Re: fish eye lens test

[Alan Zinn <azinn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:16 PM 4/23/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Alan,
>
><snip>

>A side effect to this discussion is that raising the angle of view of the
>camera by tilting it backwards would cause converging verticals in a normal
>photograph but in a rotating panoramic camera, as long as you keep the axis of
>rotation vertical, the verticals in the scene will be reproduced as verticals.
>Sure, there will be more and more unsharpness due to image/film slippage but
>otherwise the lines will not converge. This unsharpness can be reduced by small
>slit sizes ... the smallest ones being those that are not slits at all but
>photosites in a linear CCD array. And, BTW, with these variants on our film
>camera conterparts, rotation direction does not matter as there is no moving
>photosensitive material in the camera! The only thing that matters is TIME.
>                       
>happy rotat'n
>
>andy
>
>Andrew  o o  0 0 o . o  Davidhazy, Imaging and Photo Tech
>         \/\/\/\/\/\/          http://www.rit.edu/~andpph
>__________|        |_____________________________________
>
>

Andy,

I'm still scratching my head over your digital camera.  I think of it as a
TPanorama because it's rotation path reminds me of tepee poles.  I have a
tilting version of the Lookaround (presently disassembled) that I will have
to try with the fish eye lens. I can imagine how the change of direction at
the crossing would throw everything into a blurr.  I noticed that with the
fish eye the picture plane looks a bit like a convex cylinder. I may try to
change the shape of the focal plane to either concave or convex to see what
happens. 

I agree that the time dimension of a panorama is most interesting.  It is
that paradoxical quality of 360++ images that keeps me rotatin'

AZ


Lookaround Panoramic Camera and Gallery:

New Graceland images for April at:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8874/

Panorama workshop 4/28-4/30
http://www.area360.com/workshop.html