Yep. And correcting the CA manually gives beter results. On 27 April 2011 17:42, Matthew Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Charles Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Apr 27, 2011, at 10:33, Toine wrote: >> >>> The DA 10-17 is also included. The correction is a complete defish and >>> the end result is very ugly... >>> >> >> It's quite difficult to fathom what else one could do for a lens >> "correction" on a fisheye. > > You could correct it from an imperfect equiangular projection to a > perfect equiangular projection. Just as you correct an imperfect > rectilinear projection to a perfect rectilinear projection, in the > case of rectilinear lenses. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. >
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
