@Andrew O'Neil
Please take a second look at the "8x10" and "35mm(corrected)" images side by side. The 35mm image has parallel verticals, sure. But is is vertically compressed compared with the "8x10".
...The vertical compression of the "corrected" 35mm image confirms my suspicion that the perspective correction in PS (or whatever you used) merely stretches horizontally the top of the image to make verticals parallel.
This ignores the vertical foreshortening.
@Andrew O'Neil
Please take a second look at the "8x10" and "35mm(corrected)" images side by side. The 35mm image has parallel verticals, sure. But is is vertically compressed compared with the "8x10".
To confirm this, I cropped identical (as best I could) portions of each image, scaled (same factor in both directions, of course) the 8x10 image so that its width matches the 35mm, and put them side by side.
35mm left; 8x10 right
View attachment 357718
The vertical compression of the "corrected" 35mm image confirms my suspicion that the perspective correction in PS (or whatever you used) merely stretches horizontally the top of the image to make verticals parallel.
This ignores the vertical foreshortening. Imagine you take a picture of a tall business building, the center of the pictures being, say, on the 6th floor. With a view camera, full perspective control, lensboard and film vertical, all windows of the building will have the same size on film. With a 35mm camera just looking up, the 9th floor windows will be vertically foreshortened relative to those of the ground floor. And that is not corrected by stretching apart the verticals.
This shortcoming has mild consequences in the video, because the aiming tilt is not very pronounced. But one should be aware of the difference between a true perspective correction and just making the verticals parallel.
To end on a constructive note. How to do a proper correction in post? I use a panorama software, PTGUI (shareware) of Hugin (freeware). Panorama?? Yes, with just a single image. And use the "align" tool to re-define the location of the horizon.
And, to end on a positive note, despite my nitpicking. thank you for your informative and stimulating videos!
Kudos for performing an actual experiment. As you realized with a P&S the true distortion of the lens interferes with the "distortions" of projection.
- using Perspective Correction tool of Paintshop Pro, the squares of the grid came out as rectangles (measuring 20.55mmV x 19.5mmH on my 27" monitor)
note also the alteration of the aspect ratio of the shot, which is 4:3 before perspective correction and ends up closer to square.- If resized the horizontal dimension by 120%, while leaving the vertical dimension at 100%, the aspect ratio of the shot was restored (somewhat)
but (...snip ...)
I tried correcting the 35mm original with Lightroom using only Transform auto, aspect and rotate and got this. Is this better, the same,?
Perhaps though total correction can look false, we don't see it naturally like that although our brains mentally correct.
First I'm not talking about the example here. You can find plenty of examples of images of churches, looking up and corrected that exaggerate the height, so it's a balance to find what's most natural or suits your vision.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?