PePax

[P3D Section of Epidemiology <dworrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>LeRoy Barco>It's possible that either more or less
hyper-to-telephoto than the one-to-one ratio of PePax might
be read as more natural... in the same way that we read the
"stretch" of a longer viewing distance as natural to a
greater degree than we do "squash" resulting from being to
close... or is this just due to hardly ever seeing "squash"
distortion?

Thanks, that is a fairly simple formula, and I think quite
useful. In wildlife photography, most of the best shots are
limited to a small plane so that shouldn't be a problem.
Also since we are talking nature here some distortion would
probably go unnoticed ... Who is really going to know that
the waterfall is distorted slightly in the background?

Dave Worrell
Publications Technician
State of Alaska
Section of Epidemiology


------------------------------