Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Stitching small format vs using medium format  (Read 14710 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7900



WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2009, 11:27:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Forcing the perspective to front objects and such like you can do with wide angles. Something like is a good classic case of giving the room more space. Now if i pulled back with a longer lens and stitched I would be compressing that space. So when you want to force the perspective like this only a wide angle can give you that big foreground to small background effect

Perspective is not impacted the least bit by focal lenght, it is only a function of the relative position between camera and subject (distance). When you do not stitch, the need to encompass the whole scene will force you to move back if you use a longer lens, which changes perspective. It is not the case with stitching.

Stitching for resolution only reduces the DoF, that's it.

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Now Bernard we can go around till the cows go home on glow and tonality but in all my years MF has it better with the great DR from shadow detail to detail in the highlights the tonal range i think is much better. Before you get into all that let me add I shot every system and every format there is including the D3x and granted it is a sweetie and finally Nikon has some real glass to go with it about freaking time I may add. Obviously a lot cheaper to get in as well and more versatile but end of the day MF just looks better to my eye in every way. Everything has it's place in this industry. This was a Mamiya 28mm

Now we can go round and round on this very subject but you would never convince me otherwise. Sorry

I cannot argue with that and I am sure that most people would agree when looking at renditions from C1 Pro that does a great job curvewise for the backs. I should really do an apple to apple comparison one of these weekends. I'll look for a P65+ to rent.

I used to own the Mamiya 28mm, nice lens indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #41 on: September 04, 2009, 04:45:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Perspective is not impacted the least bit by focal lenght, it is only a function of the relative position between camera and subject (distance). When you do not stitch, the need to encompass the whole scene will force you to move back if you use a longer lens, which changes perspective. It is not the case with stitching.

Agreed! Bernard. This is a point which often causes much confusion amongst photographers. We're all familiar with the distorted perspective that wide-angle lenses can produce. Take a portrait with a 15mm lens on a FF DSLR, from a distance of 1 foot, and the subject will likey appear to have a huge honker. Not very flattering.

However, on a P&S camera, a 15mm lens would be ideal for portraiture, but from a significantly greater distance of course.

From the same distance with the 15mm lens on the FF DSLR, the perspective would be the same, but significant cropping would be required and the final portrait would likely be of much lower resolution than the P&S shot from the same distance.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 04:49:04 AM by Ray » Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2364


« Reply #42 on: September 04, 2009, 07:33:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
We're all familiar with the distorted perspective that wide-angle lenses can produce.

The only thing that is determining perspective is distance/position. Wide-angle lenses don't produce distorted perspective, the distance they allow you to shoot from combined with their FoV does. That was what you were trying to say, I think?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 08:25:28 AM by Dustbak » Logged
ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #43 on: September 04, 2009, 07:46:10 AM »
ReplyReply

it does surprise me how many professional photographers do not know the definition of photographic perspective and which are its influencing factors. One could expect from a professional earning money to know that perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the lens and its focal length, that the so-famous and among photographers wide-spread "wide angle perspective" does not exist, and that all is related to the view point, the shooting distance/angle, respectively to the reproduction scale.

Thierry
Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 04, 2009, 08:00:15 AM »
ReplyReply

It's more about the look of compression. From exactly the same spot with a longer lens stitched compared to a wide angle the longer lens compresses the look the wide angle does not compress the look from foreground to background like a longer lens does. Our wording is just different . In this case with the interior that back door will appear closer to the foreground when you stitch with a longer lens from the same distance. With a wide angle that back door does not compress and actually recedes. Take any 50mm normal lens than take any 24mm lens and compare the same framing and the normal lens compresses the scene more compared to a wide angle.

Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2009, 08:02:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Perspective distortion (photography)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Perspective correction.


This simulation shows how adjusting the angle of view of a camera, while varying the camera distance, keeping the object in frame, results in vastly differing images. At narrow angles, large distances, light rays are nearly parallel, resulting in a "flattened" image. At wide angles, short distances, the object appears distorted.
In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length. Perspective distortion can typically be seen in images shot using a wide angle of view, where an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, or in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, where the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects and more distant objects may look exceptionally large, when such images are viewed with a typical viewing angle.
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2364


« Reply #46 on: September 04, 2009, 08:03:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
It's more about the look of compression. From exactly the same spot with a longer lens stitched compared to a wide angle the longer lens compresses the look the wide angle does not compress the look from foreground to background like a longer lens does. Our wording is just different . In this case with the interior that back door will appear closer to the foreground when you stitch with a longer lens from the same distance. With a wide angle that back door does not compress and actually recedes. Take any 50mm normal lens than take any 24mm lens and compare the same framing and the normal lens compresses the scene more compared to a wide angle.


The same framing with a 50 and a 24 (on the same format) means different distances and therefore a different perspective. Would you use the same distance/position and crop to the same framing the perspective would be the same.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 08:03:45 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 04, 2009, 08:05:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dustbak
The same framing with a 50 and a 24 (on the same format) means different distances and therefore a different perspective. Would you use the same distance/position and crop to the same framing the perspective would be the same.


Same spot don't move the camera. Just crop in to see the 24mm lens framing equal to the 50mm and look at the different compression from subject to background.

I'm not talking about moving a camera from the same spot in that interior take the 28mm wide angle shot than take 6 80mm stitched shots to equal the same framing of the 28mm and the foreground to background look is completely different in LOOK. That is all I said from the beginning period.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 08:08:52 AM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2009, 08:07:10 AM »
ReplyReply

it is not true, Guy!

your word "compress" is actually and only ANOTHER reproduction scale/ratio.

Now I would like to invite you to make a little test which explains and proves it all:

- take 2 shots with 2 different lenses, e.g. a 28mm and then e.g. a 300mm, from the very same distance/angle
- enlarge those 2 shots to the very same size/reproduction scale of the suject

You shall notice 2 facts:

- both shots, when enlarged to the same ratio (subject same size), do absolutely overlap
- in addition the 2 shots do even have the same DoF (which destroys another wide-spread belief among photographers, that a short lens has more DoF than a longer one).

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
It's more about the look of compression. From exactly the same spot with a longer lens stitched compared to a wide angle the longer lens compresses the look the wide angle does not compress the look from foreground to background like a longer lens does. Our wording is just different . In this case with the interior that back door will appear closer to the foreground when you stitch with a longer lens from the same distance. With a wide angle that back door does not compress and actually recedes. Take any 50mm normal lens than take any 24mm lens and compare the same framing and the normal lens compresses the scene more compared to a wide angle.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 08:22:27 AM by ThierryH » Logged

ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2009, 08:08:52 AM »
ReplyReply

EXACTLY, Dustback.

We should open a school.



Thierry

Quote from: Dustbak
The same framing with a 50 and a 24 (on the same format) means different distances and therefore a different perspective. Would you use the same distance/position and crop to the same framing the perspective would be the same.
Logged

ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2009, 08:17:47 AM »
ReplyReply

There we are: different distances.

Therefore, nothing to do with focal length. And if you want to get the same ratio inside your capture surface, then you obviously have to take a longer, resp. a shorter lens. Then you can't compare perspective anymore, you have to compare from the same distance/angle.

BTW, definition of perspective:

The representation/rendering of the 3rd dimension (depth) of a subject on a 2-dimensional capture medium (film or digital sensor): your eyes can see 3 dimensions BECAUSE you have 2 eyes, a 2 dimensional film/sensor can't, thus the 3rd dimension of your subject is not longer there, you need to "simulate" this 3rd dimension (the depth of the subject) with converging or diverging lines. That can only be done by changing the view point/distance to subject.

Thierry

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
... At narrow angles, large distances, light rays are nearly parallel, resulting in a "flattened" image. At wide angles, short distances, the object appears distorted.
Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2009, 08:32:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Good glad you got it all figured out and please go teach it by the book in school, I will take a different approach and actually teach it in the field and I'm damn good at it. Have a great day have much more important things to do but we see this completely differently.
Logged

ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2009, 08:55:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Guy, did you have a bad day, or woke up with the wrong foot?

I kindly ask you not to start your usual way to speak to me: I did not aggress you, nor mention your name. Simply putting things straight which are of common knowledge (or should) and trying to explain with simple words something which always seems to confuse some people.

I do not live by the books, but it seems to me an essential basic knowledge, when one calls oneself a professional photographer: actually the first thing one learns, when handling and playing with lenses.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Good glad you got it all figured out and please go teach it by the book in school, I will take a different approach and actually teach it in the field and I'm damn good at it. Have a great day have much more important things to do but we see this completely differently.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7900



WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2009, 09:00:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
This simulation shows how adjusting the angle of view of a camera, while varying the camera distance, keeping the object in frame, results in vastly differing images. At narrow angles, large distances, light rays are nearly parallel, resulting in a "flattened" image. At wide angles, short distances, the object appears distorted.
In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length. Perspective distortion can typically be seen in images shot using a wide angle of view, where an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, or in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, where the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects and more distant objects may look exceptionally large, when such images are viewed with a typical viewing angle.

Key words in bold.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2009, 09:11:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ThierryH
Guy, did you have a bad day, or woke up with the wrong foot?

I kindly ask you not to start your usual way to speak to me: I did not aggress you, nor mention your name. Simply putting things straight which are of common knowledge (or should) and trying to explain with simple words something which always seems to confuse some people.

I do not live by the books, but it seems to me an essential basic knowledge, when one calls oneself a professional photographer: actually the first thing one learns, when handling and playing with lenses.

Best regards,
Thierry


Love your insults. Photographers learn by doing and most never opened a book in there life on it. I don't go by any book but what I see

What you have completely ignored is taking apart this 28mm image and putting it into 6 squares that from the same position shot with a 80mm lens the look would be different from each shot. Look at each shot or section and think how a 80mm would render that than put it back together as one and that look would not match the 28mm look. That is ALL i said from the beginning. You can't get any one of those sections to look like they do with a normal lens they are have a forced perspective due to the distortion of the lens. The foreground to background is different

BTW you have insulted me and every photographer around by you your last comment several posts back. You still don't have a grasp on how you come across. People are here to make a living and insulting people because they think in a totally different way and not your way is unfair and wrong. I had enough of this bullshit
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 09:12:03 AM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2009, 09:30:52 AM »
ReplyReply

my God, here we are again.

Yes, photographers learn by doing, where is your point?: one can understand what I have explained only by doing and trying.

You have really some problems, and can't take it to be contradicted in any way.

I was thinking you had better and more important to do, but actually insults come from you, and you don't miss an opportunity. It doesn't seem that I have offended somebody else, but only you. You have not lost your tendency to generalize.

And please leave me alone with your remarks about "how to come across": my knowledge is that you are too well known in the different places to be a "bit" out of place to make such a remark.

Thierry

PS: I won't comment any longer on your way to see things: simply apply your technic and knowledge for your images, if you are happy with it.

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Love your insults. Photographers learn by doing and most never opened a book in there life on it. I don't go by any book but what I see

What you have completely ignored is taking apart this 28mm image and putting it into 6 squares that from the same position shot with a 80mm lens the look would be different from each shot. Look at each shot or section and think how a 80mm would render that than put it back together as one and that look would not match the 28mm look. That is ALL i said from the beginning. You can't get any one of those sections to look like they do with a normal lens they are have a forced perspective due to the distortion of the lens. The foreground to background is different

BTW you have insulted me and every photographer around by you your last comment several posts back. You still don't have a grasp on how you come across. People are here to make a living and insulting people because they think in a totally different way and not your way is unfair and wrong. I had enough of this bullshit
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 09:31:49 AM by ThierryH » Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2009, 09:57:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ThierryH
it does surprise me how many professional photographers do not know the definition of photographic perspective and which are its influencing factors. One could expect from a professional earning money to know that perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the lens and its focal length, that the so-famous and among photographers wide-spread "wide angle perspective" does not exist, and that all is related to the view point, the shooting distance/angle, respectively to the reproduction scale.

Thierry


No this is how you started it by insulting me and every other Pro that works for money. So please don't twist things around to make you look like the good guy. This is EXACTLY what you do on every thread I have seen you in and start with the god like superiority complex. We ALL have had enough of it. It ends here. If I am wrong than you can be polite but you simply do not know how to do that to me and others as well. This conversation is over
Logged

ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2009, 10:42:05 AM »
ReplyReply

the only thing to add, is that it seems that you're the only one not knowing, looking at how many have corrected your way to understand it!
So again, please don't generalize, I have insulted nobody, but can understand YOU feeling to be (insulted). And I still do feel sorry that a "professional" photographer does not know his basics.

I have no superiority complex, but you seem to have an inferiority one, that's what transpire through all your remarks and sentences, each and any time somebody dares to say differently than you, here and elsewhere.

It ends when I wish it, not when YOU ask me to end it: I hope this is clear.

Thierry

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
No this is how you started it by insulting me and every other Pro that works for money. So please don't twist things around to make you look like the good guy. This is EXACTLY what you do on every thread I have seen you in and start with the god like superiority complex. We ALL have had enough of it. It ends here. If I am wrong than you can be polite but you simply do not know how to do that to me and others as well. This conversation is over
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 10:43:19 AM by ThierryH » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7332


WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2009, 10:59:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Calm down, please...

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Luis Argerich
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


Astrolandscaper


WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2009, 11:21:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Why do you guys try to demonstrate the truth? If somebody can't or doesn't want to understand it is not nice for the others to see a zillion posts trying  to explain it. Specially when the other part doesn't want to be explained at all.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 11:21:59 AM by luigis » Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad