frode

<p>If I have had this correct now, then at 4.4 trillion fps (4.4*10^12, assuming short scale) a 10 Mach bullet (about 3 times faster than the fastest rifle bullet that I know of) will move less than 0.1 millimeters in one hundred thousand frames. Will LR tackle a series of a rifle bullet working its way through an apple?</p>

<p>There will be no difference if you merge the layers, and the description I gave will give you a white background layer with the image layer above it. It required the fewest steps, and it doesn't require you to calculate anything. You can use the rulers in Photoshop to check when all the borders are of equal size.</p>

<p>You will probably get a message about the image being greater than the printable paper size. This is about the part of the image that will fall in the non-printable part of the paper (the border because you cannot print border less, but your new image includes this area). Just proceed. I have the 3880 printer and a Windows 7 PC, and in the printer's setting dialog I can select to have a preview. I always turn that on so I can have a final look at the image before using any paper on it. Beware that the colors might be way out (straight out gruesome!) on that preview. I assume it is because that preview is not color managed.</p>

<p>What truth? Obviously not the same truth. And the image would represent one aspect of the the "truth" if I had cloned away the people: "This is how Trollholmsund would look like without people" or even: "This is what an image of Trollsund with cloned away people would look like".</p> <p>An image is just that, an image. It takes a man or woman to lie about it. That is what it is about, the presenter of the image lying about the image, not the image lying about the "truth".</p> <p>Best wishes,</p>

<p>What about "manipulations" like this? Changing viewpoint (and focal length) is one of the strongest tools for influencing the image that a photographer have. I have seldom (never) heard any anti-photoshoper questioning "manipulating" the image's content by changing viewpoint (and focal length), although this is a very common way to change the picture to tell the story you want it to tell, and hide away the story you do not want it to tell. I believe that photoshopping away a beer can in one of these two images, leaving it in the other, would not be the first thing that people would point to as the biggest difference between the two images.<br> <br> </p><div></div>

<p>This will probably depend on what program you are using to print your greeting card. I am using Photoshop, and here is how I would do it. The idea is to make an image of the complete greeting card (including all the white, non printed area) and print it centered on the paper with 100% scaling.</p> <p>First I will make a new blank (white) image in Photoshop with the exact same size as the paper, i.e. 420 mm x 148.5 mm. It must have the exact same resolution as the image that you want to print.</p> <p>Then I copy the image on top of this new blank image(in Photoshop as a new layer). You must place the image on the greeting card exactly where you want to have it. I now have an image of the complete greeting card with the image on it and with the exact same size as the paper you want to print it on.<br /> <br />I then will print this new image. When using Photoshop to print, I will first get Photoshops dialog for printing. Here I ensure that the image is centered on the paper and that the scaling is 100% (not fit on paper or its like).</p> <p>When I open the printers dialog window I will selelct a user define paper size. I will sett it to the greeting cards size, i.e. 420 mm x 148.5 mm. Also ensure that output paper is set to be "Same as paper size" and that no reduce/enlarge or fit on paper is selected. You don't want that.</p> <p>Hope this was of any help.</p>

<p>The only thing you cannot remove is the camera. There are however limits to what you can use your image for. For example, don't remove the beer cans before you take the picture and then use your image for documenting that there were no beer cans.</p>

<p>I think Julie is talking about conscience and ethics, not law and order. I don't think it will be easy to give a general answer to that. I believe there can be situations where I felt that someone else might have some rights to an image that I made. Maybe the most general answer would be that if you hurt someone by destroying the image, then there might be something to consider...</p>

<blockquote> <p>Assuming that the same f-stop was used, DoF will be the same as well.</p> </blockquote> I won't elaborate on this since this is a discussion that the OP specifically do not want, but interested people can read Bob Atkins' excellent article about this here on photo.net: http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/ (Btw: I honestly believed, obviously incorrectly, that the rules about keeping strictly to the matter was not that strict in a "casual photo conversation", that is why my previous post was a bit on the side, sorry about that, won't happen again) Cheers,

<p>Your portfolio at ioneanu.com is quite interesting and realy worth seeing. Welcome to photo.net</p> <p>Cheers,</p>

<p>

<blockquote> <p>Nokia Lumia 1020, 1520 and 930 - they create DNG files. It is rumored to be part of a next version of Android as well.</p> </blockquote> <p>My brain is getting to old. How can I overclock it? And were do I insert the 1 TB SSD with fresh new software?<br /> It was much easier back in the 70's/80's. When someone talked about the new telephone to put in your pocket with a camera and a global network in it you would laugh at them, telling them they had seen to many James Bond films. Nowadays you have to get up and get one yourself.</p>

<p>And how do I phone home with the AW1 from under water? 8-D</p> <p>Kidding aside: I have actually been looking a lot at the AW1. However, I don't think I can justify buying one now while my Panasonic FT4 still feels almost brand new.<br> Still feels strange that you cannot get an EVF for a phone while you can get a fishfinder for it. And I wouldn't doubt a second if someone told me that I could get an iPhone with a built in fishing rod or even a refrigerator. But EVF? No, no, no. Not in a camera phone. No.</p> <p>;-)</p> <p> </p>

<p>OK, I will show the images anyway. The 70 mm should have been taken with f/5.6 (or the 300 mm with f/4). The differences between the two should therefore have been even more pronounced because the 70 mm image should have had an even larger depth of focus.<br> Ps. I don't have a camera with the needed 5.5 mm x 3.6 mm sensor, but I used the same camera for both images and trimmed away everything in the 70 mm image that came from outside the central 5.5 mm x 3.6 mm part of the sensor (aka cropped the image) ;-)</p> <p>Sorry for the mess. I hope this will illustrate the differences anyway.</p> <p>Cheers,</p><div></div>

<p>I have a Panasonic compact that is watertight. The pictures are about the same quality as phone pictures, but my phone cannot be submerged into water.</p> <p>I also have a Ricoh Caplio GX 200. It bought that specific camera since it has RAW. I haven't yet seen any phone camera with RAW.</p> <p>I would like to have a watertight mobile phone with a camera featuring full manual controls (as well as automatic modes), RAW and at least a 4/3 size sensor. I do want it to have an EVF also, but that is maybe to much to ask? ;-)</p> <p>Best wishes,</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>If you tilt the camera, image geometry will change. As you mentioned, Frode, you can rearrange the geometry later (at the cost of image quality). But why would you if you can avoid having to do so quite easily?</p> </blockquote> <p>I fully agree with you. The best is to have it as correct as practically possible from the start. There is nothing to gain in making the work larger than necessary (unless you are paid by hour)</p> <p>;-)<br> Cheers,</p>

<p>Agree with von Weinberg. Trial an error will probably be easier and faster, even if you are an engineer. And if you, before you start, take a picture of the old postcard with your camera, it will be easy to compare new and old by switching between the images. From that you will get an idea of where to move next for a better result.</p> <p>Interesting project. I wish I had some old postcards from where I live.</p>

<p>By the way: I don't agree with de Bakker that you have to point the camera in exactely the same direction (if you used an ordinary rectilinear lens). But if you don't do that, you will have to adjust the image with what is called "Perspective correction" in Photoshop or its like. That in fact is an image tilt correction, not an image perspective correction. Image perspective cannot be corrected in post. Tilt can. Tilt do not affect the perspective, only the plane it is projected on (you tilt the flat sensor plane, tilting it back again in post is only a linear scaling along 2 orthogonal dimensions, usually vertical and horizontal).<br> So position (including height above ground) is what is mandatory.</p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>I made a demonstration for you. I have taken 4 images. Two of them is taken at a "near" distance, and two at a "distant" distance (large enough to clearly demonstrate perspective compression).<br> The two images at each distance is taken with two different focal lengths: 21 mm and 100 mm.<br> Finally each image is cropped and resized to match the "100 mm NEAR" image (which is un-cropped).</p> <p>As you can see, both images taken at the same distance, but with two different focal lengths have exactely the same "compression" of the depth. If you compare the "100 mm NEAR" image with the "21 mm DISTANT" image you see that the 21 mm has compressed the depth in the image much more that the 100 mm. The 100 mm and the 21 mm at the same distance however have the same "compression" of the depth.<br> This is to demonstrate that it is only the standpoint where you take the picture from that changes "depth compression".</p><div></div>

<p>No, the focal length or/and sensor size has nothing to do with the "perspective compression". It is your standing point that decides this "effect". You get "perspective compression" by moving backwards (and hence people put on a longer lens to get the photographed object to fill the frame again, and that is probably the reason for people mistaking the effect of a changed perspective to be an effect of the longer focal length)</p> <p>If you stand at the same spot with the camera pointed in the same direction and take two pictures, one with a focal length of say 20 mm, and another with 200 mm, then with respect to perspective the overlapping area of these two images will look exactly the same. The overlapped part of the 20 mm image is an exact, but smaller copy of the 200 mm image.</p> <blockquote> <p>I know that some of the comments you have added may sound obvious to some...</p> </blockquote> <p>That others know the answer of a question is not a good reason for not asking the question ;-)</p> <p>Cheers,</p>