Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] lenses

Subject: Re: [OM] lenses
From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:59:22 -0700
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxx>

The rectilinear lens is what we are most accustomed to.  It maps flat
fields in space to a flat field of film...

The "spherical" (equidistant?) lens is the theoretical fisheye.  It maps
spherical fields in space to a flat field of film...

Actually, the way I think of it is that a rectilinear lens records true angles, while the fisheye records proportional areas. (Until holograms come way down in price, you can't record both. :-)

That face in the corner of the 24mm shot that looks so "distorted?" Put your eye where the lens is, and the face will look goofy in real life, too! That's because (for example) the angular width (from the center of the frame, the lens's axis) of the chin is the same as that of the forehead, so the rectilinear lens has to stretch the forehead out to preserve the angular relationship.

It's ironic that a face in the corner of a full-frame fisheye will look more "natural" than a face in the corner of a rectilinear, because the fisheye preserves areal relationships. The chin will be in proper size proportion to the forehead, for example. So in this case, the fisheye is less "distorted" than the rectilinear lens! But our eyes and brain are more upset when lines aren't straight than when areal proportions are wrong, thus the bad "distortion" rap for fisheyes.

I've grown to really love the Zuiko 16/3.5 fisheye, and have dozens of images that no one would ever guess were taken with such a "distorted" lens. :-)

: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz