Andre Goforth wrote:
>
> Olympians,
>
> Sorry to beat the perspective versus distortion horse but check this out.
> If you have the following Oly document.
>
> Larry wrote on top of what Shawn wrote:
>
> >Some on this list have described what you experienced as "barrel
> >distortion". I'd be a little cautious with that diagnosis.
>
> I'd like to second Larry's point.
>
> In Olympus' publication labeled on the back with " printed in Japan IEMZLG
> 0380 20MT"(no date but circa late 70s/early 80s), and titled Olympus OM
> system Zuiko Interchangeable lens group, there are a couple of interesting
> photos to ponder.
>
> On page 22 is photo of a porch with a wooden sailing captain figure. Look
> at the weird angles of the columns holding up the roof and the angle of the
> roof header versus the porch.. If this photo is what the building really
> is like then something must be really wrong with the building! The wall on
> the left is "plumb" but the rest of the items in the photo are not.
>
> On page 27 is a photo taken with the 35 shift. In comparison with the photo
> on the next page taken with an ordinary 35 it looks better but there is
> something weird about it. Is the whole picture on a tilt to the right? The
> lean of the building at the left edge of the page is patently obvious and
> the left edge of the building in the center is ever so slightly leaning to
> the right but its right edge appears to be exactly vertical. My guess it
> has something to do with where the bulk of the object being rectified is
> relative to the axis of the camera lens. This must be taken in account as
> well as Marco's advise on leveling the file plane with a spirit level.
>
> My guess is that Shawn's unverticals have to do with the relation of the
> camera axis to the objects/features in view.
>
> I would appreciate comments from anyone who has this publication. I got it
> with my OM1N a long time ago.
>
> Parting words, think of the optical illusions created in carnivals where
> the illusion has to do with faking one out in terms of perpective. There is
> not patent distortion but a illusion that the room is bigger or tilts up
> when it really doesn't.
>
> Shawn, could you put the photo up on your web site? I would like to see it.
>
> Still shiftless in California
>
> Andre
> San Carlos, CA
> USA
>
Andre,
I have a lens manual similar to the one you refer to (got it with my OM2n) and
I have examined the pictures you mention:
On page 22, the picture is obviously taken with the camera tilted downwards,
which accounts for the "twisted" look of both the wall and the pillars. The
roof header appears to slant to the left, which I think it really does for
two reasons: 1. there is an obvious angle compared to the lamp suspended from
the roof. 2. All lenses have some distortion, but the Zuikos are in my
experience far from as bad as required to get that kind of effect. Nor would
Olympus choose a picture with obvious lens errors for a promotion publication.
The picture is obviously chosen for the distinct wide angle lens effects, as
it should be.
The shift demonstration on page 27 simply suffers from the camera not
being perfectly vertical. Note how the building is slightly wider at the
base (use a ruler, it's about 3 millimeters difference.) My guess is that
the 35mm could not be shifted quite enough to get the composition right.
They solved that with the 24mm shift, probably because it turned out to be
hard to be allowed to demolish the upper stories of the demo subject :-)
Also, as you note, the picture is slightly tilted to the right, but that may
be a repro problem, as it seems to be OK in an older version of the booklet.
By the way, it is interesting to note the development of these booklets:
In 1979 my new OM1 was accompanied by both the instructions manual and the
lens manual in "large" format (17.5 by 12.5 centimeters), both in English and
Danish translation. When I got my OM2n in 1982 the manuals had been reduced
in size and the specification details in the lens manual had been omitted,
along with the translated version. Finally, in 1997 the OM4Ti was delivered
with only the instructions manual.
Other manuals have been available: I have the flashphoto group manual and the
motordrive group manual (don't remember where I got them), but I somehow doubt
that these are available anymore.
It would seem that the emphasis on selling acessories for the OM system has
been reduced over the years. Or are these booklet just a lot more expensive
than one would expect?
Comments anyone?
Regards
Lars
--
Lars Haven <lhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> aka <lhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
"When writing about women, one must dip one's pen in a rainbow"
D. Diderot
##################################################################
# This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
# To receive the Olympus Digest send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# with subscribe olympus-digest in the message body.
#
# To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
# listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe olympus in the message body.
#
# For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
##################################################################
|