On 29 November 2012 02:32, Greg 'groggy' Lehey groog...@gmail.com wrote:
Where do you find that? I've tried this in the Camera and Lens tab
with a photo taken vertically with the 9 mm lens. If I select
Rectilinear it tells me 71.5° vertically, which presumably ignores
the fact that it's
On 11/29/2012 01:42 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
Did you read the article? It specifies numerous different
projections. And the difference between 140° and 180° can't be
attributed just to distortion.
Indeed:
The angle of view of a fisheye lens is usually between 100 and 180 degrees[
1]
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 23:58:49 -1000, Gnome Nomad wrote:
On 11/29/2012 01:42 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
That wasn't what I was referring to, but arguably it needs to be
improved. The reference is barely authoritative, and Film format
sounds positively archaic.
To me, film
Ultra wide-angle 8mm fisheye lens with exaggerated perspective and
approximately 180° angle of view, for dramatic effects
Ultra-wide 139.3° diagonal field-of-view for 4/3 size image formats
Of course if you use the same lens with different sensor size, the result
will be different.
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 16:02:03 +0800, RizThon wrote:
Ultra wide-angle 8mm fisheye lens with exaggerated perspective and
approximately 180° angle of view, for dramatic effects
Ultra-wide 139.3° diagonal field-of-view for 4/3 size image formats
Of course if you use the same
Hi Greg,
in my opinion better is relative. If you want more quality and zoom
possibility then the most narrow angle the lens has, more close to these
objectives you will be. If you want an easy stitch, using less images will
make you achieve the final result in less time, then the more open angle
On 28 November 2012 12:10, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)
cartol...@gmail.com wrote:
Going back to your specific example, I don't think 9mm will have a much
narrow angle than an 8mm lens. Do you have their fov to compare? Probably
you will use the same number of images to stitch and will
On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 17:18:57 +0100, Felix Hagemann wrote:
On 28 November 2012 12:10, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)
cartol...@gmail.com wrote:
Going back to your specific example, I don't think 9mm will have a
much narrow angle than an 8mm lens. Do you have their fov to
2012/11/29 Greg 'groggy' Lehey groog...@gmail.com
Partially. The 9 mm has:
Horizontal FOV: 87.73°
Diagonal FOV: 100.49°
Vertical FOV:71.68°
I don't have a formula for fisheyes, so I can't give the output of my
program, but I'm told
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 10:29:19 +0800, RizThon wrote:
2012/11/29 Greg 'groggy' Lehey groog...@gmail.com
Partially. The 9 mm has:
Horizontal FOV: 87.73°
Diagonal FOV: 100.49°
Vertical FOV:71.68°
I don't have a formula for
Indeed. This is what has been puzzling me. There are two different 8
mm fisheyes available for Olympus: the relatively expensive 8 mm f/3.5
from Olympus, and the 8 mm f/3.5 from various rebadgers (Bower,
Samyang, Rokinon). The former costs about $800 and has a full 180°
diagonal angle of
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 13:43:46 +0800, RizThon wrote:
Indeed. This is what has been puzzling me. There are two different 8
mm fisheyes available for Olympus: the relatively expensive 8 mm f/3.5
from Olympus, and the 8 mm f/3.5 from various rebadgers (Bower,
Samyang, Rokinon). The
12 matches
Mail list logo
