You do not seem to understand the subject. If the curved or spherical field causes focus errors with the subject you CANNOT correct it afterwards with software.
Geometry may be corrected afterwards with software if it is linear but not focus issues. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Not only that, but there is sofware than can and does compensate for this. Take a look at the software I mentioned before, PTAssembler. It is a user friendly interface on top of another tool that does the real stitching and distortion compensation. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Munro" > Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching > > > > >>The section which states, "... the shooting technique results in a >>"plane of focus" of a sphere instead of a plane."" baffles me - how > > can > >>there be a spherical plane of focus of a plane? I assume the plane >>being talked about is a two-dimensional film plane, am I mistaken? > > > When you rotate the camera and lens, the plane of focus follows that > curve, hence becoming spherical. Semi spherical, I suppose, since you > will only have so much of the sphere in the picture (unless you do > 360° panoramics). Technically speaking, the plane of focus will be a > mess, since most lenses aren't flat field anyway, so what you will > have is a semi spherical plane of focus, broken down into a number of > curved field focus planes. > By stopping down to normal shooting apertures though, this becomes > irrelevant, since any focus wonks will fall within depth of field. > Add to that, there is no reason why each individual image cannot be > refocussed (they should stay in scale, close enough for landscapes, > anyway), thereby negating any focus problems that may, theroetically, > crop up. > > Photograph > William Robby is about taking pictures, and doing a little > experimentation to see what works. I've had more than a few > discussions about things that I know damn well will work, because I > have done it, with theoretical photographers who won't take a picture > because it is technically unfeasable. > > William Robb > > >
