Re: Re:Superimposing 2 images taken with 2 FL lenses

Thanks for your response, but I'm afraid that's
gibberish to me.

I see that 127mm is 5 inches and that half of that is
65.5mm.
I see that 31.75 is half of 63.5
That's about all I see.

Call me stupid, but I need some annotation to
understand what you are trying to tell me. Are you
saying that the width (length, height, whatever) of a
subject/1.27 will always yield the subject-camera
distance required to make the subject take up half the
width of the film? Or what?

Your conclusion makes no sense to me either, I'm
afraid. A subject 2m wide at 78cm is going to fill
much MORE than the entire image area on anything but
the very widest lens or pinhole setup. I trust that
what you have written does make sense, but it would be
very helpful to have you explain it at a level that
even a simpleton like me can understand.

Or maybe you mean that at 78cm, as in this example,
you'd be able to see only half of a 2m subject in the
frame of the image? That's kind of the opposite of
what I was looking for. Maybe that's not what you mean
at all....

Thanks

Colin

--- John Fletcher <jfl10593@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Dude I told you how to do it...
>
> 50% of 127mm = 63.5
>
> 31.75/50 = tan(angle) = 0.635
>
> Width/1.27 = Distance
>
> If subject is 2m wide it must be 78 cm from the
> camera to occupy 50% of
> 5"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Colin Talcroft" <ctalcroft@yahoo.com>
> To: <pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re:Superimposing 2
> images taken with 2
> FL lenses
>
>
> > Sorry for the slow response, but thanks for the
> > thoughts about superimposing images. I understand
> the
> > way that perspective will alter the images. I
> don't
> > mind that. I'm not looking for a perfect fit, just
> a
> > reasonable correspondence. I'm just looking for a
> rule
> > of thumb. Is it possible to say, for example, that
> a
> > subject occupying 50% of the width of a 4X5
> negative
> > using a 50mm pinhole at a given distance from the
> film
> > and at X feet will also occupy 50% of the width of
> the
> > negative using a 210mm lens on a 4x5 view camera
> if
> > the film-to-subject distance is some multiple of
> X, or
> > something like that? Seems like it should be a
> fairly
> > simple relationship. I just don't know what it is.
> >
> > Thanks--and Happy New year to all.
> >
> > Colin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> > pinhole-discussion mailing list
> > pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> > FAQ at
> http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
> _______________________________________________
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> pinhole-discussion mailing list
> pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> FAQ at
> http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Wed Jan 3 22:44:23 2007