Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-13-2014, 12:44 PM   #16
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
posting an example to this old thread. I may create a new thread with some examples.

Here are two images at 11mm on the K5. The first, shot normally (no adjustment), and the second with the sensor shift feature applied (re-composed to match the composition).
The effect is remarkable really, great for eliminating or reducing perspective distortion.



10-19-2014, 05:00 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
That's got me a bit baffled, Mike.
How does shifting the sensor L/R/U/D correct perspective distortion???
Clue me in
10-20-2014, 05:25 AM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Long Island, N.Y.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,124
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
That's got me a bit baffled, Mike.
How does shifting the sensor L/R/U/D correct perspective distortion???
Clue me in
It's actually very simple if you ever learned how to use a view camera.
Normally, with a view camera, you would "Tilt " the camera back to be parallel with the subject. That will eliminate the distortion. Then you would use raising or lowering of the lens or back to recompose. (yes, there is a lot more to it but this thought keeps it simple and compares well).
In the case of only having "Sensor Shift" to work with, you simply start out with the camera level (thereby making the sensor parallel to the vertical face of the building) and then use the up/down sensor shift to recompose.
You can't get to the extremes that you can with a view camera, but the principle is the same.
10-20-2014, 12:05 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
Sorry, it still makes no sense to me. Shifting the sensor plate L/R/U/D by the amounts actually possible is not greatly different from simply moving camera position (very) slightly L/R/U/D, sure it moves the sensor off the lens axis, but only very very slightly. It can't possibly eliminate perspective distortion unless the plate also tilts, which it does not.. Of course, like the View Camera you can tilt your camera on the tripod, which any camera is capable of. Using a different focal length helps a lot with perspective or software correction in post, which I think is how Mike's example was actually corrected if you study it carefully, especially at 11mm and especially with the obvious extension distortion far left and right which is typical of software correction.
Sensor shifting for re composition, yes - perspective correction? I can't see it.
So what am I missing here?

10-20-2014, 12:17 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
Yes I think it is confusing because it is presented like the second image was just a sensor shift different than the first, but obviously the sensor was not parallel in the first image (and it looks like it could have been made so without using sensor shift). Right?
10-20-2014, 12:22 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
You have to remember that sensor shift will work at the magnification ration of the lens. The caption says an 11mm focal length was used, therefore the magnification ratio is probably in the order of 1:100 so let's imagine for example a 1mm shift of the sensor, that would be an effective change of 100 mm on the other side of the lens. I can't see, personally 100 mm in camera height causing that much change in perspective distirtion
10-20-2014, 12:58 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
Sorry, how does shifting the sensor on the same plane (because L/R/U/D doesn't change that) change 'magnification ratio' ??
10-20-2014, 02:19 PM   #23
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
Hi, sorry I did not notice there were responses here.

Steve, there is no software correction of any kind applied here. The upward shifting of the sensor in the second image allows the camera to be tilted lower for the second image, bringing the more distorted upper periphery closer to the middle of the field where parallel lines are less affected by the distortion. I assure you, there is no trickery here. I had hoped to get out over the weekend to shoot a few more examples, but I had other engagements.
I thought calicojack's explanation was a good one.

---------- Post added 10-20-2014 at 02:24 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Yes I think it is confusing because it is presented like the second image was just a sensor shift different than the first, but obviously the sensor was not parallel in the first image (and it looks like it could have been made so without using sensor shift). Right?
I thought this was pretty clear:
"re-composed to match the composition".
If you merely shift the sensor up and do not recompose, the distortion is still fixed, but you would be looking at much more sky, obviously.


Last edited by mikeSF; 10-20-2014 at 02:34 PM.
10-20-2014, 03:11 PM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
The upward shifting of the sensor in the second image allows the camera to be tilted lower for the second image
Right, so there was tilting of the camera. Now we're getting somewhere.
So are you saying that without the upwards shifting of the sensor off the lens axis you could not have optically corrected the perspective?
Because calicojack's comment suggests that all you need is the tilt (though calicojack said "tilt the camera back" - which I thought would make things worse)
10-20-2014, 04:22 PM   #25
dms
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,623
Lowell's magnification ratio does not seem correct. If the image on the sensor was about 20 mm--then m= 1:100 means the actual bldg. width is 2000 mm, or 2 meters. But the bldg. (unless it is a small model) is likely closer to 10 meters--or a magnification of about 1:500.

Actually looking at the bldg. photo again, likely closer to 20 meter, or about 1:1000 magnification.

Last edited by dms; 10-20-2014 at 04:48 PM.
10-20-2014, 04:30 PM   #26
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
Right, so there was tilting of the camera. Now we're getting somewhere.
So are you saying that without the upwards shifting of the sensor off the lens axis you could not have optically corrected the perspective?
Because calicojack's comment suggests that all you need is the tilt (though calicojack said "tilt the camera back" - which I thought would make things worse)
I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble with this. I assume you dont have camera with which to try this for yourself?
The sensor shift allows your to reposition the camera (tilt) to achieve the same framing, but with a reduction in distortion.
But i'm pretty sure that has already been stated at least once.

---------- Post added 10-20-2014 at 04:31 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
Right, so there was tilting of the camera. Now we're getting somewhere.
and if the court report reporter will read back my initial post, Lt Colombo would know this already.
10-20-2014, 04:53 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
The sensor shift allows you to get the whole building in the shot without tilting the camera (relative to the building), therefore it is not distorted.
10-20-2014, 06:02 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble with this. I assume you dont have camera with which to try this for yourself?
You assume wrong about the camera.
But you are assuming I have had the time and opportunity.

QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
and if the court report reporter will read back my initial post, Lt Colombo would know this already.
Sigh.. Why the sarcasm.. Can't you stay civil?
Where in your initial post did you mention tilting the camera forward???
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
posting an example to this old thread. I may create a new thread with some examples.

Here are two images at 11mm on the K5. The first, shot normally (no adjustment), and the second with the sensor shift feature applied (re-composed to match the composition).
The effect is remarkable really, great for eliminating or reducing perspective distortion.
Once I get the opportunity to try this myself I'll have more to go on. Until I do, I ask, query and question - sorry if that irks you.
10-20-2014, 11:49 PM   #29
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
You assume wrong about the camera.
what are you talking about?


QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
But you are assuming I have had the time and opportunity.
you owe it to yourself and others to refrain from commenting until you try it on your camera.


QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
Sigh.. Why the sarcasm.. Can't you stay civil?
Where in your initial post did you mention tilting the camera forward???
are you really serious?
here is my post:
"...posting an example to this old thread. I may create a new thread with some examples.

Here are two images at 11mm on the K5. The first, shot normally (no adjustment), and the second with the sensor shift feature applied (re-composed to match the composition).
The effect is remarkable really, great for eliminating or reducing perspective distortion."
10-21-2014, 12:27 AM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
Oh good grief I'm not going to argue with you. >> (re-composed to match the composition).<<
I'm not a mind reader for heavens sakes. If you mean't tilt the camera forward then say what you mean.. Please..

QuoteQuote:
what are you talking about?
Do you actually read what you write, Mike??

You asked in post #26
QuoteQuote:
I assume you dont have camera with which to try this for yourself?
A replied that you assumed wrong about that. I do have a camera to try this and I will when there is time and opportunity (as already mentioned)

QuoteQuote:
you owe it to yourself and others to refrain from commenting until you try it on your camera.
A rather condescending comment. I think I'll decide when to post my inquiries without worrying about your approval, okay?

Anyhow I'm done with this thread now. I don't come here to be pushed around by you.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, distortion, dslr, feature, image, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, post, sensor, shift, shots, tilt
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sensor shift question Nass Pentax K-5 6 03-30-2013 05:17 AM
Sensor shift and size of focus points. sbroadbentphoto Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 11-04-2012 09:41 AM
Sensor-shift vs lens based stabilization vencab Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 06-10-2012 11:18 AM
Sensor shift. Usuqa Pentax K-5 30 01-16-2012 04:23 PM
K200D sensor shift problem Undefined (photo) Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 03-24-2011 03:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top