On 26 Dec 2001 at 21:00, P�l Jensen wrote: > Has anyone tried the 67 for panoramas? > A Hasselblad X-pan is expensive and heavy and of course limited in its usage. > I've used the 17-28 fish-eye zoom for panoramas with good result. The distortion > from the fish-eye lenses is for landscape subjects not detectable at the center > of the image. Hence, its great for panoramas. Unfortunately the 17-28 fish-eye > zoom is not that sharp and there's really too little real estate on the 35mm > format for cropping. Hence the 67 seems like great idea, particularly with the > 35mm fish-eye lens. 180 degree angle of view and plenty of area on the film > suitable for cropping. Besides there are software for correcting fish-eye > images. Anyone tried this combination?
Hi P�l, I haven't tried it but I considered it a while back. The X-Pan would give you a very different final effect from stitiching images given that it is just a very wide rectilinear lens, the distortion at the outer edges of the frame is extreme, at least they are designed for good film coverage though. I don't understand your reference to cropping relative to panoramic images shot with the fisheye? If you wish to shoot a pano made by stitching images that has a narrower vertical AOV then you just use a longer lens and take more shots? There is no point making a fisheye shot rectilinear then cropping it, if you are going to shoot fisheye you would use the whole frame? Maybe you can explain your requirements a little more precisely? What absolute horizontal and vertical AOV do you wish to capture? In any case there are some issues that you ought to consider in the move to 67 + 35mm FL fisheye. Firstly there will be little advantage over 35mm film scanned at 4000dpi unless the 67 film is scanned at over 2000dpi so consider the cost factor of high resolution scans and the file sizes that you will need to deal with. Secondly the fisheye to rectilinear correction software is quite CPU resource hungry as is good stitching software and obviously larger files take more time to transform. So if you don't have access to high resolution scans and a very fast computer with a 1GB+ of RAM then maybe a Pentax SMCPA16f2.8 would solve your problems? Also a shift lens can be real handy for shooting sequential panoramas as you can maintain an accurate level but shoot with horizon high or low in the shit using vertical shift. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
