On 27 Jul 2005 at 10:22, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > The other thing to note (that the atkins article mentions) is that > the conversion from fisheye-rectiliner isn't a simple geometric > transformation. The fisheye is effectively wider (i.e. will cover > more angle of view) than an equivalent rectilinear lens, although it won't do > so > consistently throughout the frame. In other words, converting to rectilinear > loses a lot of image in the corners of the fisheye image.
Yes data from the very corners is discarded in the conversion of a fisheye to rectilinear conversion but there is very little loss of quality if at all. And a 16mm fisheye converted to rectilinear view still provides a wider AOV that a 15mm rectilinear on the same camera. > In other words, they're completely different. If you can get away > with the barrel distortion from a fisheye, you'll tend to get better > results than trying to defish it all the time. Not in my experience. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
