"Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> found these unused
words:

>If you'll look at the rest of Monsieur le Nul's posts, you'll see he's been
>responding here and there, spoiling for a squabble all week. I suggest
>people stop giving him what he wants, and he'll settle down and be nice.

I do try to until some poster makes a bad, generalized statement that
is incorrect. Those need to be clarified, but then we get one respondent
with deliberate minute points of view, insisting that theirs is the -=only=-
possible inference. <G> Love to play "Ernie Evans" with them.

Perhaps I should review my posts, AFAIK, this thread is the only one wherein
I've been badgering the moles.

FWIW, I do respect your views, 95% of the time (or more?).

> focussing and zooming, you will not see any change, even if you make
> close ups. This is totally irrelevant however, because it is very
> unlikely that the OP is making close-up shots. We are talking about a
> panorama, remember?
>
> Once again, you may read this (which you 'conveniently' deleted when
> quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective
>
>
> --
> Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
> Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Thanks for all the replies and opinionated enthusiasm.
It was good to read the link above as it was exactly what happened on site.
I did take a few images from a different location (even though only slightly
away from the original position) and the images were unusable because of the
changed perspective.
The images taken from the original location (but with different lenses) only
needed cropping (based upon the ratio of the focal lengths) and they fitted
near perfectly.
regards
Benny

"Benny" <no spam ple@se.com> wrote:

> > focussing and zooming, you will not see any change, even if you make
> > close ups. This is totally irrelevant however, because it is very
> > unlikely that the OP is making close-up shots. We are talking about a
> > panorama, remember?
> >
> > Once again, you may read this (which you 'conveniently' deleted when
> > quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective
> >
> Thanks for all the replies and opinionated enthusiasm.
> It was good to read the link above as it was exactly what happened on site.
> I did take a few images from a different location (even though only slightly
> away from the original position) and the images were unusable because of the
> changed perspective.
> The images taken from the original location (but with different lenses) only
> needed cropping (based upon the ratio of the focal lengths) and they fitted
> near perfectly.

You're welcome. Glad to hear that at least some people understand the
relationship between camera position and focal length! ;-)


--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

I agree with Sir F Rein - a different focal length will result in a
different spatial relationships within the image, even if the camera
position is exactly the same. A longer focal length means the film (or CCD)
is optically farther away from the scene.

Visually, the differences in spatial relationship may not be immediately
apparent since objects appear to be relatively positioned the same ("the
tree is still in front of the second mountain ridge"). But scaling the
image to fit the original focal length image will reveal the slight size
differences. Scaled to fit the periphery, the center objects will be a
slightly different size. Much more obvious, scaling it to match the center
exactly, the outer objects will be a different size. The spatial
relationships are different from center to periphery when comparing images
of different focal lengths. These effects are much more pronounced when
looking at images containing foreground objects. When I use a wide angle
lens this is even more pronounced by barrel distortion.

However since it will be used in a panarama, the spatial differences will be
of little consequence. I see the OP has found the difference negligible.

And since its being discussed here, it can always be corrected in Photoshop!
With thanks to all who out,
Scott


"Sir F. A. Rien" <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
news:v7d8s3lnnjk3i9oakhic7fabrphenmj3h1@4ax.com...
> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:
>
>>Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>>
>>Your original statement was:
>>"Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between
>>objects not to mention barrel and other lens distortions".
>>
>>The second part (about distortions) is true, the first part is wrong.
>>Different focal lengths do *not* alter the visual relationship between
>>objects. Only different camera positions do.
>>
> Then we're in agreement, different focal lengtrhs -=do=- change visual
> relationships! "The second part (about distortions) is true," if one image
> has distortion or other focal length cause alteration, then the
> relationship
> of an object from one image to another has changed!
>
>>> The point, no matter how much you snip to minimize your
>>> misunderstanding,
>>> is:
>>>
>>> FOCAL LENGTH DOES MATTER!
>>
>>It matters, but not for the relationship between objects (i.e. the
>>perspective) in the image. And shouting doesn't change that either.
>
> Thwacking a mule with a 2x4 does cause his attention to focus.
>
> Unfortunately, you're still single minded that only 'perspective' is a
> relationship between object in images. Had I meant only size, I would have
> said "Size", had I meant only perspective' I would have so said!
>
> Once you cure that lingering problem, remove the blinders, cease reading
> in
> your biases, then perhaps you may, someday, accept that -=generalized=-
> statements should be called into question whenever they are -=wrong=-!
>