Skp was talking about correcting it, so I presume he tilted the 18 up
to include the same field of view.
Of course, any correction will stretch some parts of the picture,
especially the edges, resulting in even less resolution there.
For correcting fisheyes, see
http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~dersch/architect/arch.html
Tom
On Tuesday, February 03, 2004 at 21:52,
C.H.Ling <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If you are talking about a 24 shift direct shoot and a 18mm corrected
> one (through scanner and software) may be the 24 is better. My personal
> experience with both 18 and 24 shift was they are having similar
> resolution, I won't use the word one blew away the other.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Skip Williams" <om2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:39 PM
> Subject: [OM] Re: can your digital do this?
>
>
> >
> > Bob and I did several tests with the 16, 18, and 24-shift and the
> > 24-shift
> blew them away with it's superb resolution. (These tests were with
> scanned film, not a DSLR) My conclusion was if you're shooting
> architecture, an ~18mm lens corrected with software (and I used very,
> very good software) DOES NOT measure up to a dedicated shift lens. > >
> Skip
---- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur ----
,__@ tOM Trottier +1 613 231-6115
_-\_<, 758 Albert St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*) N45.412 W75.714
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826)
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|