I did NOT say your idea was exactly the same as panning and stitching I said it was "very little better". It is better but not enough better to justify the excessive cost of implementation for a limited number of stationary targets. In other words it wouldn't make sense for such a small gain on such a small percentage of photographs compared to pan and stitch technique which is commonly avaiable FREE on all digicams IMHO. jco
-----Original Message----- From: Glen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:20 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Sensors That Shift? At 10:45 AM 9/22/2005, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >The other thing is that your good idea >about covering the whole frame is only possible with stationary >subjects while the shift function doesn't have that limitation. The >stationary subject requirement makes it very little better than Pan and >stitch techniques already possible with any digital camera... ...Except that you wouldn't need an expensive calibrated tripod head or external stitching software. Not moving the camera body and lens, and only moving the sensor, should result in a much more accurate stitch. (I think.) How would you suggest moving the camera body and lens to replicate the same effect as moving the sensor? Are you going to laterally and vertically shift the whole camera several inches, perhaps several feet, in order to do the same thing that moving the moving the sensor would accomplish? I believe that with most lenses and subjects you would have to move the camera a lot farther than you would have to move the internal sensor, in order to achieve a similar effect. I agree that this full-frame stitching idea would only work for subjects which remained stationary with respect to the camera. (I even mentioned it in my original post.) However, it's probably a lot cheaper than a full-frame sensor. It might be worth doing for those occasions where the technique is applicable. take care, Glen
