep the whole of the wall in focus the plane of
the wall, the plane of the lens and the film plane must have a common
point of intersection. The lens will have to be raised and tilted
back. The film plane will have to be tilted back more.
to the rear.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg
is a diagram from a related case, where the photographer wants to keep
the ground in focus. I don't know of a digital camera which will do
quite that.


http://www.hartbleilens.com/product_info.php?products_id=28

http://tinyurl.com/ydyyrcgt


To do what I am talking about you have to be able to achieve vertical
displacement of the lens while tilting it in the other direction. I
dont see a Hartblei lens which will let you do that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #49  
Old April 25th 18, 10:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default The last days of analog

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?

which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic.

Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you
were doing.


i have long ago, and i do.

let's not forget that you incorrectly claimed that to photograph a
'tall wall' would require tilting the *rear* standard, which is wrong.


That's the problem with your surreptitious snips. You haven't quoted
me correctly.


i know exactly what you wrote.

I originally wrote:

"There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital.


then you know wrong.

Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up
while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes
with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the
camera back".


as i said, the camera back is *not* tilted for a tall wall, or more
commonly a tall building because walls are boring, however, the math is
the same.

the front standard (i.e., lens) is raised:
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...f5b4b9/t/576c2
e495a655be13f013ab2/1467902630687/rise.gif

If you are going to keep the whole of the wall in focus the plane of
the wall, the plane of the lens and the film plane must have a common
point of intersection. The lens will have to be raised and tilted
back. The film plane will have to be tilted back more.
to the rear.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg
is a diagram from a related case, where the photographer wants to keep
the ground in focus. I don't know of a digital camera which will do
quite that.


that's not relevant for the situation you described.

here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is
*parallel* to the building:
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...f5b4b9/t/576c2
e495a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif
  #50  
Old April 25th 18, 10:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default The last days of analog

On 2018-04-25 08:56:09 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:56:36 +0200, android wrote:

On 2018-04-25 05:23:34 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:08:57 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

regardless, stitching images is simple. in fact, it's almost entirely
automatic.

or were you planning on stitching them individually?

I have done that and it works quite well.

i used to do that long ago, and no it doesn't.

In that case, operator error.

it's a *huge* pain to get it right and the results are nowhere near as
good as when a computer does it, especially when the computer makes the
necessary adjustments to merge the images (and even gets the order
correct).

However I am happy to use
software.

of course, since it's much easier and produces far better results.



We are talking about camera adjustments, remember?

which takes more than a few seconds. movements are not automatic.

Either you have never used such a camera or you didn't know what you
were doing.

i have long ago, and i do.

let's not forget that you incorrectly claimed that to photograph a
'tall wall' would require tilting the *rear* standard, which is wrong.

That's the problem with your surreptitious snips. You haven't quoted
me correctly. I originally wrote:

"There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up
while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes
with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the
camera back".

If you are going to keep the whole of the wall in focus the plane of
the wall, the plane of the lens and the film plane must have a common
point of intersection. The lens will have to be raised and tilted
back. The film plane will have to be tilted back more.
to the rear.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg
is a diagram from a related case, where the photographer wants to keep
the ground in focus. I don't know of a digital camera which will do
quite that.


http://www.hartbleilens.com/product_info.php?products_id=28

http://tinyurl.com/ydyyrcgt


To do what I am talking about you have to be able to achieve vertical
displacement of the lens while tilting it in the other direction. I
dont see a Hartblei lens which will let you do that.


The problem that you present is solved by a tilt and shift lense:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Scheimpflug.jpg

The linked one is one:

http://www.hartbleilens.com/images/product_images/popup_images/28_7.jpg

You could go Canon of course, if you have a problem with Hartblei:

http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef401.html
--
teleportation kills

 




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
My first analog photos! Russell D. Digital Photography 0 May 29th 12 08:50 PM
My first analog photos! George Kerby Digital Photography 0 May 28th 12 07:47 PM
My first analog photos! Andrew Reilly[_2_] Digital Photography 1 May 28th 12 12:01 PM
Analog Black Dial [email protected] Digital SLR Cameras 0 May 21st 09 10:42 AM
Old Analog Meter: Any Value ?? Magnusfarce Digital Photography 14 July 3rd 07 06:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.