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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |