Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

  1. #51
    Angus Parker angusparker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    936

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperK View Post
    As I told I was going to get rid of those cones. Which are heave, huge, expensive and slow to change on most system.
    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/...0028%20(3).jpg

    I'm sure it's possible to make the camera rigid enough. And precise. If Lachlan717 says the marks "works" on Shen Hao railings, the stoppers would work great on metal camera.
    But, perhaps, I need to get Shen Hao TFC617, It must satisfy me, if only it takes at least 58mm, 47mm - better. Waiting for reply from Shen Hao.

    But why so many people suggest 4x5+film back? What's the point? Why buy bulky 4x5, and remember that not all of 4x5 can take 6x17 back, then search for 6x17back for it (Gaoersi, DaYi? Horseman for 1500$ ?), when Shen Hao already makes TFC617 with a nice film back perfectly suitable.
    I'm certainly being a little tough. The larger cones over 150mm start to get ridiculous which is probably why most people stick with one short FL cone. A limitation but one that is worth it for the P&S and ruggedness. I find the Shen Hao PTB617 very easy to use but the TFC617 would be even easier to setup. Movements on roll film are overrated in my opinion with the possible exception upward shift for panoramic formats. The benefit of the bellows is being able to use many FL and having light weight. A back on a 4x5 is very limiting - something to stay away from.

  2. #52
    SuperK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    USSR
    Posts
    41

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    If you are interested, here are some of my recent blog posts with panoramic images and thoughts, especially regarding my experiments with 35mm film in a 6x12 back:
    http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/search/label/Panoramic
    Nice photos you have in the forest. What is clear here - is that 72mm doesn't look tooo wide in this space. 72 perfectly suitable, 65mm would be good too.

  3. #53
    SuperK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    USSR
    Posts
    41

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by angusparker View Post
    I'm certainly being a little tough. The larger cones over 150mm start to get ridiculous which is probably why most people stick with one short FL cone. A limitation but one that is worth it for the P&S and ruggedness. I find the Shen Hao PTB617 very easy to use but the TFC617 would be even easier to setup. Movements on roll film are overrated in my opinion with the possible exception upward shift for panoramic formats. The benefit of the bellows is being able to use many FL and having light weight. A back on a 4x5 is very limiting - something to stay away from.
    Nobody was tough here, that what I like in this forum .
    I do agree with you here. Thanks!

  4. #54
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,413

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by IanG View Post
    Ideally you need rise & fall to place the Panoramic section in the center of the image circle.

    Ian
    Why? If the camera swivels about the lens nodal point would that not be best?

  5. #55
    Lachlan 717
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,591

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    Why?
    For the same reason that other tech cameras need rise/fall: to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject. Some people need this (e.g. architectural shooters).

    Swivelling around the nodal point will introduce distortion in verticals if you swivel up/down from horizontal.
    Lachlan.

    You miss 100% of the shots you never take. -- Wayne Gretzky

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    667

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachlan 717 View Post
    For the same reason that other tech cameras need rise/fall: to keep the 'rear standard parallel' to the subject. Some people need this (e.g. architectural shooters)...
    ____

    Incorrect 'Terminology' and/or thought...

    If the Rear Standard of your Camera is Not 'Parallel to the Subject'... All of the 'Rise and Fall' in the world -- Will never make it 'Parallel to the Subject'.

    (*Rear 'Rise and Fall' only corrects for Vertical Image Placement).
    --
    If you want to keep the Rear Standard 'Parallel' to the Subject... You of course would use 'Tilts' for Vertical Perspective Control and 'Swings' for Horizontal Perspective Control.
    --
    Best regards,

    -Tim.
    _________
    Last edited by Taija71A; 12-Nov-2014 at 19:43.

  7. #57
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,413

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachlan 717 View Post
    For the same reason that other tech cameras need rise/fall: to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject. Some people need this (e.g. architectural shooters).

    Swivelling around the nodal point will introduce distortion in verticals if you swivel up/down from horizontal.
    Only with wide lenses. No?

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    Only with wide lenses. No?
    No... only "more so" with wide lenses. Even things in nature need rise/fall for proper imaging... groves of trees for example.

  9. #59
    Lachlan 717
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,591

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    No... only "more so" with wide lenses. Even things in nature need rise/fall for proper imaging... groves of trees for example.

    Correct.

    Another example of where keeping the rear standard parallel to the subject is seascape. Tilting the camera will give a bulging or subsiding horizon if it is off-centre. Rise/fall prevents this.
    Lachlan.

    You miss 100% of the shots you never take. -- Wayne Gretzky

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Joyce, Washington
    Posts
    1,437

    Re: 617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

    You can't correct lack of parallelism with rise and fall, but you can maintain it by using rise and fall to avoid tilting the camera up or down. "...to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject" implies that you are simply trying to maintain it, not achieve it.
    Last edited by Colin Graham; 12-Nov-2014 at 18:54. Reason: spellage

Similar Threads

  1. Panoramic Camera
    By sanking in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 14-Oct-2011, 21:31
  2. Panoramic Camera
    By ThePenguin in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 21-Feb-2011, 10:14
  3. Considering panoramic camera
    By Fred Braakman in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 20-May-2007, 10:19
  4. Kevin Saitta`s K concept software.
    By Jorge Gasteazoro in forum New Products and Services
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27-Oct-2006, 17:48
  5. panoramic camera
    By jnantz in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 8-Feb-2001, 18:14

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •