[SI] New Mandate: 46.8 Degrees; due Januray 17th, 2010
Bowser
Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
Alan Browne
Mind your cropped sensors ...
Alan Browne
This is simple enough for Bruce and Tony Polson.
Maybe they can team up?
Michael Benveniste
>Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees.
Alas, Nikon 50mm primes have an angle of view of 45.49 degrees.
>Fire at will...
If you insist, but can't we choose a more interesting subject than
hoary old legal documents?
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/wont.jpg (not an entry)
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There
is no substitute for thinking.
Bruce
>OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
>Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
>like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
That's not a "mandate". It offers the freedom to submit any kind of
crap, just as long as it is shot with a 50mm (or equivalent FOV) lens.
So at best, we can look forward to the customary SI mediocrity with
almost all the recent entries falling way below that low standard. As
usual, it will be followed by the usual gushing and fawning mutual
admiration of some truly execrable images.
The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Or gets worse.
Bowser
<m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:44:50 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>
>>Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>>a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>>the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees.
>
>Alas, Nikon 50mm primes have an angle of view of 45.49 degrees.
Damn shame. According to Big Bob's angle of view calculator, they
should be 46.8:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html
I strongly suggest you dump all the sub-standard gear, get a 5D II
along with a 50mm 1.4 Canon lens and then you can enter the
"competition."
Heh, heh...
OK, how about 46.8 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees?
Bowser
wrote:
Right. Maybe that's why certain French photographer/artists shot
nothing but a 50mm lens. What was that guy's name?
How about shooting something and submitting instead of whining like
some teenage schoolgirl who just lost her lipstick? Then again, maybe
you ARE some teenage girl who just lost her lipstick.
Bowser
I don't care what size sensor you have. Just keep it near 46.8
degrees...
Paul Furman
>
> That's not a "mandate".
Why so grumpy?
I don't recall you ever participated in any way.
I didn't submit for games because I guess I'm not a very fun guy <g>, I
just couldn't think of anything. I did think of shooting the sketchy
looking chess players downtown who play for money on the sidewalk but
didn't really feel like getting in their faces and didn't make it
downtown during the month. They don't play for fun anyways... very
serious. Anyways I didn't submit but I didn't complain either.
I'm tempted to cheat this mandate by using a 50mm reversed on bellows
for a macro shot <g> but I won't.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Troy Piggins
I'm on a 1.6x crop, so equivalent would be about 35mm lens? By
pure coincidence I just got a 35mm f/1.4L the other week but
haven't had a chance to give it much of a workout.
--
Troy Piggins
Paul Furman
> * Alan Browne wrote :
>> On 09-12-13 11:44 , Bowser wrote:
>>> OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
>>> Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>>> a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>>> the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
>>> like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/468_degrees
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
>> Mind your cropped sensors ...
>
> I'm on a 1.6x crop, so equivalent would be about 35mm lens?
Yeah, 31mm Canon, 33mm Nikon. Close enough!
> By
> pure coincidence I just got a 35mm f/1.4L the other week but
> haven't had a chance to give it much of a workout.
Perfect.
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:44:50 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
Why do you care? You don't have the balls to enter.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
I don't understand. I had prime lenses when I was shooting film, but
all I have now are zoom lenses including an 18/55. Does that mean I
shoot at 50?
Does it mean no cropping? Just resizing?
Alan Browne
Well, clearly the God's are smiling ...
Alan Browne
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:17:27 +0000, Bruce<docne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:44:50 -0500, Bowser<Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
>>> Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>>> a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>>> the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
>>> like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
>>
>>
>> That's not a "mandate". It offers the freedom to submit any kind of
>> crap, just as long as it is shot with a 50mm (or equivalent FOV) lens.
>>
>> So at best, we can look forward to the customary SI mediocrity with
>> almost all the recent entries falling way below that low standard. As
>> usual, it will be followed by the usual gushing and fawning mutual
>> admiration of some truly execrable images.
>>
>> The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Or gets worse.
>
> some teenage schoolgirl who just lost her lipstick?
Now that Bruce has whined, will Tony Polson join the chorus? Or would
that still be a monotone singing as one?
Robert Spanjaard
Well... I'm not going to participate, because I probably won't shoot much
the next couple of weeks. But I did shoot at a fair last August, and for
that I only brought my Sigma 30mm F/1.4 (because of the neutral
perspective and the large aperture).
BTW, number 4 and 5 are deliberately out of focus. :-)
http://www.arumes.com/temp/kermis2009/
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Bruce
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:17:27 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:44:50 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>
>>>OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
>>>Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>>>a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>>>the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
>>>like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
>>
>>
>>That's not a "mandate". It offers the freedom to submit any kind of
>>crap, just as long as it is shot with a 50mm (or equivalent FOV) lens.
>>
>>So at best, we can look forward to the customary SI mediocrity with
>>almost all the recent entries falling way below that low standard. As
>>usual, it will be followed by the usual gushing and fawning mutual
>>admiration of some truly execrable images.
>>
>>The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Or gets worse.
>
>Right. Maybe that's why certain French photographer/artists shot
>nothing but a 50mm lens.
But he was a *photographer*.
You won't find one of *those* posting to the SI.
Bruce
wrote:
>I'm tempted to cheat this mandate by using a 50mm reversed on bellows
>for a macro shot <g> but I won't.
As a *photographer* you ought to know that the bellows extension would
mean that the field of view was very much less than 46.8 degrees.
Troy Piggins
Yeah mate, challenge yourself. As Bowser said, lock the zoom at
50 (or crop equiv) and no cropping. :)
--
Troy Piggins
Robert Coe
: On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:17:27 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
: wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:44:50 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
: >
: >>OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
: >>Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
: >>a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
: >>the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
: >>like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
: >
: >
: >That's not a "mandate". It offers the freedom to submit any kind of
: >crap, just as long as it is shot with a 50mm (or equivalent FOV) lens.
: >
: >So at best, we can look forward to the customary SI mediocrity with
: >almost all the recent entries falling way below that low standard.
: >As usual, it will be followed by the usual gushing and fawning mutual
: >admiration of some truly execrable images.
: >
: >The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Or gets worse.
:
: Right. Maybe that's why certain French photographer/artists shot
: nothing but a 50mm lens. What was that guy's name?
OK, Bruce, let's see how much you know. Who is Bowser talking abut?
a) Charles de Gaulle
b) Henri Cartier-Bresson
c) Philippe P�tain
d) Philippe Petit
e) Napol�on Bonaparte
Bob
Robert Coe
: >
: > That's not a "mandate".
:
: Why so grumpy?
: I don't recall you ever participated in any way.
:
: I didn't submit for games because I guess I'm not a very fun guy <g>, I
: just couldn't think of anything. I did think of shooting the sketchy
: looking chess players downtown who play for money on the sidewalk but
: didn't really feel like getting in their faces and didn't make it
: downtown during the month. They don't play for fun anyways... very
: serious. Anyways I didn't submit but I didn't complain either.
:
: I'm tempted to cheat this mandate by using a 50mm reversed on bellows
: for a macro shot <g> but I won't.
Go for it! Part of the fun is to see how far you can bend the mandate without
making it break.
(As is callng out gutless cowards who sneer at everybody else's submissions
without either providing any substantive criticism or contributing any work of
their own.)
Bob
Bruce
You missed out:
F) Alan Browne
And of course the answer is:
F* Alan Browne, a legend in his own archive.
Robert Spanjaard
> : Right. Maybe that's why certain French photographer/artists shot
> : nothing but a 50mm lens. What was that guy's name?
>
> OK, Bruce, let's see how much you know. Who is Bowser talking abut? a)
> Charles de Gaulle
> b) Henri Cartier-Bresson
> c) Philippe Pétain
> d) Philippe Petit
> e) Napoléon Bonaparte
My guess, without using Google or Wikipedia etc, is Henri. At least I know
he was a street photographer and he always went for the decisive moment
(sometimes staged, though, like a girl jumping on a stairway outside), and
I just assume that he used fairly standard equipment for it.
I don't remember any special equipment.
And he's the only one from the list that I know as a photographer. :-)
BTW, IIRC Time-photographers only used 50mm too for quite a while.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: * tony cooper wrote :
I don't believe he said no cropping.
Bob
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> I'm tempted to cheat this mandate by using a 50mm reversed on bellows
>> for a macro shot <g> but I won't.
>
> As a *photographer* you ought to know that the bellows extension would
> mean that the field of view was very much less than 46.8 degrees.
Field of view becomes an abstract concept for extreme macros. All sorts
of strange things happen. For one thing, reversing it might change the
field of view, depending on the lens. If the entrance pupil looks like a
different size from wither end. Or put a new aperture in the back and
make it like a telecentric machine inspection lens which has a field of
view that isn't measured with an angle, or if so it would be zero
degrees and the entrance pupil moves to infinity behind the lens, so
you'd have to call it an ∞mm lens :-)
Alan Browne
One could take a wider field shot and crop it such that the result
covers that angle. If you know the full size angle of the original shot
(by the lens spec) you can calculate the crop proportion.
Troy Piggins
Okay, but what's the point of shooting at "46.8 degrees" if
you're then going to crop it to some other field of view? If you
have a crop sensor, shoot with a wider lens so the equivalent
field of view you end up with is 46.8 deg or thereabouts.
Anyway, your interpretation is up to you. Sorry.
--
Troy Piggins
Calvin Sambrook
news:U-udnZl5B9ey77jW...@giganews.com...
> One could take a wider field shot and crop it such that the result covers
> that angle. If you know the full size angle of the original shot (by the
> lens spec) you can calculate the crop proportion.
No, no, no. A longer focal length cropped down to the field of view of a
shorter focal length will look different. Distances will be compressed for
a start and foreground objects will appear relatively smaller. Not the same
thing at all. I'm very surprised to hear that from you Alan, you seem to be
a very "technical" photographer.
Robert Spanjaard
Certainly more technical than you are, considering the nonsense you wrote
here.
JimKramer
news:hg3u0c$317$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
alters the field of view, i.e. fisheye or really bad barrel distortion,
there will be no difference as long as the same F stop is used. I encourage
you to try it with a zoom lens on a tripod.
-Jim
Troy Piggins
> "Calvin Sambrook" <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:hg3u0c$317$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> shorter focal length will look different. Distances will be compressed
>> for a start and foreground objects will appear relatively smaller. Not
>> the same thing at all. I'm very surprised to hear that from you Alan, you
>> seem to be a very "technical" photographer.
>>
> Calvin you are mistaken. Unless you use a lens that disproportionately
> alters the field of view, i.e. fisheye or really bad barrel distortion,
> there will be no difference as long as the same F stop is used. I encourage
> you to try it with a zoom lens on a tripod.
I kind of agree with Calvin. The perspectives are different.
If you shoot a scene with a 100mm lens, then crop it down, and
compare that with a shot taken with a 35mm lens, they will look
different because you are taking the photo from a different
location, so the perspectives are different. No?
--
Troy Piggins
Calvin Sambrook
news:1d353$4b257e49$546accd9$31...@cache50.multikabel.net...
The alarm bells should have been ringing when I saw that it was Alan Browne
I was trying to correct but too much Katy cider has blurred by thinking
tonight. As I can't even understand what I wrote and two of you have
corrected me within a few minutes and given that I can't even draw a ray
trace diagram at the moment I think I'll accept you are right. Maybe
tomorrow I'll draw it all out to get my head around it properly!
Sorry, time for bed I think.
Michael Benveniste
>Damn shame. According to Big Bob's angle of view calculator, they
>should be 46.8:
>
>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html
And that's correct, _if_ most nominal 50mm lenses were actually 50mm.
But they aren't for reasons dating back to the rangefinder era.
>I strongly suggest you dump all the sub-standard gear, get a 5D II
>along with a 50mm 1.4 Canon lens and then you can enter the
>"competition."
I doubt it would help. It's actually because of Canon (and indirectly
Leica) that Nikon's 50mm lenses are designed to have a focal length of
51.6mm.
Of course, had Nikon done it "right," their 50mm lenses would have had
a focal length of 52.3mm to match that of Contax/Zeiss.
>OK, how about 46.8 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees?
3 digit precision +/- 10 percent. Sounds about right. That may even
cover the shift in focal length with focus distance found in most
modern lenses...
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There
is no substitute for thinking.
Robert Coe
Yeah, I was pretty sure you didn't know.
Bob
Annika1980
of course someone wants to FEDEX me one of those new Zeiss 50mm lenses
with the Canon mount.
Yeah, I've got a 28-135mm that I could set on 50mm, but that would
violate the spirit of the mandate and all that. Besides, I never can
tell if it's set on 50mm or 48 or 52.
Troy Piggins
Chicken. Set it somewhere around there and be done with it. :)
--
Troy Piggins
Russell D.
Nice. I like those. It would be nice to see some EXIF data unless it's
top secret.
Russell
JimKramer
news:2009121...@usenet.piggo.com...
No, same location, different FoV, from different lenses, cropped to be the
same FoV. Perspective doesn't change from the same location, check Alan�s
original post.
Now you are also going the wrong way as you would crop the 35mm shot down to
what the 100mm shot would be.
As soon as you start physically moving around, then all bets are off,
because perspective will change.
If what you meant to say was take a shot with a 100mm and then move closer
to repeat the shot with a 35mm lens so that the focal plane encompasses the
same field of view: then you would have two significantly different images,
because of the perspective differences. But that's not cropping. :-)
-Jim
Troy Piggins
>> If you shoot a scene with a 100mm lens, then crop it down, and
>> compare that with a shot taken with a 35mm lens, they will look
>> different because you are taking the photo from a different
>> location, so the perspectives are different. No?
>
> No, same location, different FoV, from different lenses, cropped to be the
> same FoV. Perspective doesn't change from the same location, check Alan’s
> original post.
>
> Now you are also going the wrong way as you would crop the 35mm shot down to
> what the 100mm shot would be.
>
> As soon as you start physically moving around, then all bets are off,
> because perspective will change.
>
> If what you meant to say was take a shot with a 100mm and then move closer
> to repeat the shot with a 35mm lens so that the focal plane encompasses the
> same field of view: then you would have two significantly different images,
> because of the perspective differences. But that's not cropping. :-)
Aah, crap. Yes. I meant cropping from a shot using a wider
lens, not a telephoto. And I was mixing up walking forwards or
backwards with different lenses to get the same field of view,
that gives different perspectives. Troy needs sleep. Sorry.
--
Troy Piggins
Andrey Tarasevich
Not true.
As long as the pictures are taken from exactly the same vantage point,
there's absolutely no difference in perspective between, say, a 35mm
lens and 400mm lens. The only thing the 400mm lens does is making a
"crop" of the picture that would be taken by a 35mm lens. From the
perspective point of view, the picture taken by a 35mm lens and then
cropped to the 400m lens's field of view would look exactly the same as
the picture taken by 400mm lens. The only reason we use 400mm lens is
that an equivalent crop of a frame taken by 35mm lens would have a very
poor resolution.
The "compressed distances" effect your are talking about is always
there, regardless of what lens you are using. In fact, the compressed
distances effect is there when you are looking at the scene with your
own eyes (no lens necessary). The only reason you are not noticing that
effect is because the objects involved are small and distant. 400mm lens
magnifies these objects, thus attracting your attention to the effect.
If photographic cameras and photographic lenses had infinite resolution
(or at least very very large resolution), there wouldn't be any need for
telephoto lenses. We could just take all of our pictures with, say, 35mm
lens and then crop them as needed. The resultant cropped picture, as I
said above, would be absolutely indistinguishable from the one taken
with a 400mm lens.
--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
Calvin Sambrook
Isn't it amazing how much clearer things can seem after a good night's
sleep. Apart from the fact that I swapped my longer and shorter focal
lengths and so got it exactly wrong (duh) I was also confusing angle of view
with field of view. Andrey Tarasevich, in another post, covers the details
very clearly so I won't repeat them here except to say that of course Alan
was correct. Sorry.
Bowser
"Michael Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:vn1bi5djg32mvvmg2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:41:52 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>
>>Damn shame. According to Big Bob's angle of view calculator, they
>>should be 46.8:
>>
>>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html
>
> And that's correct, _if_ most nominal 50mm lenses were actually 50mm.
> But they aren't for reasons dating back to the rangefinder era.
>
>>I strongly suggest you dump all the sub-standard gear, get a 5D II
>>along with a 50mm 1.4 Canon lens and then you can enter the
>>"competition."
>
> I doubt it would help. It's actually because of Canon (and indirectly
> Leica) that Nikon's 50mm lenses are designed to have a focal length of
> 51.6mm.
>
> Of course, had Nikon done it "right," their 50mm lenses would have had
> a focal length of 52.3mm to match that of Contax/Zeiss.
I had no idea this mandate could be so complicated.
>
>>OK, how about 46.8 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees?
>
> 3 digit precision +/- 10 percent. Sounds about right. That may even
> cover the shift in focal length with focus distance found in most
> modern lenses...
Damned modern lenses.
Bowser
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ainai5pb9nh4o515c...@4ax.com...
He knew, and was joking. You know nothing, and submit nothing. Why? Why not
show us all how amazing you are the show us some of you work?
Oh, wait. I know why.
Bowser
"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote in message
news:2009121...@usenet.piggo.com...
the final shot submitted should be around 46.8 deg. Shoot with a 14mm lens
if you like, but crop it to the center portion equivilant to a 50mm lens on
a FF body.
Bowser
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:h6rai5t1436uf83ab...@4ax.com...
Crop as long as the angle of view of the final shot is around 46.8 degrees.
The mandate is looking for shots taken at a "normal" angle of view.
Bowser
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfnai5lj59up0v6a8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:43:27 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:17:27 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:44:50 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>>
>>>>OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
>>>>Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>>>>a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>>>>the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
>>>>like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not a "mandate". It offers the freedom to submit any kind of
>>>crap, just as long as it is shot with a 50mm (or equivalent FOV) lens.
>>>
>>>So at best, we can look forward to the customary SI mediocrity with
>>>almost all the recent entries falling way below that low standard. As
>>>usual, it will be followed by the usual gushing and fawning mutual
>>>admiration of some truly execrable images.
>>>
>>>The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Or gets worse.
>>
>>Right. Maybe that's why certain French photographer/artists shot
>>nothing but a 50mm lens.
>
>
> But he was a *photographer*.
>
> You won't find one of *those* posting to the SI.
Which explains why you're here?
Loser.
Bowser
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5cf6cae7-61e5-47e4...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
BS. You're just pissed because Tiger wasn't sharing with you, after all
you've done for him. Lock that zoom near 50, shoot something, and send it
in. No excuses. Golf is done forever. Elin isn't wearing her wedding ring
any more, and the universe is upside down. So go shoot.
Bowser
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hg3hdq$kse$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>> * Alan Browne wrote :
>>> On 09-12-13 11:44 , Bowser wrote:
>>>> OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
>>>> Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>>>> a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>>>> the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
>>>> like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/468_degrees
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
>>> Mind your cropped sensors ...
>>
>> I'm on a 1.6x crop, so equivalent would be about 35mm lens?
>
> Yeah, 31mm Canon, 33mm Nikon. Close enough!
>
>> By
>> pure coincidence I just got a 35mm f/1.4L the other week but
>> haven't had a chance to give it much of a workout.
>
> Perfect.
It's a little narrow, but as some others have actually said you can shoot it
and "crop it down" to 46.8 deg.
Right....
Anyway, can't wait to see the pix!
Robert Spanjaard
>> Well... I'm not going to participate, because I probably won't shoot
>> much the next couple of weeks. But I did shoot at a fair last August,
>> and for that I only brought my Sigma 30mm F/1.4 (because of the neutral
>> perspective and the large aperture).
>>
>> BTW, number 4 and 5 are deliberately out of focus. :-)
>>
>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/kermis2009/
>>
>>
> Nice. I like those. It would be nice to see some EXIF data unless it's
> top secret.
I just enabled the option to open the images in a new window (right mouse
button).
Or, to make it easier:
http://www.arumes.com/temp/kermis2009/images.zip [811 kB]
tony cooper
Tiger, as you might know, lives in this area. Not my neighborhood,
but in the area. I'd need a wide angle lens, or maybe have to do a
panorama, to take a shot of the media trucks parked outside of the
gated community in which he lives.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Handy Andy
If using any CHDK capable P&S camera with a 36-432mm zoom with 129 (0-128)
reproducible steps, just run this simple script on start-up. Or enable
"Script Autostart" from the scripting parameters menu to "Once" or "On", so
it runs automatically for you on power-up.
==========copy below this line=========
@title Set-Zoom
@param a StartZoom (22=50mm)
@default a 22
set_zoom a
exit_alt
end
==========copy above this line=========
Save as filename, something like, "DfltZoom.bas"
[Using this uBASIC method (super-simple example above) you have a nearly
infinite number of custom start-up shooting modes at your disposal. You can
also save your most favorite defaults right along with a more universal
script that sets up to 26 camera parameters for you (i.e. custom colors,
focus, apertures, shutter speeds, bracketing methods, Hyperfocal settings,
ISOs, Custom Curves, etc. etc.). See this page for a more complete list of
all the user configurable camera parameters
<http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/TutorialScratchpad> But it goes much
further than that if you get into Lua programming and/or using the set_prop
commands to control your camera.]
If unsure of your CHDK camera's 35mm equivalent zoom steps and related
"set_zoom" numerical values, then you can run this script beforehand to
find them.
==========copy below this line=========
@title Zoom Stepping
@param a Zoom step
@default a 3
@param b Max zoom (A: 8/14) (S: 128)
@default b 128
@param c Zoom speed: 1-10 (S-only)
@default c 10
if a<1 then a=1
if a>b then a=1
if b<8 then b=8
if c<1 then c=5
if b>128 then b=128
if c>10 then c=10
c=c*10
get_zoom z
set_zoom_speed c
print "Up = Zoom In"
print "Down = Zoom Out"
print "L/R = Change Step"
print "Step= ", a ,"No.=" z
:loop
wait_click
is_key k "up"
if k=1 then goto "raise"
is_key l "down"
if l=1 then goto "lower"
is_key m "right"
if m=1 then goto "stepu"
is_key n "left"
if n=1 then goto "stepd"
goto "loop"
end
:raise
set_zoom_speed c
sleep 20
get_zoom z
z=z+a
set_zoom z
sleep 100
goto "loop"
return
:lower
set_zoom_speed c
sleep 20
get_zoom z
z=z-a
set_zoom z
sleep 100
goto "loop"
return
:stepd
a=a-1
if a<1 then a=1
if a>b then a=1
cls
print "Up = Zoom In"
print "Down = Zoom Out"
print "L/R = Change Step"
print "Step= ", a ,"No.=" z
goto "loop"
return
:stepu
a=a+1
if a<1 then a=1
if a>b then a=1
cls
print "Up = Zoom In"
print "Down = Zoom Out"
print "L/R = Change Step"
print "Step= ", a ,"No.=" z
goto "loop"
return
==========copy above this line=========
Note: with this script, that the zoom focal-length setting value ("No.=")
only gets refreshed on your EVF/LCD display after you change the zoom-step
increment ("Step="). A minor bug I'm not willing to take the time to find
nor fix. This script wasn't really meant for this purpose. I only threw in
the "print ... 'No.=' z" command for a quick cross-reference check.
After you have changed to a zoom-step value of 1 by using your right/left
directional buttons, then use the up and down directional buttons to change
to a new zoom focal-length setting. The resulting 35mm equivalent value is
displayed in your EVF if you have the Misc. Values for 35mm-equivalent zoom
turned on. (OSD Parameters > Misc. Values > Show Zoom ON > Show Zoom Value
as EFL) Then you can see exactly what 35mm focal-length you are working
with. Toggle the left and right buttons once to go from a zoom-step of 1 to
2 and back to 1. Then it will refresh the zoom No. value on your screen.
After you have found that number for your desired 35mm-equivalent
focal-length, then plug it into the aforementioned script as a default zoom
value to use every time you power up your camera. (Where 22 is now being
defined as the default.)
You can also find those values without this more convoluted script by just
setting your camera to 50mm EFL, then go back into your CHDK menus and
change that "Show Zoom Value As" to the "X" option. That also returns which
numeric hardware zoom-step value is equivalent.
Due to the vast number of camera models now supported by CHDK and all their
varying lens designs and zoom ranges, there is no archive of "set_zoom x" =
35mm-equivalent number-list references anywhere on the net for each model
number. Since each person can do this for themself there really is no need
to provide that. In fact, a simple script can do all that for you. And if
you use the "printscreen filename" command it will even spit out all the
stepper-motor values and EFL values to a text file for you on your SD card.
You can of course just use the EFL number being displayed on your screen
and do without all this. But the zoom toggle on some cameras is touchy and
it may take a few taps of it to get your camera's lens to exactly 50mm EFL
each time.
John McWilliams
Get in a chopper, fly over, just have the pilot ascend until you get all
of it in!
--
john mcwilliams
George Kerby
On 12/13/09 7:58 PM, in article 2009121...@usenet.piggo.com, "Troy
Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote:
And duct tape it there!
Paul Furman
Wrong ;-)
"It's a little narrow" is correct, so you can't crop. 28mm could be
cropped. But close enough I'd think.
> Anyway,
Indeed!
> can't wait to see the pix!
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
George Kerby
On 12/14/09 7:02 AM, in article lHqVm.143$5N3...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com,
"Bowser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
It was just reported that Phil Mickelson contacted Tiger's wife to
pick up some tips on how to beat Tiger!
Apparently the police asked Tiger's wife how many times she hit him.
She said "I don't know exactly. but put me down for a 5."
Tiger Woods is so rich that he owns lots of expensive cars. Now he has
a hole-in-one.
What's the difference between a car and a golf ball? Tiger can drive a ball
400 yards.....
What were Tiger Woods and his wife doing out at 2.30 in the morning? They
went clubbing
Tiger Woods crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. He couldn't decide
between a wood and an iron
Ping just offered Elin Woods an endorsement contract pushing her own
set of drivers. They said to named Elin Woods..."clubs you can beat Tiger
with."
Word that Elin Woods was using a golf club as a "Rescue Club" now has
been proved to be untrue as it now appears she was actually trying to
knock the shit out of a Driver.
News travels fast. The Chinese are already making a movie about Tiger
Woods' crash. They are calling it, " Croutching Tiger , hidden hydrant "
Tiger just changed his nickname but still kept it in the cat
family--his new name?: Cheetah.
Troy Piggins
> "Calvin Sambrook" <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:hg411a$unj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> ray trace diagram at the moment I think I'll accept you are right. Maybe
>> tomorrow I'll draw it all out to get my head around it properly!
>>
>> Sorry, time for bed I think.
>
> Isn't it amazing how much clearer things can seem after a good night's
> sleep. Apart from the fact that I swapped my longer and shorter focal
> lengths and so got it exactly wrong (duh) I was also confusing angle of view
> with field of view. Andrey Tarasevich, in another post, covers the details
> very clearly so I won't repeat them here except to say that of course Alan
> was correct. Sorry.
Worse that that - I was so out of it I defended you, justified
that you were right, and made the same incorrect swap of focal
lengths. Man, can't wait for Christmas hols...
--
Troy Piggins
Troy Piggins
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:02:08 -0500, "Bowser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>
>>
>>BS. You're just pissed because Tiger wasn't sharing with you, after all
>>you've done for him. Lock that zoom near 50, shoot something, and send it
>>in. No excuses. Golf is done forever. Elin isn't wearing her wedding ring
>>any more, and the universe is upside down. So go shoot.
>
> Tiger, as you might know, lives in this area. Not my neighborhood,
> but in the area. I'd need a wide angle lens, or maybe have to do a
> panorama, to take a shot of the media trucks parked outside of the
> gated community in which he lives.
If you get a shot of Tiger with one of his mistresses using a
50mm lens, you win the mandate.
--
Troy Piggins
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:U-udnZl5B9ey77jW...@giganews.com...
>> One could take a wider field shot and crop it such that the result
>> covers that angle. If you know the full size angle of the original
>> shot (by the lens spec) you can calculate the crop proportion.
>
> No, no, no. A longer focal length cropped down to the field of view of a
> shorter focal length will look different. Distances will be compressed
First off I said "wider" which means shorter FL.
> for a start and foreground objects will appear relatively smaller. Not
> the same thing at all.
Absolutely not. A wider FOV lens image cropped to the 50mm FOV will be
exactly the same (except for lens distortion). The perspective is
identical from any point shot.
Alan Browne
> * JimKramer wrote :>> news:hg3u0c$317$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 7 lines snipped |=---]
>>> shorter focal length will look different. Distances will be compressed
>>> seem to be a very "technical" photographer.
>>>
>> alters the field of view, i.e. fisheye or really bad barrel distortion,
>> there will be no difference as long as the same F stop is used. I encourage
>> you to try it with a zoom lens on a tripod.
>
> I kind of agree with Calvin. The perspectives are different.
>
> compare that with a shot taken with a 35mm lens, they will look
Oy! You too? A "wider" lens means a shorter FL than 50mm, not longer.
> different because you are taking the photo from a different
> location, so the perspectives are different. No?
No! (lens distortion aside, which for moderately wider lenses (35,
28mm) should not matter much in the end).
Others have gone further with your public whipping on this one, so I'll
let it go here...
Alan Browne
In honour of Tiger "Got wood?" Woods why don't you just 'do it'.
Alan Browne
> "Robert Spanjaard" <spam...@arumes.com> wrote in message
> news:1d353$4b257e49$546accd9$31...@cache50.multikabel.net...
>>
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:U-udnZl5B9ey77jW...@giganews.com...
>>>> One could take a wider field shot and crop it such that the result
>>>> covers that angle. If you know the full size angle of the original
>>>> shot (by the lens spec) you can calculate the crop proportion.
>>>
>>> No, no, no. A longer focal length cropped down to the field of view of
>>> compressed for a start and foreground objects will appear relatively
>>> smaller. Not the same thing at all. I'm very surprised to hear that
>>> from you Alan, you seem to be a very "technical" photographer.
>>
>> here.
>>
>
> The alarm bells should have been ringing when I saw that it was Alan
I punch out my own doozies from time to time as well.
NG's are for learning, sharing, goofing up spectacularly.
Alan Browne
Don't we all.
Ralph Tolden
wrote:
>* tony cooper wrote :
It's not a "Tiger", but how about this 15-footer with a 50mm from about
2-ft away? (full frame, no crop)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2611/4186064984_1971e17ae5_m.jpg
(No, you don't get to see a larger one, copyright protection.)
Calvin Sambrook
OK, I'm about to risk making a serious arse of myself. Twice in two days.
Here we go...
I still think there is a difference between a wide angle shot cropped to a
narrower angle of view and a shot which was originally made with a longer
focal length lens. The perspective is identical but the depth of field at
the same point in the distance is deeper for the shorter focal length lens
than the longer. As far as I can tell this is the case even for the same
F-number.
To give a practical example imagine a person in the middle distance with
mountains in the far distance. With a short focal length lens both might be
adequately sharp but with a long focal length lens the person might be sharp
but the mountains out of focus. A crop will not alter this.
It's dark here so I can't really go out and try it. Perhaps someone with a
deeper understanding of this could tell me I'm right or put me back in my
box.
Troy Piggins
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 23 lines snipped |=---]
>>> Browne I was trying to correct...
>>
>> I punch out my own doozies from time to time as well.
>>
>> NG's are for learning, sharing, goofing up spectacularly.
>
> OK, I'm about to risk making a serious arse of myself. Twice in two days.
> Here we go...
>
> I still think there is a difference between a wide angle shot cropped to a
> narrower angle of view and a shot which was originally made with a longer
> focal length lens. The perspective is identical but the depth of field at
> the same point in the distance is deeper for the shorter focal length lens
> than the longer. As far as I can tell this is the case even for the same
> F-number.
>
> To give a practical example imagine a person in the middle distance with
> mountains in the far distance. With a short focal length lens both might be
> adequately sharp but with a long focal length lens the person might be sharp
> but the mountains out of focus. A crop will not alter this.
>
> It's dark here so I can't really go out and try it. Perhaps someone with a
> deeper understanding of this could tell me I'm right or put me back in my
> box.
Sounds right to me. I agree. Again. :)
DoF is a function of focal length, aperture, and focus distance
for a given sensor or whatever. So for same focus distance and
aperture, a 28mm lens' shot cropped down and compared to a 50mm
lens, the DoF of the former will be larger, more stuff in focus.
--
Troy Piggins
Bowser
New scoring in golf, as well. Using Tiger scoring, you don't count the
number of strokes per hole, just the number of holes you've stroked.
Annika1980
wrote:
>
> In honour of Tiger "Got wood?" Woods why don't you just 'do it'.
Tiger has decided to take a leave of absence, if not abstinence.
Paul Furman
> 28mm could be cropped.
Anything wider than 31mm or so could be cropped and if significantly
wider, the mandate could change to a perspective correction/shift lens
challenge. For a typical scenario tilted up to view a tall building,
shoot wider and tilt down so that verticals are vertical. Now crop off
the bottom of the shot and you have what a tilt lens provides. It's
simple, just keep the verticals vertical in the viewfinder with a wide
lens and crop the un-wanted part out later. The result can look very
wide with lots of wide angle distortion (or not) and still meet the 46.8
degree mandate requirements.
Paul Furman
No need to crawl in a box but you are mistaken. Cropping is exactly the
same as zooming because you don't change position or aperture. If you
move closer, that will actually change things but cropping changes
nothing. To help firm up this notion, consider that a full frame shot
with teleconverter produces exactly the same image as a crop frame shot
without teleconverter. Again, the reason is the point of
perspective/angle does not change. The aperture difference is taken up
by the teleconverter light loss.
In the real world, the same lens on FF vs crop frame does produce a
difference in DOF and f/stop. Any lens will show shallower DOF on crop
frame cameras because the crop does not change the aperture, just the
FOV. But if you compare at equal f/stop, they are identical. The only
advantage for full frame is more shallow DOF at wide angles and ultimate
wide angle fov.
Calvin Sambrook
Sorry to keep banging on about this but the more I look at it the more I
think I'm correct. I dusted off some textbooks and reminded myself how
painful the equations look then realised things have moved on and someone,
somewhere has probably done the work for me by now. Sure enough
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html is a handy (!) DoF calculator and
dropping some real-world numbers in gives:
Sony a200, 18mm lens at F5.6, focused at 3m gives a DoF from 1.47m to
infinity. That is, a subject at say 3m away will be in focus as will
everything from 1.47m in front of the camera to the horizon.
Sony a200, 300mm lens at F5.6, focused at 3m gives a DoF from 2.99m to
3.01m. That is, a subject at say 3m away will be in focus but almost
nothing else will. The horizon will be well out of focus.
That feels like it fits with experience too and it says that for this
mandate cropping to an equivalent angle of view of a 50mm lens is not
correct and will produce visually different results.
Bowser
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:96acb9d9-9b63-4ba5...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Gee, good move. I don't know who his handlers are, but they have completely
blown it on this one. The deafening silence from him is only allowing the
tabloids to write whatever story they want with no recourse from him. And
this AM he's linked to a doping doc? Really?
God, what a moron. Accenture dumped him, Tag Heur is "re-evaluating" and
Gillette is also making some noise about dumping him. If Nike dumps him,
well, it's ovah, as they say in MA. We'll see. But the longer he stays
hidden and silent, the worse it will get. Amazingly bad PR moves here.
Chris H
<i...@bowzah.ukme> writes
Might be a plan there. If the sponsors drop him his value drops a LOT.
Then wife divorces him. Then he starts playing golf again and gets
sponsors back. Might be a very astute move if he knows wife is going to
divorce him.
On the other hand.....
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Bowser
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hg62on$26t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes, I know, but some other posters got their directions mixed in previous
posts.
George Kerby
On 12/14/09 6:15 PM, in article c8ldi55m596os05t3...@4ax.com,
"Bowser" <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
<<<rimshot>>>
JimKramer
You are still mistaken:
Now do the math to figure out what an equivalent FoV to crop the 18mm down
to 300mm. Now go back to Dofmaster and recalculate it with the new CoC for
the same print size, you may assume that we have infinite resolution for
this exercise. Do the numbers suddenly look the same, or very nearly so?
The problem with the cute little online calculators is that there are a
number of assumptions that are taken for granted by you, because the math
going on behind the calculations is not transparent to the casual end user.
Go out with a zoom lens on a tripod, focus on a single subject and prove it
to yourself, then come back and tell us what happened.
-Jim
Calvin Sambrook
news:hg8bg0$87i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Calvin Sambrook" <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:hg8238$gvr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I don't follow your logic there. The Circle of Confusion is fixed at the
point you capture the image. The rays are recorded at that point as
confused, that is to say it is no longer possible to tell where they came
from, you only have the recording of them. [1]. Resolution doesn't matter,
it can be as infinite as you like :-) but the confused rays will still be
confused, you'll just be able to see them in lots of detail.
You can't just re-scale the CoC for convenience. Imagine the CoC of a
particular lens was 1 unit wide and the whole image was 1,000,000 units
wide. If we now crop and enlarge a portion of the image, let's say we zoom
1,000 times then we'd be looking at an image formed from a part just 1,000
of the original units wide and the confused circle, originally 1 unit wide
and just 1 millionth of the image, would now be taking up 1,000th of the
image. It doesn't get any sharper (less confused), just bigger.
I agree that you need to be careful with online calculators but I was just
using one to avoid having to do the sums by hand. I can't see anything in
the original equations which would alter the thrust of the argument.
[1] OK, there are techniques which sharpen images based on knowledge of the
likely cause of the confusion (ie. the lens characteristics) but that's
cheating.
JimKramer
CoC is for determining acceptable DoF for a print not for the sensor. You're
going at backwards again. We're not measuring the overall effectiveness of
the lens or sensor; thus infinite resolution for the sensor, and a perfect
set of lenses.
We are trying to make it clear that for a given position, focus point and f
stop that the image formed does not change other than the over all FoV; i.e.
you can crop a wide angle image to the same FoV as a longer focal length
lens image and it will be identical to the image taken with the longer focal
length lens. You are having a difficult time grasping the math and are
making it overly complicated, so again go out and take some pictures to
prove it to yourself. Any variations from this are caused by real world
defects in the lens or the image capture device.
-Jim
Paul Furman
Oops, that was wrong.
> The only
>> advantage for full frame is more shallow DOF at wide angles and
>> ultimate wide angle fov.
>
> Sorry to keep banging on about this but the more I look at it the more I
> think I'm correct. I dusted off some textbooks and reminded myself how
> painful the equations look then realised things have moved on and
> someone, somewhere has probably done the work for me by now. Sure
> enough http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html is a handy (!) DoF calculator
> and dropping some real-world numbers in gives:
>
> Sony a200, 18mm lens at F5.6, focused at 3m gives a DoF from 1.47m to
> infinity. That is, a subject at say 3m away will be in focus as will
> everything from 1.47m in front of the camera to the horizon.
>
> Sony a200, 300mm lens at F5.6, focused at 3m gives a DoF from 2.99m to
> 3.01m. That is, a subject at say 3m away will be in focus but almost
> nothing else will. The horizon will be well out of focus.
Yes the f/stop does change, I mis-spoke some above. The test I did with
FF with 1.4 teleconverter vs APS using the same lens has a slower f/stop
with the FF+converter version but produces an identical image. Then
higher ISO can be used to get the same noise level and exposure time.
But that's maybe confusing...
Alternatively, think about if you want to use a 30mm lens cropped as a
50mm lens on FF, you'd need to recalculate the f/stop for that
application. Say f/4 ... 50/4=12.5mm opening, 30/4=7.5mm opening. So
you'd need to open up the 30mm to f/2.4 for the same look/DOF as the 50
at f/4. Aperture diameter isn't the same as f/stop.
So to be technically correct, if you shoot with a wider lens then crop,
the f/stop should be corrected.
> That feels like it fits with experience too and it says that for this
> mandate cropping to an equivalent angle of view of a 50mm lens is not
> correct and will produce visually different results.
Doesn't change perspective or angle of view though, just DOF & f/stop.
Troy Piggins
> "Calvin Sambrook" <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:hg8h3h$tk4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> [1] OK, there are techniques which sharpen images based on knowledge of
>> the likely cause of the confusion (ie. the lens characteristics) but
>> that's cheating.
>
> CoC is for determining acceptable DoF for a print not for the sensor. You're
> going at backwards again. We're not measuring the overall effectiveness of
> the lens or sensor; thus infinite resolution for the sensor, and a perfect
> set of lenses.
>
> We are trying to make it clear that for a given position, focus point and f
> stop that the image formed does not change other than the over all FoV; i.e.
> you can crop a wide angle image to the same FoV as a longer focal length
> lens image and it will be identical to the image taken with the longer focal
> length lens. You are having a difficult time grasping the math and are
> making it overly complicated, so again go out and take some pictures to
> prove it to yourself. Any variations from this are caused by real world
> defects in the lens or the image capture device.
Sorry Jim. Standing in the same spot, focusing on the same
object, using the same aperture and same camera, with 2 different
focal length lenses will yield 2 different depths of field. The
shot taken with the shorter focal length lens will have more
stuff in focus than the longer focal length lens shot.
--
Troy Piggins
Bruce
I do love this newsgroup!
Nowhere else can one find people talking with absolute confidence on a
subject about which they know less than nothing. The above is a fine
example of this.
In fact it is up there with Alan Browne talking about bokeh. Hugely
entertaining, but completely misguided, and ultimately useless.
;-)
Tim Conway
And also, where are the photos to support what you say?
Bruce
<tconw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I do love this newsgroup!
>>
>> Nowhere else can one find people talking with absolute confidence on a
>> subject about which they know less than nothing. The above is a fine
>> example of this.
>>
>> In fact it is up there with Alan Browne talking about bokeh. Hugely
>> entertaining, but completely misguided, and ultimately useless.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>And without you to point all that out where would we be?
Please don't think, not for a single moment, that I care. ;-)
Alan Browne
Calvin: DOF is all about _enlargement_ of the image to a notional size
(typically an 8x10" print). That enlargement ratio AND a notional value
for print resolution and viewing distance determines the CoC _number_.
Otherwise it is quite meaningless.
See: http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/dof.htm
As to your [1] above. No.
Alan Browne
What's over? He's made over $1B. He's got a net worth well north of $0.5B
He can still presumably play and pick up another $5M per year or so
(living expenses).
And, as it all blows over, you can be sure that the sponsors or new
companies will be back. Esp. those that market to segments of the
population that aren't too wound up over this little slice of life.
In the thundering herd of his clients running away, I'll bet one will go
the opposite direction and say, "we're sticking with our friend."
Alan Browne
1. We're talking about FOV, not DOF. But, IAC:
2. DOF is an illusion.
3. DOF perceived is entirely dependent on how the image is displayed or
printed and how it is viewed.
4. A cropped shot from a WA lens (deep DOF) enlarged to a given size
loses that perceived DOF as it is enlarged. (Just as any enlargement does).
5. I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe it all cancels out (eg: the
DOF will shallow out in proportion to the amount of cropping - just as
if it were taken by "target" lens FL.)
Alan Browne
"Bruce" does an uncanny impersonation of Tony Polson. He even has the
same petty attacks, which really raise the question: "why?". And then,
we shrug and just say, "who cares?" and wander along...
The only difference between "Bruce" and Tony Polson is that we have seen
Polson's photography (and we quite understand why he's reluctant to show
more) whereas we've seen nothing from "Bruce".
Doug Payne
> Please don't think, not for a single moment, that I care. ;-)
Polson, you silly old twat, how in hell did you escape from my killfile?
(Don't bother replying, it's a rhetorical question, in case you missed
that).
Alan Browne
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:46:27 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm tempted to cheat this mandate by using a 50mm reversed on bellows
>>> for a macro shot <g> but I won't.
>>
>>
>> As a *photographer* you ought to know that the bellows extension would
>> mean that the field of view was very much less than 46.8 degrees.
>
> He knew, and was joking. You know nothing, and submit nothing. Why? Why
> not show us all how amazing you are the show us some of you work?
It occurs to me that if the next mandate is
"Retrospective: your major magazine cover photos"
that Tony Polson might post his. And who knows? Perhaps "Bruce" has
shot a cover on a major magazine too.
ref:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.photo.misc/msg/1eff86dc01f826bb?dmode=source
'One of my shots taken with this lens was on the cover of "Paris Match"
in the late 1970s.' -Tony Polson, 2001.02.03.
Troy Piggins
> On 09-12-15 12:31 , Calvin Sambrook wrote:
>>
>> [1] OK, there are techniques which sharpen images based on knowledge of
>> the likely cause of the confusion (ie. the lens characteristics) but
>> that's cheating.
>
> Calvin: DOF is all about _enlargement_ of the image to a notional size
> (typically an 8x10" print). That enlargement ratio AND a notional value
> for print resolution and viewing distance determines the CoC _number_.
> Otherwise it is quite meaningless.
>
> See: http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/dof.htm
>
> As to your [1] above. No.
See my new thread <2009121...@usenet.piggo.com>
--
Troy Piggins
Alan Browne
I did! And it does not change what I wrote above (but it does change
what I wrote in another e-mail)...
Bob Larter
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:44:50 -0500, Bowser<Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>
>> OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
>> Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>> a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>> the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
>> like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
>
>
> crap, just as long as it is shot with a 50mm (or equivalent FOV) lens.
>
> So at best, we can look forward to the customary SI mediocrity with
> almost all the recent entries falling way below that low standard. As
> usual, it will be followed by the usual gushing and fawning mutual
> admiration of some truly execrable images.
>
> The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Or gets worse.
Man, you sure are a whiny fuck.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>On 14/12/2009 6:17 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:44:50 -0500, Bowser<Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, here's the new mandate for the Shoot In, due January 17th, 2010.
>>> Let's simplify things this month. Drag out those 50mm primes and shoot
>>> a pic using nothing but that, or whatever lens you have that provides
>>> the equivilant angle of view of, yes, 46.8 degrees. Use a zoom if you
>>> like, but lock it at "50." Fire at will...
>>
>>
>> That's not a "mandate". It offers the freedom to submit any kind of
>> crap, just as long as it is shot with a 50mm (or equivalent FOV) lens.
>>
>> So at best, we can look forward to the customary SI mediocrity with
>> almost all the recent entries falling way below that low standard. As
>> usual, it will be followed by the usual gushing and fawning mutual
>> admiration of some truly execrable images.
>>
>> The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Or gets worse.
>
>Man, you sure are a whiny fuck.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
Bob Larter
There we go. Proof that 'Bruce' is the P&S troll.
Bowser
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:8_6dnQ2-hZjYarrW...@giganews.com...
> On 09-12-15 8:50 , Bowser wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:96acb9d9-9b63-4ba5...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 14, 3:30 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In honour of Tiger "Got wood?" Woods why don't you just 'do it'.
>>>
>>> Tiger has decided to take a leave of absence, if not abstinence.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gee, good move. I don't know who his handlers are, but they have
>> completely blown it on this one. The deafening silence from him is only
>> allowing the tabloids to write whatever story they want with no recourse
>> from him. And this AM he's linked to a doping doc? Really?
>>
>> God, what a moron. Accenture dumped him, Tag Heur is "re-evaluating" and
>> Gillette is also making some noise about dumping him. If Nike dumps him,
>> well, it's ovah, as they say in MA. We'll see. But the longer he stays
>> hidden and silent, the worse it will get. Amazingly bad PR moves here.
>
> What's over? He's made over $1B. He's got a net worth well north of
> $0.5B
Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and
entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who
contribute nothing to society.
>
> He can still presumably play and pick up another $5M per year or so
> (living expenses).
Wouldn't pay his living expenses. He's living LARGE.
>
> And, as it all blows over, you can be sure that the sponsors or new
> companies will be back. Esp. those that market to segments of the
> population that aren't too wound up over this little slice of life.
It will blow over, but nobody will ever look at him the same. And it will
affect his game. Also, we won't be so quick to accept his constant whining
on the course when he blows a shot, either.
>
> In the thundering herd of his clients running away, I'll bet one will go
> the opposite direction and say, "we're sticking with our friend."
Jury's out on that one. When Tom Brady fathered a kid outside marriage, the
sponsors ran. Still haven't come back.
Calvin Sambrook
Your ability to perceive sharpness is certainly altered by image
size/enlargement and that translates back to what constitutes an
"acceptable" CoC however "confusion" in this sense takes on its technical
meaning. The traditional model and explanation looks at it from the point
of view of a single point in the scene forming a circle in the captured
image which is termed it's circle of confusion. That's a great explanation
but for our purposes it's helpful to turn it on it's head and consider a
single point in the captured image, the light which formed it will have
come from a circle of the original scene. The physics term "confusion"
refers to the fact that the "information" is "confused" and therefore cannot
be recovered (at least without further information like how it came to be
confused).
And now to the practical test.
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/csambrook/LensDoFTests# contains four photos.
"18mm F5.6 original" is a shot down the office. "300mm F5.6 original" is
shot from the same place at the same F number, the only difference is the
focal length of the lens. "18mm F5.6 cropped" is the 18mm original cropped
to the same field of view as the 300mm shot and for completeness "300mm F5.6
equivalent" is the 300mm shot resized to the same number of pixels as a
control.
I think that demonstrates the point.
tony cooper
>Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and
>entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who
>contribute nothing to society.
We disagree there. While I feel the compensation to athletes is
excessive, it's pure supply and demand. Teachers are paid less
because there is more of a supply of people who are qualified to teach
and meet the requirements of the employer. Jocks are paid more
because there is a small supply of talented athletes (in the view of
the professional teams) and competition for their service drives the
price up.
I can't blame the athlete. No one in their right mind would refuse a
job that pays millions if that's what's being offered.
The salaries are funded by advertising dollars that companies are
willing to pay the networks as sponsors, and the networks pay the
teams who, in turn, pay the players. You eventually pay for it
because the advertising costs are embedded in the product price.
As far as contributions to society, they contribute in the field of
entertainment. The public wants to be entertained. It would be a
dull life if we didn't have diversions like sports. Maybe sports
isn't everyone's thing, but other entertainers in other fields are
getting huge amounts of money based on this same supply/demand
principle.
>
>>
>> He can still presumably play and pick up another $5M per year or so
>> (living expenses).
>
>Wouldn't pay his living expenses. He's living LARGE.
>
>>
>> And, as it all blows over, you can be sure that the sponsors or new
>> companies will be back. Esp. those that market to segments of the
>> population that aren't too wound up over this little slice of life.
>
>It will blow over, but nobody will ever look at him the same. And it will
>affect his game. Also, we won't be so quick to accept his constant whining
>on the course when he blows a shot, either.
>
>>
>> In the thundering herd of his clients running away, I'll bet one will go
>> the opposite direction and say, "we're sticking with our friend."
>
>Jury's out on that one. When Tom Brady fathered a kid outside marriage, the
>sponsors ran. Still haven't come back.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:56 -0500, "Bowser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>
>>Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and
>>entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who
>>contribute nothing to society.
>
>We disagree there. While I feel the compensation to athletes is
>excessive, it's pure supply and demand. Teachers are paid less
>because there is more of a supply of people who are qualified to teach
>and meet the requirements of the employer. Jocks are paid more
>because there is a small supply of talented athletes (in the view of
>the professional teams) and competition for their service drives the
>price up.
>
>I can't blame the athlete. No one in their right mind would refuse a
>job that pays millions if that's what's being offered.
>
>The salaries are funded by advertising dollars that companies are
>willing to pay the networks as sponsors, and the networks pay the
>teams who, in turn, pay the players. You eventually pay for it
>because the advertising costs are embedded in the product price.
>
>As far as contributions to society, they contribute in the field of
>entertainment. The public wants to be entertained. It would be a
>dull life if we didn't have diversions like sports. Maybe sports
>isn't everyone's thing, but other entertainers in other fields are
>getting huge amounts of money based on this same supply/demand
>principle.
Sadly I have to agree with you.....
People (the masses not all individuals) tend to hold dreams and short
term gratification over education and knowledge.
The want to be "famous" , rich and have the consumer goodies. They
aspire to be pop-stars, film stars and footballers. (But not Musicians,
Actors and athletes :-(
Chris Malcolm
Let's suppose you're focussing on a dandelion flower sticking up in
the middle of a lawn. Let's suppose in a 300mm lens the flower pretty
much fills the frame. If it was a 10MP camera the 300mm lens would
produce a 10MP image. A 30mm lens on the same camera in the same spot
would show the flower 10 times smaller in linear dimensions, 100 times
smaller in terms of image pixels.
So if you then crop down the 30mm image to have the same field of view
as the 300mm lens you'll have a 0.1MP image to compare with a 10MP
image. The 300mm image will show lots of high resolution detail that
you simply won't be able to see on the cropped 30mm image. So how can
you compare sharp focus and depth of field?
--
Chris Malcolm
Dudley Hanks
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C74BE958.3A0F9%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 12/13/09 7:58 PM, in article 2009121...@usenet.piggo.com, "Troy
> Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote:
>
>> * Annika1980 wrote :
>>> I don't own a 50mm lens so I guess I'll sit another one out. Unless,
>>> of course someone wants to FEDEX me one of those new Zeiss 50mm lenses
>>> with the Canon mount.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I've got a 28-135mm that I could set on 50mm, but that would
>>> violate the spirit of the mandate and all that. Besides, I never can
>>> tell if it's set on 50mm or 48 or 52.
>>
> And duct tape it there!
>
I've got a 50mm prime (which yields about 80mm on my 1.6 cropped sensor), or
I can fix one of my zooms at about 35mm to get the actual 46.8 degrees.
Which is preferred? Or, can I submit from both?
This could be a good challenge...
Take Care,
Dudley
Troy Piggins
>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C74BE958.3A0F9%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>>>> tell if it's set on 50mm or 48 or 52.
>>>
>>> Chicken. Set it somewhere around there and be done with it. :)
>> And duct tape it there!
>>
> I've got a 50mm prime (which yields about 80mm on my 1.6 cropped sensor), or
> I can fix one of my zooms at about 35mm to get the actual 46.8 degrees.
> Which is preferred? Or, can I submit from both?
>
> This could be a good challenge...
You'd have to crop the 50mm lens shot down a little I guess.
It's up to you, but if it were me I'd find shooting with the 35mm
zoom setting easier - at least that way what you see in the
viewfinder is what you'll be submitting.
--
Troy Piggins