Rob wrote: > 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?
The idea is that you get 180 degree panoramas without the obvious fish-eye distortion. I want the 180 degree angle of view. If you let the horizon or any straight line through the center of the image they won't curve with a fish-eye lens. This works remarkably well. I'm certain Pentax designed the 17-28 fish-eye zoom with for use with the panorama function of certain camera models in mind. So what I want to do is to use a fish-eye lens giving me 180 degree angle of view and crop away the upper and lower, distorted part of the frame, giving me a mildly distorted, 180 degree panorama format image. I don't plan to do stitching although thats another possibility. A cropped 35mm image won't give you that great resolution whereas a similarly croped 6X7 frame will give you a panoramic format equal to the X-pan. I'm toying with the idea because I may switch to the 6X7 format. The reasons apart from more real estate, is that the 67 has the flattest film path in the MF business; hence it will be great for aurora borealis shooting. Also, a fish-eye lens can be great for complete sky shots of auroras. But since a fish-eye lens like this is expensive and hard to justify, a second usage for panoramas may be the factor that may make the enterprise worthwhile. P�l - 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 .
