Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on May 07, 2010, 09:37:13 pm
-
http://www.dr-clauss.de/Haltadefinizione_EN.htm#ASSISI (http://www.dr-clauss.de/Haltadefinizione_EN.htm#ASSISI)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I had been thinking about getting a Clauss,
Edit ... the picture that is obviously distorted and looks awful is the set-up shot, at the top of the Clauss web page, not the copy they produced. sorry for any confusion caused. The pano software would compensate for the distortion in the pano shots, so it would not be obvious in the copy, ... but it would result in loss of res.
Would a shift-and stitch image not have been better? /edit - for large pictures you would need to move and stitch.
I suppose the distortion (or projection) depends on the software and mode, but you would like to imagine that these people know what they are doing and are getting the best out of the kit.
Would a Hasselblad (or Phase) 60 with a 300mm lens been a better choice? /edit - if you were going to use pano... resulting in fewer pixels but perhaps comparable res.
-
I had been thinking about getting a Clauss, but the "San Francesco d'Assisi" picture is obviously distorted and, to my eye looks awful...
Would a shift-and stitch image not have been better?
I suppose the distortion (or projection) depends on the software and mode, but you would like to imagine that these people know what they are doing and are getting the best out of the kit.
Would a Hasselblad (or Phase) 60 with a 300mm lens been a better choice?
I can't link through to the end result photo for San Francesco d'Assisi. The only shot I see is the one setup shot showing the room, with the shooting tower in the picture. Obviously the end result perspective would be different from the set up shot, since they are shooting from up high and and in the center of the room from that tower.
I think that to extract the maximum level of detail, you need the longest focal length possible with the highest pixel density sensor, assuming that both the lens and the sensor meet your quality standards. I would think that the Nikon D3x and a Nikkor 600mm lens would accomplish that, not sure if there are any other better choices. Maybe a Canon 800mm lens and the 7D? I don't know if final image quality would match that of the D3x though.
-
I can't link through to the end result photo for San Francesco d'Assisi. The only shot I see is the one setup shot showing the room, with the shooting tower in the picture. Obviously the end result perspective would be different from the set up shot, since they are shooting from up high and and in the center of the room from that tower.
Cannot find the end result either.
Could you please send the link Dick?
I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the end result is a spherical pano which would of course show some distorsion.
I am in the middle of preparing for a small exhibition to be held in June in Tokyo. Some of the prints are 6 feet wide on the best available canvas. They were typically shot with a 100mm or 300mm lens on the D3x and are pretty amazing to my eyes. There is no quality loss whatsoever in the very corners and there is also no distorsion since the images were computed with a planar projection.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Cannot find the end result either.
Could you please send the link Dick?
I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the end result is a spherical pano which would of course show some distorsion.
Cheers,
Bernard
No - I no not need to see the result.
I think they got paid by the pixel, or they were working for people who thought that pixel count was directly related to res, regardless of everything.
-
I had been thinking about getting a Clauss, but the "San Francesco d'Assisi" picture is obviously distorted and, to my eye looks awful...
Could you please send the link Dick?
No - I no not need to see the result.
???
I don't follow, to your eye it looks awful, but you don't have a link because you do not need to see it?
Cheers,
Bart
-
No - I no not need to see the result.
I'm confused as well. To your eye the picture is obviously distorted and looks awful, but you haven't seen the picture?
-
Wow. Cosmic.
-
I had been thinking about getting a Clauss, but the "San Francesco d'Assisi" picture is obviously distorted and, to my eye looks awful...
???
I don't follow, to your eye it looks awful, but you don't have a link because you do not need to see it?
Cheers,
Bart
Now I can see why you are confused.
The picture that looks awful is the setup picture at the top of the web page.
-
Now I can see why you are confused.
The picture that looks awful is the setup picture at the top of the web page.
You also say it looks distorted, but the picture is of the setup itself, not the final product - so I don't see how distortion in the setup picture is relevant at all. Or am I missing something?
-
You also say it looks distorted, but the picture is of the setup itself, not the final product - so I don't see how distortion in the setup picture is relevant at all. Or am I missing something?
The distortion in the set-up picture is a different issue to the pano-distortion inherent in the use of a pano-head for copying co-planar artwork.
-
The distortion in the set-up picture is a different issue to the pano-distortion inherent in the use of a pano-head for copying co-planar artwork.
I still can't understand how you can conclude the picture is "obviously" distorted if you haven't seen the end result.
-
The distortion in the set-up picture is a different issue to the pano-distortion inherent in the use of a pano-head for copying co-planar artwork.
Dick,
Congratulations, you have taken fanboism to the next stage. You display all the typical attributes of the fanboy in terms of inaccuracy, circular reasoning and lack of honesty... but are applying these qualities to a shooting technique.
A real breakthrough.
Now I hope that you realize how large a disservice you are doing to some folks around who might actually believe what you write?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Congratulations, you have taken fanboism to the next stage. You display all the typical attributes of the fanboy in terms of inaccuracy, circular reasoning and dishonesty... but are applying these qualities to a shooting technique.
A real breakthrough.
Unfortunately not. Last summer, a chap on dpreview touted a car-door camera clamp that allowed shooting from one's driver seat. His claim that the turning radius on a 1984 Audi 570i gave the smoothest possible panos sparked a flame war with Yugo and Volkswagen fanbois that raged for weeks.
Sorry, but he beat Dick by at least 10 months.