| ??? 04/08/12 21:04 Read: times |
#187061 - But loss of reflection is just secondary result of off-axis Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jez Smith said:
If you take a photo of a mirror for example, you have to be in front of the mirror, if you use a shift and tilt lens you don't have to be in front of the mirror to get a photo of the mirror.Its also as you say used to straighten converging verticals in architectural photos.
If you stand if front of a tall building and point the camera up to get the whole building into the frame the result is the building will look as if its falling backwards because the vertical walls look like they are converging at the top. Yes, but I don't need a tilt/shift lens to snap a picture of that mirror slightly from the side. So the magic of the tilt/shift lens isn't actually to remove reflections. But if I do stand off-center from the mirror, I can have the tilt-shift lens help with getting the full surface on the focus plane despite parts of the mirror being further away. And the tilt/shift lens can be used to correct the scale changes between near and far side of mirror. Skipping reflections is just a secondary result of not standing directly in front of the mirror. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| "seeing" around corners | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nobody finds this interesting? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Its holiday time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Reflection? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Normally | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| paralax | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No its not parralax | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| But loss of reflection is just secondary result of off-axis | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That's why they have the features on those view cameras | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 2D? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| time of flight | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Bostonian | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I don't see that as an overstatement | 01/01/70 00:00 |