Perspective (was Re: Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David Ruether on 10 Aug 2010 13:00 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:201008100856127987-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-08-10 08:27:54 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> said: >> ...... the brain can learn to apply *possible* corrections >> (exchanges of up and down, left and right orientations - and >> to synthesize missing parts in the visual field, which we all have), >> but not impossible things, such as converting a 180+ degree >> fisheye view into a 180+ degree rectangular-perspective view. >> Partly (maybe mostly...;-) why most people assume that they >> see in rectangular perspective is that most people visually >> "attend" to only a narrow angle of view at any one moment >> and "construct" their impression of visual reality from a large >> series of such narrow views - and within a narrow angle of >> view, all the several possible perspective types look nearly >> the same... >> --DR > ...and then there is telephoto compression when viewpoint/camera/subject "perspective" is maintained. I think a big point of > contention is understanding that a change in how an image "looks" because of a change in FL, or sensor size is not a change of > "perspective." > This is an error I have been guilty of. Yes. this is a common mistake...;-) It is due to a change of view angle (a "telephoto" cropping, or a widening of the angle of view to include unfamiliar aspects of the image edge effects of a *perspective type*). > Strictly speaking perspective is related to viewpoint/camera/subject position. Where lens induced distortion, and compression, > with maintained viewpoint/camera/subject position, is just that, a change to the image/scene from the same perspective. Here I think this ignores what "perspective" is in optical/imaging terms. See my http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/seeing_and_perspective.htm for more on that. There really are several distinctive perspective *types* possible, and these are not the same as what you mention above - although with any perspective type, viewpoint, angle of view, etc. will certainly affect the image appearance. I think a more definitive view of "perspective" is being confused with the more casual use of the word "perspective"... Also, be careful with that term, "lens distortion" - it does not refer to apparent image "compression" or WA image edge effects, but to the failure of a lens to follow the rules for its perspective type (barrel, moustache, and/or pincushion distortion in a rectangular-perspective lens type, for instance). More on that and other things related to perspective (and MUCH more...! ;-) can be found here -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/articles.html > So one could say you can get several different views of a single scene from the same perspective, with lenses of different FL, or > even with different cameras, provided the subject to sensor plane is maintained as a constant. -- > Regards, > > Savageduck Or, you can crop near the center (only!) of a wide view and do the same thing, but I'm considering, and trying to show, things that go beyond that...;-) --DR
From: Shiva Das on 10 Aug 2010 14:14 In article <ArqdnYZXftq9yfzRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message > news:shiv-663310.19271109082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.example > .com... > > In article <crednS_gOehk4P3RnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > And by perspective I mean what Albrecht Durer, Johannes Vermeer, > >> > Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo Buonarote meant by perspective: the > >> > geometrical reconstruction of a stationary point of view looking at an > >> > image projected on a stationary picture plane (in the case of Durer a > >> > glass plate, in the case of Vermeer a Camera Oscura). > >> > >> Obscura, I assume you mean. > >> > > > > You may assume what you wish. I meant exactly what I said: Camera > > Oscura. Brush up on it here -- I hope you read Latin: > > > > http://www.uniurb.it/Filosofia/bibliografie/Spinoza/camera.htm > > I don't. I also don't read Italian, which is what that text appears to be > in. But in any case, the illustration in that article is of a camera > obscura. (With a "b.") > > > > > > > And since you have amply demonstrated that you do not understand the > > first thing about perspective, I will bow out of this waste of time of a > > discussion. > > You are probably wise to do so. You might want to instead spend the time > brushing up on the difference between Latin and Italian. Now you are seeing the letter "B" where it isn't. The page has the word "Oscura" six times and the word "Obscura" zero times. 'Nuff said.
From: Savageduck on 10 Aug 2010 14:34 On 2010-08-10 11:14:04 -0700, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> said: > In article <ArqdnYZXftq9yfzRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >> "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message >> news:shiv-663310.19271109082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.example >> .com... >>> In article <crednS_gOehk4P3RnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, >>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> And by perspective I mean what Albrecht Durer, Johannes Vermeer, >>>>> Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo Buonarote meant by perspective: the >>>>> geometrical reconstruction of a stationary point of view looking at an >>>>> image projected on a stationary picture plane (in the case of Durer a >>>>> glass plate, in the case of Vermeer a Camera Oscura). >>>> >>>> Obscura, I assume you mean. >>>> >>> >>> You may assume what you wish. I meant exactly what I said: Camera >>> Oscura. Brush up on it here -- I hope you read Latin: >>> >>> http://www.uniurb.it/Filosofia/bibliografie/Spinoza/camera.htm >> >> I don't. I also don't read Italian, which is what that text appears to be >> in. But in any case, the illustration in that article is of a camera >> obscura. (With a "b.") >> >>> >>> >>> And since you have amply demonstrated that you do not understand the >>> first thing about perspective, I will bow out of this waste of time of a >>> discussion. >> >> You are probably wise to do so. You might want to instead spend the time >> brushing up on the difference between Latin and Italian. > > Now you are seeing the letter "B" where it isn't. The page has the word > "Oscura" six times and the word "Obscura" zero times. > > 'Nuff said. You are taking "oscura" from an old latin document, and it may well have been the correct term when that document was drafted. However check; < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura > and I think you will find your usage is the "obscure" and less commonly used one. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Martin Brown on 10 Aug 2010 15:25 On 10/08/2010 19:34, Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-08-10 11:14:04 -0700, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> said: > >> In article <ArqdnYZXftq9yfzRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, >> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >> >>> "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:shiv-663310.19271109082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.example >>> >>> .com... >>>> In article <crednS_gOehk4P3RnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, >>>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And by perspective I mean what Albrecht Durer, Johannes Vermeer, >>>>>> Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo Buonarote meant by >>>>>> perspective: the >>>>>> geometrical reconstruction of a stationary point of view looking >>>>>> at an >>>>>> image projected on a stationary picture plane (in the case of Durer a >>>>>> glass plate, in the case of Vermeer a Camera Oscura). >>>>> >>>>> Obscura, I assume you mean. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You may assume what you wish. I meant exactly what I said: Camera >>>> Oscura. Brush up on it here -- I hope you read Latin: >>>> >>>> http://www.uniurb.it/Filosofia/bibliografie/Spinoza/camera.htm >>> >>> I don't. I also don't read Italian, which is what that text appears >>> to be >>> in. But in any case, the illustration in that article is of a camera >>> obscura. (With a "b.") >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And since you have amply demonstrated that you do not understand the >>>> first thing about perspective, I will bow out of this waste of time >>>> of a >>>> discussion. >>> >>> You are probably wise to do so. You might want to instead spend the time >>> brushing up on the difference between Latin and Italian. >> >> Now you are seeing the letter "B" where it isn't. The page has the word >> "Oscura" six times and the word "Obscura" zero times. >> >> 'Nuff said. > > You are taking "oscura" from an old latin document, and it may well have > been the correct term when that document was drafted. However check; < > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura > and I think you will find > your usage is the "obscure" and less commonly used one. It is the Italian for dark. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oscura English has taken it to camera obscura (literally in the original meaning a darkened room) eg. http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/CAMERA_OBSCURA.html I suspect it may be modern Italian and Spanish that has dropped the "b". http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obscuro#Latin Regards, Martin Brown
From: Shiva Das on 10 Aug 2010 19:24
In article <2010081011344922503-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-08-10 11:14:04 -0700, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> said: > > > In article <ArqdnYZXftq9yfzRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > > > >> "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message > >> news:shiv-663310.19271109082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.exam > >> ple > >> .com... > >>> In article <crednS_gOehk4P3RnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > >>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> And by perspective I mean what Albrecht Durer, Johannes Vermeer, > >>>>> Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo Buonarote meant by perspective: the > >>>>> geometrical reconstruction of a stationary point of view looking at an > >>>>> image projected on a stationary picture plane (in the case of Durer a > >>>>> glass plate, in the case of Vermeer a Camera Oscura). > >>>> > >>>> Obscura, I assume you mean. > >>>> > >>> > >>> You may assume what you wish. I meant exactly what I said: Camera > >>> Oscura. Brush up on it here -- I hope you read Latin: > >>> > >>> http://www.uniurb.it/Filosofia/bibliografie/Spinoza/camera.htm > >> > >> I don't. I also don't read Italian, which is what that text appears to be > >> in. But in any case, the illustration in that article is of a camera > >> obscura. (With a "b.") > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> And since you have amply demonstrated that you do not understand the > >>> first thing about perspective, I will bow out of this waste of time of a > >>> discussion. > >> > >> You are probably wise to do so. You might want to instead spend the time > >> brushing up on the difference between Latin and Italian. > > > > Now you are seeing the letter "B" where it isn't. The page has the word > > "Oscura" six times and the word "Obscura" zero times. > > > > 'Nuff said. > > You are taking "oscura" from an old latin document, and it may well > have been the correct term when that document was drafted. However > check; < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura > and I think you > will find your usage is the "obscure" and less commonly used one. Oh I agree completely that it is the archaic Latin version, not in wide (angle) use in English. However, no matter what our perspectively-challenged friend says, it is exactly what I meant to say. It may be Obscure; however, it is not incorrect. |