pan_faq.htm Number of hits on this page:

A note on the perspective of a swing-lens/film pan camera vs a normal wide angle

On 14 Apr 97 at 18:07, Nicholas F. Hanks wrote: 

> First let me compliment you on a most interesting page.  It's got
> everything I love...  IR, pyro, panorama,  and more and more photo
> stuff.
> I was looking into the Noblex 220's.  My intrerested being peaked this
> summer by a fellow using an old Circuit camera to do a renunion photo -
> cool camera, but the film is a bitch and portable, NOT !
> Anyway,  I realize that the rotating lens gives a huge angle of view,
> but also must change the perspective.  I've never seen a comparison or
> heard comment of the differene between using a regular 6x12 film holder
> in a 4x5 and 6x12 with a rotating lens.  Again, other that the increased
> coverage with a smaller lens, how is the perspective effected?
> Many Thanks,  Nick Hanks
Look at it as a one-dimensional fisheye perspective: whereas a fisheye bends all straight lines other than dead center, a swing-lens or rotating film camera bends only horizontal lines other than dead center. That is why you must keep a pan camera absolutely level in the horizontal, just like a fisheye. Vertical lines are still straight with a pan camera, unlike a fisheye.
This horizontal bending seems worse than it actually is: the only situations where this really is a problem is when facing a long wide building; floor and ceiling will then curve like a sigar. But if you step aside, and take the shot from the sharp edge of the same building, everything looks natural again. This edge composition is also much more pleasing for the human eye, as it provides a predominant direction for the eye to 'travel'.
In landscape shots there hardly is any problem, neither with fisheyes btw, even circular fisheyes loose much of their unnatural distortion. And in mountains, you sometimes don't even have to keep the camera level to get a dynamic picture.

Note further that an ordinary extreme wide angle lens results in a different typical effect, which IMHO is less preferable in most non-architectural situations: it not only pulls objects on the far edges 'out of shape', but it also results in a much lower magnification (a 14mm fixed lens results in much smaller objects on film than a 28mm swing lens, and still provides a smaller angle of view (104 degrees horizontally, instead of 120-130 degrees with swing lens pan cameras).

If you want to enter this field of photography slowly, without risking too much money, I recommend starting with 35mm film and a Horizon 202 for US$400. It avoids the expensive 220 film consuming composition exercises, and it takes only 1/10th of the investment for a Noblex 150 medium format camera. 


--
Bye,

       _/      _/       _/_/_/_/_/       _/_/_/_/_/
     _/  _/  _/               _/       _/  _/  _/
     _/  _/ illem    _/     _/ an    _/  _/  _/ arkerink
                     _/_/_/  



      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand



[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]




If you have any question, remark, comment, want to share some philosophy or just want to express your opinion about these pages, feel free to send email to: w.j.markerink @ a1.nl

Back to main page & table of contents: Main Page