on 9/8/03 2:46 PM, andrew fildes at afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I prefer to get bent right out of shape.
>>> AndrewF
>>
>> Now, now. Let's not terrify the therapists...
>> -
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> les clark / edgewater, nj / usa
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why not - it makes them happy.
> Anyway, what was all that nonsense about the 50mm as being the
> 'natural' view - it's the 16mm fish that best mimics the eye surely?
> 180deg. field, centre point of interest, distorted periphery -
> perfect! Just hold the print one centimetre from the nose for best
> realistic effect.
> AndrewF
I think the human eye spans about 130 degrees 'across the frame' (that's my
eyepall opinion <g>) so I think maybe a 12-15mm rectlinear lens more
approximates the 'human-eye' view. Also, the human brain corrects the linear
distortion 'in software' so we don't perceive the straight lines as curved.
I expect someday there will be digicams that will have extreme zoom lenses
that also do this in the box... imagine a 10-135mm equivalent zoom with
fully rectlinear output. Automatic cameras already compensate for the
variable aperture of some zooms in autoexposure mode, and the IS series
incorporated vari-focal lenses (by this I mean lenses that don't hold focus
when zoomed) with auto-focus so the effect is that the zoom is
self-corrected for focus... its only one more step for digital cameras to
correct in the processor for the distortion mapped from the lens.
I believe you can already fix this sort of stuff (barrel and pincushion
distortion of all sorts) using Panotools as well.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|