FD 35mm f2.8 TS panorama example

<p>I'm starting this thread as a branch from a previous thread:<br>

<a href="../canon-fd-camera-forum/00RsoE">http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00RsoE</a></p>

<p>This is an example of using the shift movement of the FD 35mm f2.8 TS to produce perfect panorama image pairs which can be stitched effortlessly after scanning. <br>

<br>

For this example the camera, an F-1N, was placed horizontally (landscape orientation) on a tripod and set approximately level with the centre of the subject. The first image was taken with nearly full upward shift of the lens and the second image with nearly full downward shift. A small overlap was left in the centre to facilitate stitching of the two images. The resulting panorama image will thus be the same width as a 35mm landscape frame but nearly twice its height, with an aspect ratio of around 4:3. Exposure was identical for both shots, f11 1/15sec. Film was Provia 100F.<br>

<br>

Stitching was done in PS CS3 using auto-align "reposition only", followed by auto-blend. The initial alignment of the two images was excellent because the camera did not move, only the lens was shifted. I've included the full size image to examine. <br>

<br>

Overall I'm quite pleased with the performance of this lens. </p><div></div>

<p>Unable to upload full size panorama image, too big maybe. I'll have to think of another way....</p>

<p>Interesting stuff Lex. The alignment and stitching looks spot on to me. Shows also how much the lens can shift up and down too, with the camera in the same position. I suppose if you tried to stitch two horizontal shots together with the camera fixed in the centre, the lens tilt movements wouldn´t allow a full 1:3 panorama, but rather a 1:2 or 2:5? Wonderful idea, combining movements with Photoshop. Thanks for posting and would love to see more if possible. Andy</p>

<p>FD 35 mm TS is a great lens. Also when combined with extender 2x B for product shots or extensinon for close ups. I have had mine abut 15 years and been very happy. Please find enclosed one example.</p>

<p>Kerkko K.</p><div></div>

<p>...and one more example.<br>

K.</p>

<p>A new try, sorry</p><div></div>

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>Have you any example of combining two photos of their shorter side. Should give already 80 degrees angle of view.</p>

<p>Kerkko K.</p>

<p>The full size image of the fountain above can be examined at <a href="http://www.lexharris.net/documents/Fountain_combined.jpg">http://www.lexharris.net/documents/Fountain_combined.jpg</a></p>

<p>Warning, it is a large file :-)</p>

 

<p>Here's an example of L-R shift in landscape format. <br />There is a little more overlap with two landscapes stitched horizontally because the physical amount of movement remains the same while the film axis is longer. With full shift each way the resulting panorama is about 1:2.5 and the amount of overlap is about 1/3 the width of one of the images. There is also more noticeable darkening at the edges because the L-R edges of a landscape frame are getting outside the image circle. This is not so much the case with landscapes stitched vertically as you can see from the previous example. In practice the maximum shift for this type of panorama is probably best kept within the white graduations on the shift scale, whereas for the previous type of panorama you can go right to the end of the red graduations without noticeable darkening.<br>

Having said that, in this example the edge darkening is probably a bit exaggerated because there are shadow areas either side and also it's slide film.</p><div></div>

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>These are nice and smart panoramas!</p>

<p>K.</p>

<p>Very interesting shots Lex and Kerkko...thanks for posting This lens certainly seems to add a new dimension to 35mm photography. Kerkko, was that model engine shot done with 2xB extender or extension tubes...it looks very sharp.</p>

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>Thank you of your notes. Yes indeed, TS is very special lens. Both my shots were taken with extender 2x B. It is a must in product photography and works so well.</p>

<p>Kerkko K.</p>

<p>Kerkko, Andy, thanks for the kind remarks. </p>

<p>Yes the extender works well. A very useful aspect of extenders is that they do not change the minimum focus distance of the lens, so you then have a 70mm lens with movements that can still focus down to 0.3m.</p>

<p>BTW can you see the seam in the full size image I posted? I can't, and I know where it is! PS certainly does a very good job with this :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Lex, no I can´t see the seam, but enlarging that full size image certainly emphasises the quality of the lens.<br>

As I´m into closeup and tabletop studio type photography at the moment the idea of using the TS lens with 2x B extender appeals. The resulting f5.6 max aperture would give rather a dark viewfinder image I suppose, with possible blacking out of the centre split screen perhaps? I use an EF for closeups. Yes, a 70mm lens with movements and 0.3m close focus would be very useful! And you and Kerkko are both saying, I think, that the 2x B doesn´t noticeably impair sharpness??? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>Darkening of viewfinder image is no issue at all, at least working with New F-1 and motor has been very convinient. Although I have been working with that setup only in studio environment with Elinchrome flash units that give already pretty much light with their continious guiding lights (wrong word?). Try it, I suppose you like it. Let us hear later.</p>

<p>Kerkko K.</p>

<p>Andy, I just tried the lens with 2x-B extender on my EF body, the microprism is not much use due to viewfinder darkening but focusing in the matte area is easy enough at least in daylight. My EF is an older one with no split image in the microprism, not sure if the later focussing screen is any brighter.</p>

<p>Generally I prefer focussing on the matte anyway, as I find the other focussing aids tend to get in the way a bit. With my F-1N I prefer the PC screen (matte only, no microprism or split image),</p>

<p>thanks Lex and Kerkko...and just to confirm...would you say the loss of sharpness using a 2x B with the 35mm TS on closeups is not really noticeable???</p>

<p>Andy, I haven't performed any specific testing to compare sharpness but I found a couple of landscapes I took of the same subject with and without 2x-B so hopefully that will give some idea if there is any significant difference. </p>

<p>The full size scans (6300dpi) are available by clicking on the links below. I've deliberately not sharpened or applied any lens corrections so you can evaluate sharpness and distortions.</p>

<p>35TS by itself (f11 1/60sec, Provia 100F, F-1N on tripod)<br>

<a href="http://www.lexharris.net/documents/35TS.jpg">http://www.lexharris.net/documents/35TS.jpg</a></p>

<p>35TS + 2x-B (f8 1/15sec, Provia 100F, F-1N on tripod)<br>

<a href="http://www.lexharris.net/documents/35TS_2xB.jpg">http://www.lexharris.net/documents/35TS_2xB.jpg</a></p>

<p>Both shots seemed a little soft to me for some reason, not sure if it was the lens, my bad technique, or maybe a scanner focus issue. The 2x-B shot definitely looks softer in the foreground but at infinity there doesn't seem too much difference. I used some downward tilt in both so possibly I got it a bit wrong in the 2x-B shot.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>Do not worry about any issues with extender 2x B. Try it and I suppose you shall like it.</p>

<p>K.</p>

<p>thanks for posting those last two shots Lex..nice subject! As you say, the second shot with extender does look softer in the foreground. But you´re dealing in effect with a 70mm lens and less DOF, so maybe that contributes too?</p>

<p>It seems that with the 2x-B extender you need less tilt angle to get foregound in focus than with the lens by by itself. I guess this also means that you have to be more careful with setting the tilt accurately. It may be that I didn't get it quite right in the second shot. Looking at the images again I think also the scanner is a bit out of focus. When I get some time I'll rescan them.</p>

<p>Lex, re: soft, what kind of pp are you doing after scanning, usm, etc? (I'm still struggling with film scanning myself after several years, a real time consumer) Curious if the Imacon is that much better than the 5000 (read your blog from April~08). </p>

<p> Regards, Tom.</p>

<p>re Imacon vs. 5000, I read the paragraph comparison on your site, thanks</p>

<p>Hi Tom, yes scanning is not as easy as many people might think. I've learned a lot in the past few years, enough to know that I'm still far from being an expert and that there is still much more to learn! For a discussion of my adventures with Nikon 5000ED and Imacon, see<br>

<a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00CTcF">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00CTcF</a>.</p>

<p>My basic PP after scanning is generally:<br>

-crop to remove black borders<br>

-dust and clean using clone tool and/or healing tool<br>

-adjust levels<br>

-adjust colour balance</p>

<p> If needed, I might also do lens correction, rotation, perspective adjust, etc . Also sometimes an image will benefit from selected area adjustment of curves, levels, shadow enhance etc.</p>

<p>Basically I aim to reproduce what I see on the film in the case of transparencies. With negatives it's not as easy, but often I have positives shot at the same location which can be a good reference. I do very little, if any, routine sharpening in PP. Actually the default scans from my 5000ED look very harsh and contrasty compared to Imacon scans, as though a lot of sharpening and/or contrast has been applied by default. With Imacon and Flexcolor I use a USM setting of 250 for fine grained positive film, yet scans are still much less harsh than from the Nikon.</p>

<p>For me, the main advantages of the Imacon are:<br>

- sharp edge to edge focus<br>

- absence of flare/ghosting artefacts which results in significantly better IQ throughout<br>

- better control with Flexcolor compared to Nikonscan</p>

<p>Disadvantages are:<br>

- high cost<br>

- much slower than 5000ED<br>

- quirky<br>

- no ICE</p>

 

<p>Andy, I rescanned those two canola field images, as I suspected the scanner was a bit out of focus and they came up sharper second time. One of the quirks of my Imacon, it slides slightly out of focus sometimes and needs an occasional recalibration. Anyhow I can't see any huge difference in sharpness or contrast with/without 2x-B, so as Kerkko has already suggested, don't worry, you'll like it :-)</p>