Re: Converging lenses (was: Window reversal); D|s-TortiO|\|s

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>If we rule out technical reasons for introducing keystoning in
>images taken,  and we rule out artistic reasons for doing so
>(as was stated a few "rounds" ago), what other possible
>reasons are there for doing *anything* photographic?  Being
>bribed by some anonymous billionaire?  That would work.  :-)
>
>I'm *definitely* confused! 
>
>
>Mike K.

Sorry to confuse you, but it's rather simple. 
There is a school of thought that, artistically, anything can be done.
Then anything goes. 

Nobody is ruling out from a technical point of view, but rather, why
would you want to keep keystone distortion. Even in beamsplitters,
this is not an effect that is desired, so is cancelled out by the
beamsplitter viewer. So back to square one! Why would you want to
introduce keystone distortion and keep it. This is very unlike hyper,
hypo, strech, squash, or a multitude of other valid distortions which
are not distortion faults. Your eyes can fuse these images with
no drastic discomfort. What's next? 

>My reading of the thread was that introduction of keystoning was claimed
>to be one of the ABSOLUTE no-no's.  That is, it was under ALL conditions a 
>fault and unacceptable.  I've come up with examples that I think refute that
>notion.  Even one that's not using artistic reasoning.

No, the crux of the discussion was trying out new unconventional ideas,
with the intention of viewing the resulting headaches! ;-) Now if that
is the desired effect, maybe Bayer would like to hire me to do their
ad campaign.

Gabriel



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