If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
On 5/7/2015 11:55 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/7/15 PDT 2:13 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 07 May 2015 02:36:56 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: You take a wider shot and then crop. Photoshop can help you fix perspective differences as well, but the closer you are to the same spot when you take the pic, the better. You can't change the perspective in post processing. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/perspective-warp.html Photoshop lets you easily adjust perspective in images. This feature is particularly useful for images having straight lines and flat surfaces‹for example, architectural images and images of buildings. You can also use this feature to composite objects having different perspectives in a single image. My experience is that this a faux change in perspective. I have tried this on a nuber of images and found that it introduces a number of visible distortions. DxO is noticeably better but still is not perfect. Moral: you have to place the modern camera in the same position as the original. Afterall it's sight lines which determine perspective. The best way is to determine the spot from which the original was shot, and the focal length and aperture of the lens used at the time, and duplicate it. Everything else is a fudge- and sometimes confection is needed. That would be sweet. -- PeterN |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
On 5/7/2015 10:31 AM, MB wrote:
On 07/05/2015 14:41, Whiskers wrote: On 2015-05-07, Peter Jason wrote: I have some old photos of my locality going back about 70 years. I want to compare these old scenes with their modern equivalents. How does one position a camera (and lens) to match the ancient scenes so that the old & current images are superimposable (or nearly so). Look for landmarks that still exist, judge from the old pictures how they align with each other, and using maps and moving yourself about in the actual landscape refine your first guesses until you find yourself in the one position which matches the alignment of things in the old picture. Don't be too surprised if you find the old photos were taken from a point that is no longer accessible, or even there - such as the roof of a building since demolished, or the roof of a car since driven away. Take note of local history. Buildings and even hills can be moved, but that usually leaves some trace in the gossip of locals. Some old photos are composites, with different elements taken from photos shot from different places and at different times. Clashing shadows and weird perspectives might reveal those. As has been suggested, the picture will quite possible have been taken on a plate camera where angle of the lens can be changed to adjust verticals. There are cameras that will do this and modern software will allow some correction. I tend to often take very wide shots with large expanses of space in the foreground and then crop down. I have taken a few showing a 'then and now' view, they are not perfectly aligned but near enough to show the changes. http://www.mbriscoe.me.uk/page273a.html You are correct. If the purpose is to show the change, there is no need for precision alignment. One of Murphy's Laws probably says that you can guarantee that something will have been built blocking the view though! Murphy is alive and well. -- PeterN |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
On Thu, 07 May 2015 13:18:24 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:
I have some old photos of my locality going back about 70 years. I want to compare these old scenes with their modern equivalents. How does one position a camera (and lens) to match the ancient scenes so that the old & current images are superimposable (or nearly so). Peter Many thanks for the replies. I thought there might be some way to contrive some geometrical 'development' from a blowup of the ancient photo, and thereby arrive at a location and the lens property. VIS: http://www.oocities.org/net_geometry...ron_angles.jpg http://www.sbebuilders.com/tools/geo...ne-Surface.jpg http://www.sbebuilders.com/tools/geometry/tangent.jpg |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
On Thu, 07 May 2015 08:55:50 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote: On 5/7/15 PDT 2:13 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 07 May 2015 02:36:56 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: You take a wider shot and then crop. Photoshop can help you fix perspective differences as well, but the closer you are to the same spot when you take the pic, the better. You can't change the perspective in post processing. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/perspective-warp.html Photoshop lets you easily adjust perspective in images. This feature is particularly useful for images having straight lines and flat surfaces‹for example, architectural images and images of buildings. You can also use this feature to composite objects having different perspectives in a single image. My experience is that this a faux change in perspective. I have tried this on a nuber of images and found that it introduces a number of visible distortions. DxO is noticeably better but still is not perfect. Moral: you have to place the modern camera in the same position as the original. Afterall it's sight lines which determine perspective. The best way is to determine the spot from which the original was shot, and the focal length and aperture of the lens used at the time, and duplicate it. Everything else is a fudge- and sometimes confection is needed. Focal length doesn't affect perspective. All it does is affect field of view. Was there a more or less standard lens and preferred focal length in the 1940's? Were they Brownie shots or large format? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
On 5/7/15 PDT 9:27 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: On 5/7/15 PDT 8:54 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Sandman wrote; In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: I'm not holding my breath. We all wish you would! Is this another case of you are going to tell us how to define words in English? Should be good for a hoot. No, we don't all wish that. Many of us wish for more civility from either of you, but are not expecting same. Jonas' understanding and writing of English is well above average ---for even native English-speaking folk. Your perspective example, Floyd, addresses only one aspect of the concept. It addresses the aspect that counts in this situation. And please do not compare my civility to the rather crude and discusting rants that Sandman produces. You have both veered off the path of righteous and courteous discourse on numerous occasions. I have, once or thrice, too. Go in peace! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
On 5/7/15 PDT 3:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2015 08:55:50 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: On 5/7/15 PDT 2:13 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 07 May 2015 02:36:56 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: You take a wider shot and then crop. Photoshop can help you fix perspective differences as well, but the closer you are to the same spot when you take the pic, the better. You can't change the perspective in post processing. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/perspective-warp.html Photoshop lets you easily adjust perspective in images. This feature is particularly useful for images having straight lines and flat surfaces‹for example, architectural images and images of buildings. You can also use this feature to composite objects having different perspectives in a single image. My experience is that this a faux change in perspective. I have tried this on a nuber of images and found that it introduces a number of visible distortions. DxO is noticeably better but still is not perfect. Moral: you have to place the modern camera in the same position as the original. Afterall it's sight lines which determine perspective. The best way is to determine the spot from which the original was shot, and the focal length and aperture of the lens used at the time, and duplicate it. Everything else is a fudge- and sometimes confection is needed. Focal length doesn't affect perspective. All it does is affect field of view. The bigger pictu Not just about perspective. Field of view, compression are also important, as is sharpness. (Probably most modern lenses are sharper than that used then, and one can de-sharpen a lot more than sharpen. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
In article ,
John McWilliams wrote: On 5/7/15 PDT 3:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 07 May 2015 08:55:50 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: On 5/7/15 PDT 2:13 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 07 May 2015 02:36:56 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: You take a wider shot and then crop. Photoshop can help you fix perspective differences as well, but the closer you are to the same spot when you take the pic, the better. You can't change the perspective in post processing. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/perspective-warp.html Photoshop lets you easily adjust perspective in images. This feature is particularly useful for images having straight lines and flat surfacesĐfor example, architectural images and images of buildings. You can also use this feature to composite objects having different perspectives in a single image. My experience is that this a faux change in perspective. I have tried this on a nuber of images and found that it introduces a number of visible distortions. DxO is noticeably better but still is not perfect. Moral: you have to place the modern camera in the same position as the original. Afterall it's sight lines which determine perspective. The best way is to determine the spot from which the original was shot, and the focal length and aperture of the lens used at the time, and duplicate it. Everything else is a fudge- and sometimes confection is needed. I just wanna ad that I found that some street view nav services can be help full in jogging the memory right. You can look at the map, go to street view and have a looksie! Focal length doesn't affect perspective. All it does is affect field of view. Soo true... The bigger pictu Not just about perspective. Field of view, compression are also important, as is sharpness. (Probably most modern lenses are sharper than that used then, and one can de-sharpen a lot more than sharpen. And many cameras have sepia modes built in and that kind of artificial aging can be done in post too of course. I saw a guy on TV that had put a facial picture of himself on top of a picture of WWII member of the french resistance claiming that it was his grandfather. He didn't fool me... -- teleportation kills |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Peter Jason: I have some old photos of my locality going back about 70 years. I want to compare these old scenes with their modern equivalents. How does one position a camera (and lens) to match the ancient scenes so that the old & current images are superimposable (or nearly so). Peter Sandman: You take a wider shot and then crop. Photoshop can help you fix perspective differences as well, but the closer you are to the same spot when you take the pic, the better. Floyd L. Davidson: You can't change the perspective in post processing. Sandman: With modern software, you can. Floyd L. Davidson: You can not. Sandman: Incorrect. Floyd L. Davidson: Take a picture of a car parked in front of your house from across the street with a 105mm macro lens. You'll be able to see a great deal of your house. Now use the same camera and lens to take a picture of the same car, except shoot from 3 inches away from the car door at the door's midpoint. You won't be able to even see your house, much less any of it's details. That is the perspective which is important in recreating an older image. It depends entirely on the location of the camera when the picture is taken. It cannot be adjusted even slightly in post processing. Sandman: Learn to read, Floyd. Floyd L. Davidson: Yeah, right! Sandman bites the dust... one more time. (And poor nospam goes too.) Sandman: Will you let us know if you get the chance to learn to read anytime soon? I'm not holding my breath. We all wish you would! Is this another case of you are going to tell us how to define words in English? Should be good for a hoot. Please provide a dictionary definition of perspective that matches what you think Adobe was trying to say (using the wrong words, BTW). You know, what I wrote is still above in the quoted text, and your inane response is as well. Re-read what I wrote a couple of times and then see if you can have an adult explain how what I said and your example has nothing in common. This is a classic case of Floyd trolling - he joins a thread where one of his "nemesis" have posted, tries to find some detail he can quote of context and claim it is incorrect, while failing to understand what was actually written and also failing to understand what can be done with modern software. -- Sandman |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Matching the aspect of ancient photographs.
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Sandman: I'm not holding my breath. Floyd L. Davidson: We all wish you would! Is this another case of you are going to tell us how to define words in English? Should be good for a hoot. John McWilliams: No, we don't all wish that. Many of us wish for more civility from either of you, but are not expecting same. Jonas' understanding and writing of English is well above average ---for even native English-speaking folk. Your perspective example, Floyd, addresses only one aspect of the concept. It addresses the aspect that counts in this situation. See, here's where that "reading" bit would have helped you. The OP wanted to recreate a photo from the past, and make it as close as possible. Now, I wonder if my suggestion was to shoot the scene 3 inches away from the building or subject, or was it: "You take a wider shot and then crop. Photoshop can help you fix perspective differences as well, but the closer you are to the same spot when you take the pic, the better." I wonder, oh how I wonder which of the two examples that was my suggestion. I gave a very good suggestion and told the OP to be as close as possible to the original spot as possible, and that any differences in framing and perspective can be fixed in post processing. Enter Floyd, the groups biggest troll failure, and make a blanket and incorrect statement as response. And to reinforce his reading comprehension problems he tries to "prove" his claim by creating a completely unrelated example that has nothing to do with what the OP asked for or what I suggested. Now watch Floyd quietly scurry away with his tail between his legs, like always. -- Sandman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[OT] Ancient Aliens | Dale[_2_] | Digital Photography | 2 | August 13th 13 03:53 AM |
What is this ancient nikkor 28mm f/2? | Paul Furman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 16 | March 1st 06 08:59 PM |
ancient plates developing | Ricard | In The Darkroom | 8 | November 4th 04 08:20 AM |
If you are trapped in ancient time, what would you take? | Bandicoot | Digital Photography | 23 | June 30th 04 10:03 PM |
If you are trapped in ancient time, what would you take? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 58 | June 30th 04 05:37 PM |