"Benny" <no spam ple@se.com> wrote in message
news:ijUvj.18311$421.1251@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I have created a panorama using about 6 images all taken using a 17mm lense
>(with a Canon 40D).
>
> At a later date I went and took some more shots (from the same
> position/location) but with focal lengths of 35mm and 50mm.
> I now want to add these extra images into the original panorama without
> them looking disproportionate or appearing to have better or worse
> resolution.
>
> What is the math I should be applying to ensure I get the extra images at
> the same proportions as the panorama and also preferably at the same
> printable resolution?
>
> My idea is that the 50mm images will need to be reduced in size to 17/50
> (ie 0.34) to fit correctly into the panorama. The 35mm images would be
> reduced to 17/35 (ie about half) to fit into the panorama etc etc.
>
> Not too sure what to do to ensure a consistency in printable resolution by
> mixing images (of differing focal lengths) in this way.

The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the images
from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

One consequence of this is that you will need to double (or triple) up in
the vertical direction to match the field of view of your original pano, and
there will be keystoning issues because the vertical axis has changed. To
deal with that, you could get by with the transform tool, but a tool such as
PTGUI might save you a lot of time, since it known how to align images in
spite of this rectilinear distortion.

Another issue that you will almost certainly need to deal with will be color
matching the sky and other objects in the panorama. One way to do this is
with curves, and numeric values from the info palette. Again, a panorama
savvy program may save you some effort here, though you can do this
perfectly well manually with a little effort.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

I have created a panorama using about 6 images all taken using a 17mm lense
(with a Canon 40D).

At a later date I went and took some more shots (from the same
position/location) but with focal lengths of 35mm and 50mm.
I now want to add these extra images into the original panorama without them
looking disproportionate or appearing to have better or worse resolution.

What is the math I should be applying to ensure I get the extra images at
the same proportions as the panorama and also preferably at the same
printable resolution?

My idea is that the 50mm images will need to be reduced in size to 17/50 (ie
0.34) to fit correctly into the panorama. The 35mm images would be reduced
to 17/35 (ie about half) to fit into the panorama etc etc.

Not too sure what to do to ensure a consistency in printable resolution by
mixing images (of differing focal lengths) in this way.

thanks

Benny

On Feb 23, 6:27 am, "Benny" <no spam p...@se.com> wrote:
> What is the math I should be applying to ensure I get the extra images at
> the same proportions as the panorama and also preferably at the same
> printable resolution?
> Benny

Hi Benny,
One possibility would be to 'place' each image as a smart object into
a PS document set to the image size you want with a canvas size large
enough to facilitate the largest. Align them. Then starting at the
next to the bottom layer use the transform tools and the shift key
(for constraint) to match the image sizes. Smart objects
transformations are nondestructive so you get as many shots as you
want. You can set the working layer to difference mode so you can tell
when the image turns black that you have it registered. After you get
them sized set the guides to percent and snap a guide to each edge.
Note the percent then drill down into the smart object and group the
document into another smart object then add guides to those locations
and snap the document size to the guides. This is a nondestructive way
to get all your documents to match perspective.

Good luck,
Ron

<ronviers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1a1497b-4e51-4f67-9445-e65942d01bc4@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 23, 6:27 am, "Benny" <no spam p...@se.com> wrote:
>> What is the math I should be applying to ensure I get the extra images at
>> the same proportions as the panorama and also preferably at the same
>> printable resolution?
>> Benny
>
> Hi Benny,
> One possibility would be to 'place' each image as a smart object into
> a PS document set to the image size you want with a canvas size large
> enough to facilitate the largest. Align them. Then starting at the
> next to the bottom layer use the transform tools and the shift key
> (for constraint) to match the image sizes. Smart objects
> transformations are nondestructive so you get as many shots as you
> want. You can set the working layer to difference mode so you can tell
> when the image turns black that you have it registered. After you get
> them sized set the guides to percent and snap a guide to each edge.
> Note the percent then drill down into the smart object and group the
> document into another smart object then add guides to those locations
> and snap the document size to the guides. This is a nondestructive way
> to get all your documents to match perspective.
>
> Good luck,
> Ron

Thanks Ron
I will digest your comments and get back if I need further clarification.
regards
Benny

>> My idea is that the 50mm images will need to be reduced in size to 17/50
>> (ie 0.34) to fit correctly into the panorama. The 35mm images would be
>> reduced to 17/35 (ie about half) to fit into the panorama etc etc.
>>
>> Not too sure what to do to ensure a consistency in printable resolution
>> by mixing images (of differing focal lengths) in this way.
>
> The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
> images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image
> size.
>
> One consequence of this is that you will need to double (or triple) up in
> the vertical direction to match the field of view of your original pano,
> and there will be keystoning issues because the vertical axis has changed.
> To deal with that, you could get by with the transform tool, but a tool
> such as PTGUI might save you a lot of time, since it known how to align
> images in spite of this rectilinear distortion.
>
> Another issue that you will almost certainly need to deal with will be
> color matching the sky and other objects in the panorama. One way to do
> this is with curves, and numeric values from the info palette. Again, a
> panorama savvy program may save you some effort here, though you can do
> this perfectly well manually with a little effort.
> --
> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
>

Thanks Mike
I actually used PTGUI (for the first time) to create the pano. I will now
look further into it's other capabilities.
As an aside, I also created an equivalent pano using CS3's Photomerge and
found some interesting differences in image and file sizes etc, as noted
below.
PTGUI produced an image size of 3490 x 1147 pixels @ 72 ppi and a saved
filesize of 4880 KB although in CS3 the doc size and pixel dimensions are
shown as 11.5MB.
CS3's Photomerge produced an image size of 12681 x 4253 pixels @ 72ppi and a
saved filesize of only 1400KB. CS3 indicates a doc size and pixel dims of
154.3MB. The image is about 3.6 times larger but the file is about 3.5 times
smaller???
I will need to investigate further to sort these figure differences out.
In CS3 when I zoom to fill window to view them both at the same screen size
I notice that PTGUI zoom is 26.25% and CS3's is only 7.22%. I also need to
zoom in around 300% for the PTGUI pano to obtain the same size as the 100%
CS3 zoom. The PTGUI pano pixelates a loot sooner than the CS3 pano. My
leaning is therefore towards the CS3 pano because of this. But it may just
be a setting in PTGUI that will resolve this issue.
I presume with the extra images I want to insert into the pano, I will need
to maintain the same pixel resolution (or better) as that of the pano?
regards
Benny

"Benny" <no spam ple@se.com> wrote in message
news:IV2wj.18419$421.7234@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> My idea is that the 50mm images will need to be reduced in size to 17/50
>>> (ie 0.34) to fit correctly into the panorama. The 35mm images would be
>>> reduced to 17/35 (ie about half) to fit into the panorama etc etc.
>>>
>>> Not too sure what to do to ensure a consistency in printable resolution
>>> by mixing images (of differing focal lengths) in this way.
>>
>> The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
>> images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image
>> size.
>>
>> One consequence of this is that you will need to double (or triple) up in
>> the vertical direction to match the field of view of your original pano,
>> and there will be keystoning issues because the vertical axis has
>> changed. To deal with that, you could get by with the transform tool, but
>> a tool such as PTGUI might save you a lot of time, since it known how to
>> align images in spite of this rectilinear distortion.
>>
>> Another issue that you will almost certainly need to deal with will be
>> color matching the sky and other objects in the panorama. One way to do
>> this is with curves, and numeric values from the info palette. Again, a
>> panorama savvy program may save you some effort here, though you can do
>> this perfectly well manually with a little effort.
>> --
>> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
>>
>
> Thanks Mike
> I actually used PTGUI (for the first time) to create the pano. I will now
> look further into it's other capabilities.
> As an aside, I also created an equivalent pano using CS3's Photomerge and
> found some interesting differences in image and file sizes etc, as noted
> below.
> PTGUI produced an image size of 3490 x 1147 pixels @ 72 ppi and a saved
> filesize of 4880 KB although in CS3 the doc size and pixel dimensions are
> shown as 11.5MB.
> CS3's Photomerge produced an image size of 12681 x 4253 pixels @ 72ppi and
> a saved filesize of only 1400KB. CS3 indicates a doc size and pixel dims
> of 154.3MB. The image is about 3.6 times larger but the file is about 3.5
> times smaller???
> I will need to investigate further to sort these figure differences out.
> In CS3 when I zoom to fill window to view them both at the same screen
> size I notice that PTGUI zoom is 26.25% and CS3's is only 7.22%. I also
> need to zoom in around 300% for the PTGUI pano to obtain the same size as
> the 100% CS3 zoom. The PTGUI pano pixelates a loot sooner than the CS3
> pano. My leaning is therefore towards the CS3 pano because of this. But it
> may just be a setting in PTGUI that will resolve this issue.
> I presume with the extra images I want to insert into the pano, I will
> need to maintain the same pixel resolution (or better) as that of the
> pano?
> regards
> Benny
>

Autopano is worth checking out. I also use PTGui and CS3 photomerge. It can
be a lot of work, but who wants to sleep anyway. You can do that when you
are dead.

r.

>>> The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
>>> images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image
>>> size.
>>>
>>> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

Say WHAT ???

You may know curves, but you do not know optics!

Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects
not to mention barrel and other lens distortions.

Technically you can make the pan, but the eye will wonder "What's WRONG?".

For visually good pans, you should shoot in portrait (vertical) mode, lens
of 55mm or better, overlap of 15% and USE A TRIPOD with the cameral level!

From: "Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail@please.invalid>
....
> Once again, you may read this (which you 'conveniently' deleted when
> quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective


LOL - Sir F. A. Rien, le nom dit tous: il ne ce fait pas.
---
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>>> The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
>>>> images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image
>>>> size.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
>
> Say WHAT ???
>
> You may know curves, but you do not know optics!
>
> Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects

You may know optics, but you do not know the implications of "... - what
matters is that you took the images from the same location"

SCNR

> not to mention barrel and other lens distortions.
>
> Technically you can make the pan, but the eye will wonder "What's WRONG?".

no, if you follow the advice

>
> For visually good pans, you should shoot in portrait (vertical) mode, lens
> of 55mm or better, overlap of 15% and USE A TRIPOD with the cameral level!
>

Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:

> >>> The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
> >>> images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image
> >>> size.
> >>>
> >>> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
>
> Say WHAT ???
>
> You may know curves, but you do not know optics!
>
> Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects

Say WHAT?

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply
crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship
between objects.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective


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

nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

>Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
>> >>> images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image
>> >>> size.
>> >>>
>> >>> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
>>
>> Say WHAT ???
>>
>> You may know curves, but you do not know optics!
>>
>> Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects
>
>Say WHAT?
>
>If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply
>crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship
>between objects.
>
Say WHAT?

Obviously you've never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship
changing.

Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle ... doesn't make it not visible and
affect images 'joined' having been shot with differing focal lengths.

In article <5m94s3pvg43ithbru4iffvulpjsrbephm2@4ax.com>, jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com says...
> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:
>
> >Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >>> The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
> >> >>> images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image
> >> >>> size.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
> >>
> >> Say WHAT ???
> >>
> >> You may know curves, but you do not know optics!
> >>
> >> Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects
> >
> >Say WHAT?
> >
> >If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply
> >crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship
> >between objects.
> >
> Say WHAT?
>
> Obviously you've never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship
> changing.
>
> Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle ... doesn't make it not visible and
> affect images 'joined' having been shot with differing focal lengths.
>
Ignoring second order effects such as pin-cusion distortion (which can be corrected by panorama software) and assuming
the scene is far from the camera (relative to the physical dimensions of the lenses), Johan is correct. The relative
view you get from two lenses of differing focal length is equivalent to the relative view you get by observing a scene
through two physical masks cut into sheets of cardboard (with the longer lens equivalent to a smaller hole in the
cardboard). Objects in th escene may be occluded by the edges of the mask, but they do not mysteriously shift their
relative positions.

Mike

Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:

> >If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply
> >crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship
> >between objects.
> >
> Say WHAT?
>
> Obviously you've never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship
> changing.
>
> Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle ... doesn't make it not visible and
> affect images 'joined' having been shot with differing focal lengths.

If you make close-up to macro shots, and you use a zoomlens where the
length of the lens changes when the zoom position changes, then you may
observe this. It's because you are effectively changing lens position
slightly when zooming such a lens. If you use a lens with internal
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

Mike <m.fee@iirrll..ccrrii..nnzz> found these unused words:

>In article <5m94s3pvg43ithbru4iffvulpjsrbephm2@4ax.com>, jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com says...
>> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:
>>
>> >Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>> The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
>> >> >>> images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image
>> >> >>> size.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
>> >>
>> >> Say WHAT ???
>> >>
>> >> You may know curves, but you do not know optics!
>> >>
>> >> Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects
>> >
>> >Say WHAT?
>> >
>> >If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply
>> >crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship
>> >between objects.
>> >
>> Say WHAT?
>>
>> Obviously you've never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship
>> changing.
>>
>> Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle ... doesn't make it not visible and
>> affect images 'joined' having been shot with differing focal lengths.
>>
>Ignoring second order effects such as pin-cusion distortion (which can be corrected by panorama software) and assuming
>the scene is far from the camera (relative to the physical dimensions of the lenses), Johan is correct.

Special case situations always modify the status. My objection was to your
blanket statement that "focal length is not an issue".

>The relative
>view you get from two lenses of differing focal length is equivalent to the relative view you get by observing a scene
>through two physical masks cut into sheets of cardboard (with the longer lens equivalent to a smaller hole in the
>cardboard). Objects in th escene may be occluded by the edges of the mask, but they do not mysteriously shift their
>relative positions.

I never mentioned shifting 'relative positions', my word selection was
"relationships". If you chose to infer that means 'position' or 'size', I
can't that.

Example:
Shoot a person's face full frame with a portrait lens of, say, 105mm (35mm
format). Next shoot it with a 28mm lens. The relationships of the objects
that comprise the person have changed. Small ears, big nose! (yes, I -=did=-
see your caveat of the special case of 'far enough' restriction.)

You've already covered sperical distortion.

In the net, focal length -=is=- an issue! In general, you can not ignore
'2nd order' effects IF you want good panoramas!

"which can be corrected by panorama software" ... hey! lets not then bother
about exposure and other details either! They can be corrected, but the eye
will know, if at all familiar with the scene.

nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

>Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> >If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply
>> >crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship
>> >between objects.
>> >
>> Say WHAT?
>>
>> Obviously you've never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship
>> changing.
>>
>> Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle ... doesn't make it not visible and
>> affect images 'joined' having been shot with differing focal lengths.
>
>If you make close-up to macro shots, and you use a zoomlens where the
>length of the lens changes when the zoom position changes, then you may
>observe this. It's because you are effectively changing lens position
>slightly when zooming such a lens. If you use a lens with internal
>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

Just followed -=your=- example and snipped the part I found didn't fit my
side.

Doesn't have to be 'macro' or a zoom lens (just used that to hope you'd have
observed!), the optics alter the image.

Perspective, size are but two relationships in an image - there are more,
but ... you're an 'expert'!

Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:

> Example:
> Shoot a person's face full frame with a portrait lens of, say, 105mm (35mm
> format). Next shoot it with a 28mm lens. The relationships of the objects
> that comprise the person have changed. Small ears, big nose!

You make a well-known beginners mistake. In order to shoot the face full
frame with the wide angle, you will have to change the position of the
camera: you will have get much closer to the person. THAT is what causes
the big nose and the small ears!

If you would use the wide angle *from the same distance* as the 105mm,
the nose will not become bigger and the ears will not become smaller. Of
course, the face will not be full frame in this situation, but that is
the consequence of using a wider angle *without* moving the camera.

I'm not going to quote that link for a third time, but it's obvious that
you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Here's a few other
links. Maybe you understand one of those:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspec...n_(photography)
http://cornicello.blogspot.com/2007/...ective_08.html
http://jamesmskipper.tripod.com/jame...rspective.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...AAqM2oG&show=7


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

"Sir F. A. Rien" <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
news:e5p5s3pprqf0e571jbs0evc3ugu42ba24c@4ax.com...
> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:
>
>>Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply
>>> >crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship
>>> >between objects.
>>> >
>>> Say WHAT?
>>>
>>> Obviously you've never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship
>>> changing.
>>>
>>> Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle ... doesn't make it not visible
>>> and
>>> affect images 'joined' having been shot with differing focal lengths.
>>
>>If you make close-up to macro shots, and you use a zoomlens where the
>>length of the lens changes when the zoom position changes, then you may
>>observe this. It's because you are effectively changing lens position
>>slightly when zooming such a lens. If you use a lens with internal
>>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
>
> Just followed -=your=- example and snipped the part I found didn't fit my
> side.
>
> Doesn't have to be 'macro' or a zoom lens (just used that to hope you'd
> have
> observed!), the optics alter the image.
>
> Perspective, size are but two relationships in an image - there are more,
> but ... you're an 'expert'!


this conversation makes my head hurt
but the comment about sir rien's name is priceless

"KatWoman" <spamfree@hotmail.com> found these unused words:

>
>"Sir F. A. Rien" <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
>news:e5p5s3pprqf0e571jbs0evc3ugu42ba24c@4ax.com.. .
>> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:
>>
>>>Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply
>>>> >crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship
>>>> >between objects.
>>>> >
>>>> Say WHAT?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you've never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship
>>>> changing.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle ... doesn't make it not visible
>>>> and
>>>> affect images 'joined' having been shot with differing focal lengths.
>>>
>>>If you make close-up to macro shots, and you use a zoomlens where the
>>>length of the lens changes when the zoom position changes, then you may
>>>observe this. It's because you are effectively changing lens position
>>>slightly when zooming such a lens. If you use a lens with internal
>>>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
>>
>> Just followed -=your=- example and snipped the part I found didn't fit my
>> side.
>>
>> Doesn't have to be 'macro' or a zoom lens (just used that to hope you'd
>> have
>> observed!), the optics alter the image.
>>
>> Perspective, size are but two relationships in an image - there are more,
>> but ... you're an 'expert'!
>
>
>this conversation makes my head hurt
>but the comment about sir rien's name is priceless
>
Took him long enough to figure out the Nym!

Somehow I think he's a charter member of the EMP Society.

nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

>Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> Example:
>> Shoot a person's face full frame with a portrait lens of, say, 105mm (35mm
>> format). Next shoot it with a 28mm lens. The relationships of the objects
>> that comprise the person have changed. Small ears, big nose!
>
>You make a well-known beginners mistake. In order to shoot the face full
>frame with the wide angle, you will have to change the position of the
>camera: you will have get much closer to the person. THAT is what causes
>the big nose and the small ears!
>
>If you would use the wide angle *from the same distance* as the 105mm,
>the nose will not become bigger and the ears will not become smaller. Of
>course, the face will not be full frame in this situation, but that is
>the consequence of using a wider angle *without* moving the camera.
>
Duh !!!

... and in making a pan from wide angle and other focal lengths, the camera
wasn't moved?

You're really determined to work this into something I didn't originally
say.

As for your links, should you ever consider my -=ORIGINAL=- statement in
full - I might be bothered to glance at your farcical 'teachings'.

The point, no matter how much you snip to minimize your misunderstanding,
is:

FOCAL LENGTH DOES MATTER!

{well to those who care about their images, eh?]

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.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:
>
>> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Example:
>>> Shoot a person's face full frame with a portrait lens of, say, 105mm (35mm
>>> format). Next shoot it with a 28mm lens. The relationships of the objects
>>> that comprise the person have changed. Small ears, big nose!
>> You make a well-known beginners mistake. In order to shoot the face full
>> frame with the wide angle, you will have to change the position of the
>> camera: you will have get much closer to the person. THAT is what causes
>> the big nose and the small ears!
>>
>> If you would use the wide angle *from the same distance* as the 105mm,
>> the nose will not become bigger and the ears will not become smaller. Of
>> course, the face will not be full frame in this situation, but that is
>> the consequence of using a wider angle *without* moving the camera.
>>
> Duh !!!
>
> .. and in making a pan from wide angle and other focal lengths, the camera
> wasn't moved?
>
> You're really determined to work this into something I didn't originally
> say.
>
> As for your links, should you ever consider my -=ORIGINAL=- statement in
> full - I might be bothered to glance at your farcical 'teachings'.
>
> The point, no matter how much you snip to minimize your misunderstanding,
> is:
>
> FOCAL LENGTH DOES MATTER!

do you really think shouting is a convincing argument? Actually _you_
are the one who has been ignoring the second part in the original statement

"The focal length is not an issue - what matters is that you took the
images from the same location"

all the time. Please try to understand, what "what matters is that you
took the images from the same location" implies re the relation of objects

Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:

> >You make a well-known beginners mistake. In order to shoot the face full
> >frame with the wide angle, you will have to change the position of the
> >camera: you will have get much closer to the person. THAT is what causes
> >the big nose and the small ears!
> >
> >If you would use the wide angle *from the same distance* as the 105mm,
> >the nose will not become bigger and the ears will not become smaller. Of
> >course, the face will not be full frame in this situation, but that is
> >the consequence of using a wider angle *without* moving the camera.
> >
> Duh !!!
>
> .. and in making a pan from wide angle and other focal lengths, the camera
> wasn't moved?

No, not if the OP says that he shot all the images from the same
position. Of course, you can choose not to believe the OP, but as he is
the one who took the images and you did not, that would be rather silly
for the rest of the discussion.


> You're really determined to work this into something I didn't originally
> say.

No, I'm determined to make you understand that you said something wrong.
Now *you* are the one trying to change things around by implying that
the OP did *not* shoot all the images from the same position, even if he
says he did.


> As for your links, should you ever consider my -=ORIGINAL=- statement in
> full - I might be bothered to glance at your farcical 'teachings'.

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.


> 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.


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