That would be interesting to see (the selective focus shot).
Much of the field curvature may not be as significant as the geometric distortions. From what I've seen, its just a projection, and in fact is probably better compensated by software than can be by a lens of the equivalent focal length.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
You can correct geometry sometimes but you cant correct plane of focus after the fact. All of these images I have seen so far are using small fstops which is masking the field curvature. Id like to see what happens on a selective focus shot with considerable panning.... JCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Yes, you do have to compensate if taking geometry into account. This fellow did it like I mentioned before, this is an extreme example:
http://tinyurl.com/6zmnj
He has many other images in his gallery that are very impressive.
rg
John C. O'Connell wrote:
If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved "plane" of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical "plane" of focus?
I would think this could be masked with small apertures
to gain depth of field, but what about geometry?
I don't see how you could do architecture via stitching. Another thing, in order to get correct geometric projection, wouldn't you need
to mount the camera such that the panning axis is at the nodal point of the lens instead of the usual tripod mount which is further back near the focal plane? JCO
