At 01:02 PM 9/22/2005, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I did NOT say your idea was exactly the same as panning and stitching I said it was "very little better".
Well, we are in agreement. I never claimed you said it was "exactly the same." ;)
Do you have any guess as to how much one would have to move the camera vertically or horizontally to achieve a similar effect as shifting the current 6.1 mp sensor inside a 24 x 36mm frame? I imagine it depends on lens focal length in use and probably some other factors, but could you give me some example stats? If you don't know, that's fine. I'm just curious as to whether shifting the sensor a relatively small amount might eliminate the need to accurately shift the whole camera by a much larger amount (something that would require an expensive purpose-built tripod head.)
You keep reminding me that this is a niche application with a price premium attached, and I totally agree about that also. Tilt-shift lenses are also a niche product which come at a premium price, but they are still being made.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that a tilting sensor might be cool also, but that would probably require real-time viewing of the sensor data. I don't think the optical viewfinder could easily be constructed to reflect the change in the plane of focus as the sensor was being tilted. One would have to monitor the image from the sensor in real-time, I think.
Can you tell that I would like to see a miniature Pentax digital view camera? All we need is the tilt-shift sensor, and for Pentax to create a complementary tilt-shift lens. I'm not asking for much, am I? :)
thanks, Glen -----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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/2005
