True; I don't mean to dispute this.
It claims to be about drawing, but later it mentions a pinhole camera - and in fact there is really no difference. Photography is just an automated, fast, very accurate, full-colour (or full-grayscale) version of perspective drawing!
Reflect some more. ;-) That shot has an AOV of around 90 degreesI dunno - give me time to reflect.
and was shot with the 100/2 on the 20D. The effective location of
the shot was on the other side of an opaque wall.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Yeah, it was a hemispherical mirror with distortions corrected by the Panorama Tools Plugins.
Imagine she's wearing clothes.
Thanks, I was holding my breath waiting for a real complaint.Just kidding.
I think this is mostly just a difference in terminology. I have been using "telephoto compression" to refer to the perceived "flattening" of a telephoto image as compared with the original scene, as well as the "flatness" that is perceived even without reference to the original scene or to another image. It seems that you are using "telephoto compression" just to describe the difference in perspective resulting from moving farther from the subject (as would be necessary to obtain the same framing with a longer lens).
This is a good analogy, but there is an important difference.
There cetainly is a difference because the analogy isn't perfect but...
There cetainly is a difference because the analogy isn't perfect but...
I'll have to confess that I've read several of your long threads and I still haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about. It seems like you're saying that "wide angle distortion" depends upon how close the viewer is to the photograph?
Nothing that happens on this or any other web site has any effect on my day at all, but thanks for asking.
You mean, like using the word "Hogwash" to respond (mistakenly) to someone who actually knows what he's talking about? How tactful of you.
(hearing rattling)
He is.
That's a real shame; judging from some of your posts you could learn a lot here. I especially like your “oops” post about the “Porsche twive” where you tell how to “get a lot back of peoples head in the picture”.
It was wrong the first time you wrote it, and it's still wrong.
See, you should have listened when earlier I said "Save yourself some time"
You're using Wikipedia as an authority? Now I understand how you got so confused.
I'm not convinced that serious misconceptions are this widespread. I think most of the people who would agree with the statement "perspective is affected by changing focal length" would understand it to mean either that depth distortion is affected by focal length (i.e., what I have said), or that perspective is affected indirectly via changing distance to maintain the same framing.
That was the intent. And it's why I'm now using the term "depth distortion" to make it clear that it is not the same as perspective. (It is related, though, and what relates the two phenomena is the way perspective is used together with apparent size as a depth cue.)
No, I've been talking about rectilinear projection only - fisheye lenses add an entirely new element. Other projections (whether produced by a lens or simulated by reprojection) can change the appearance of distortion and possibly make it less noticeable, but of course they can't change perspective. They also can't eliminate all of the distortion.
Parallel lines in the scene are parallel in a rectilinear image only if they are also parallel to the plane onto which the image is projected. In a non-rectilinear image, they aren't even straight lines.
