Igor -
I took another look at your first image - I actually pulled it into
photoshop and adjusted the curves to make the flare spots more
prominent. Looking at them closely I agree that they are flare spots -
they have the hexagonal shape of the aperture and the characteristic
brighter outer
That should be definitely not defiantly, though I suppose it could be...
On 9/17/2014 12:03 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Well, I haven't been keeping track of this thread, much, obviously.
The first image with the sun in the frame is defiantly lens flare,
which is caused by light bouncing off lens
On 16/09/2014 9:11 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Mark, this argument got me thinking even more (after I somewhat
thoughtfully dismissed Bill's suggestion).
You gave one of my suggestions some thought?
Why in the world would you do that?
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 9/17/2014 5:36 PM, Bill wrote:
On 16/09/2014 9:11 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Mark, this argument got me thinking even more (after I somewhat
thoughtfully dismissed Bill's suggestion).
You gave one of my suggestions some thought?
Why in the world would you do that?
bill
Personally, I'd
On 17/09/2014 6:45 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
On 9/17/2014 5:36 PM, Bill wrote:
On 16/09/2014 9:11 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Mark, this argument got me thinking even more (after I somewhat
thoughtfully dismissed Bill's suggestion).
You gave one of my suggestions some thought?
Why in the world
Mark, this argument got me thinking even more (after I
somewhat thoughtfully dismissed Bill's suggestion).
My argument in defense of the non-aligned reflections was that
those were due to multiple reflections from non-parallel surfaces of
the elements (or, rather groups) on the sides where
Igor, if by ghost image you are referring to the round brightish spot in
the upper right corner of the second image, and the left side of the
first. I don't think you're seeing an internal lens issue, well not
exactly. What you have recorded are orbs.
Those who believe in the paranormal,
P.J.,
My inquiry was whether the ghost images in the original (sunny) image
were due to the reflections (possibly multiple reflections) from the lens
elements' surfaces. Mark and Bill suggested an alternative explanation
that those could've been caused by dust/mist particles.
My argument
Well, I haven't been keeping track of this thread, much, obviously. The
first image with the sun in the frame is defiantly lens flare, which is
caused by light bouncing off lens elements. Now that I know what the
argument is about, I'll shut up now. However I know people who'll go
just
Interesting experiment... Intuitively, it would seem that reflections
off the lens surfaces would align with the angle at which the light was
entering the lens. You can see that in the alignment of the two bright
flare spots in the lower left corner with the sun (light source,
obviously.) So -
If the elements are bonded they shouldn't act as a surface.
On 13 September 2014 15:54, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2014 8:11 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
How many surfaces does this lens have?
http://42graphy.org/misc/Baikal/_IR29947.jpg
(for those ready to cheat: it's
On 13/09/2014 12:13 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
If the elements are bonded they shouldn't act as a surface.
I'm sure they do, but I still run into the higher math problem.
I am rather a simple man of pleasures.
bill
On 13 September 2014 15:54, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 13 September 2014 07:13, Rob Studdert distudio.p...@gmail.com wrote:
If the elements are bonded they shouldn't act as a surface.
Unfortunately, not correct. The effect can be minimised to the point
of negligibility by careful choice of bonding agent and by other
techniques such as SMC
Here's the optical formula you can judge for yourself.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/_optics/17-70f4.gif
On 9/12/2014 10:11 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
How many surfaces does this lens have?
http://42graphy.org/misc/Baikal/_IR29947.jpg
(for those ready to cheat: it's Pentax 17-70/4
34?
Jack
- Original Message -
From: P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com
To: PDML pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 8:44:27 AM
Subject: Re: Count number of lens surfaces from a photo
Here's the optical formula you can judge for yourself.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp
How many surfaces does this lens have?
http://42graphy.org/misc/Baikal/_IR29947.jpg
(for those ready to cheat: it's Pentax 17-70/4 at f/22)
I didn't expect to see so many reflections from all the surfaces.
That's what I assume was the reason for all those spots. Right?
Igor
--
PDML
On 12/09/2014 8:11 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
How many surfaces does this lens have?
http://42graphy.org/misc/Baikal/_IR29947.jpg
(for those ready to cheat: it's Pentax 17-70/4 at f/22)
I didn't expect to see so many reflections from all the surfaces.
That's what I assume was the reason for all
17 matches
Mail list logo
