Barceló theater (Madrid) - first street test with the A7II + Canon 24mm TS-E II

[Guillermo Luijk]

I thought this art deco old cinema in Madrid would have a wonderful afternoon light these days, but this was not the case.
Just 1x1 crop from the RAW developer, no perspective nor distortion correction.

Comments are very welcome.

Regards

[Jeremy Roussak]

I prefer the monochrome. The sky in the other is a very odd colour.

Jeremy

[GrahamBy]

Weird. I "see" the verticals diverging, even though I can check that they are parallel to the frame. I guess my brain detects that I am looking upwards, and so insists on the fact that the verticals "should" diverge.

[Rob C]

Slobodan once posted a photograph with a similarly confusing impression of verticals - it was a shot with roof lines...

Acid sky? Makes me think Miami. Never been to Madrid - yet. The Prado can wait.

Rob C

[Guillermo Luijk]

Weird. I "see" the verticals diverging, even though I can check that they are parallel to the frame. I guess my brain detects that I am looking upwards, and so insists on the fact that the verticals "should" diverge.

This is an interesting discussion: is it a good idea to allow a slight convergence in order not to look diverging to our brain?.

Y prefer not to hesitate and make sure verticals are vertical, no matter if this may provoque confusion to the observer. But this is just a straightforward criteria, I don't mean it's the best option.

Regards

Enviado desde mi GT-I9195 mediante Tapatalk

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This is an interesting discussion: is it a good idea to allow a slight convergence in order not to look diverging to our brain?

Hi Guillermo,

The apparent disconnect with what we expect to see keeps tripping up people. It was discussed in other threads as well.

It's due to looking at the image from the (geometrically) wrong position and angle. A slight under-correction will look more natural to most people, except for architects who seem to prefer geometrical accuracy over a wrong perspective.

Cheers,
Bart

[GrahamBy]

except for architects who seem to prefer geometrical accuracy over a wrong perspective.

That's an interesting observation. What do architects do when they sketch, distort the perspective, or offer themselves the imaginary luxury of an ideal point of view?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That's an interesting observation. What do architects do when they sketch, distort the perspective, or offer themselves the imaginary luxury of an ideal point of view?

Perspective means that same size structures that are further away are depicted smaller. So a straight facade of a building is equally wide at the base and at the rooftop, but only when viewed from half height. When viewed from street level, the base is closer than the rooftop edge and the latter should be smaller/narrower due to distance.

Most shifted (fully keystone corrected) architectural images, are taken from a low level, yet the end result is viewed from a half height perspective point. So we have an over corrected vertical distance magnification (windows too large and stretched), and we view it from the wrong angle, making apparent distortion worse. Mathematically it is correct, the building is not designed/built tapered but square/straight, but geometrical projection is different (the vertical vanishing point is at infinity even though we view at an angle, but the horizontal vanishing points are not unless we shoot perpendicular to a flat facade).

The only proper way around it is to view the image from a correct perspective or projection point, i.e. from the height of the horizon (so from a low angle looking up at the image) and close enough to make the lines to the vanishing points correspond with a(n uncomfortably) close viewing position that is proportional to the focal length and output magnification.

That means with a fully keystone corrected image with 24mm lens, a 10x output magnification would require it to be viewed from some (24mm x 10 =) 24 cm (a bit less than 10 inches) distance, from nearer to the lower image edge at an angle towards the middle of the image, for a totally natural perspective.

It's just like letters/numbers painted on the road surface, they look normal when viewed at an angle, they look stretched or thin when viewed from too close or the wrong angle.

If the image would be viewed from the geometrically correct perspective position, then both architects and other viewers would be satisfied. This viewing distance/position becomes increasingly more uncomfortable as focal lengths, and output sizes,  get smaller.

Cheers,
Bart

[GrahamBy]

Perspective means that same size structures that are further away are depicted smaller. So a straight facade of a building is equally wide at the base and at the rooftop, but only when viewed from half height.

...although in fact the straightness is also an approximation, since the centre will then be close than the top and the bottom... and barrel "distortion" would correspond with what is seen, unless the viewer is floating at half height and infinite distance. However I can well understand that if you come from a technical drawing background, you probably don't want to see a subjective view of the building, but that Platonic "idea" of the building that is in the mind of the architect and in the plans (well, the elevation, to be correct!).

That's how I used to draw motorcycles when I was 10 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

...although in fact the straightness is also an approximation, since the centre will then be close than the top and the bottom... and barrel "distortion" would correspond with what is seen, unless the viewer is floating at half height and infinite distance.

Yes, however, due to the projection on a flat (sensor or film) plane, the projection will stretch from the center to the corners, and straight edges will remain straight. It is known as Rectilinear projection. It is therefore required to view the also flat magnification/print from the proper position and angle, which will then look correct (edges/corners of the output get smaller with viewing distance) again.

However I can well understand that if you come from a technical drawing background, you probably don't want to see a subjective view of the building, but that Platonic "idea" of the building that is in the mind of the architect and in the plans (well, the elevation, to be correct!).

Yes, that's why the Architects probably are looking for straight flat plane geometry in a flat plane, and artist renderings take 3D perspective into account, with converging lines that meet in the different perspective vanishing points.

That's how I used to draw motorcycles when I was 10 

And how people usually painted until the Renaissance, after which studies with reproducing perspective in a flat plane became popular.

Cheers,
Bart

[Guillermo Luijk]

Another image to trick our eyes: would you say the column on the left is not straight?... it's perfectly vertical:

Lonja de Valencia (Spain)

Shot with E-P5 + Zuiko 12mm

Regards

[Zorki5]

That's an interesting observation. What do architects do when they sketch, distort the perspective, or offer themselves the imaginary luxury of an ideal point of view?

Architects use so-called two-point perspective cameras (in CAD programs like Google Sketchup) to get essentially the same effect as a tilt-shift lens; namely, keep vertical lines parallel. Here, "two-point" refers to two vanishing points in the scene.

It is used by them so often that it is often referred to as "architectural perspective".

[GrahamBy]

Zorki: thanks! I'll die less stupid, as they say around here :-)

Guillermo: the pillar looks fine, maybe because of the absence of undersides of terraces to remind me I'm looking up. The door next to that pillar looks a bit peculiar, but what really caught my eye was the "lighting fixture" at the right... was it hanging unequally, or is that a perspective artifact?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Those interested in the issue of perceived perspective distortions and corrections might want to google the ancient Greek term "entasis."

[Guillermo Luijk]

Guillermo: the pillar looks fine, maybe because of the absence of undersides of terraces to remind me I'm looking up. The door next to that pillar looks a bit peculiar, but what really caught my eye was the "lighting fixture" at the right... was it hanging unequally, or is that a perspective artifact?

That building is 6 centuries old, so the door may for sure have imperfections. Probably that lamp on the right was not perfectly balanced and the perspective increased the perceived inequity.

Just to let you all know some more about Valencia (Spain), they are in holidays these days. Tonight at 0.00 dozens of paper and wooden figures will burn in fire all around the city. Valencia is plenty of fireworks and noise these days.









Regards

[GrahamBy]

Wow!

I haven't been to Valencia for over 20 years... but one day I should come for the final of the MotoGP. Than again, since that is degenerating into a farce, maybe for this festival instead

[Rajan Parrikar]

Lovely building. Compare to the 2nd and 3rd images here.