Talk:Perspective distortion (photography)

Untitled

Moved material relevent to photography to "Distortion caused by the camera lens" Pat Kelso 02:56, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Rather inaccurate title, was moved to "Perspective_distortion_caused_by_lens_focal_length" instead -- Egil 20:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very good. I like that and hope original poster agrees. .... Pat Kelso 20:41, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Since the effect described here is not caused by lens focal length, but rather camera-to-subject distance, the title is still bad. I've moved the article to Perspective distortion (caused by camera to subject distance), and updated and factually corrected it. Jeff Medkeff | Talk 16:01, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

---

What is this article about ? Is it possible to start this with a sentence according to Wikipedia standards ? Ericd 09:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I tried to begin with a general definition - needs more work I would think.

-- Egil 10:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

After closer examination I think this article conclusions are globally inaccurate. It's well known that the human eyes are optical device that have a 180° stereoscopic coverage with a huge loss of definition at the edges (to describe them in photographic language). It's also clear that they project the image on a (more or less) spherical surface. This is also famous that there is a sort of big CPU behind the eyes (the human brain) that is able to correct perpective (and color and a lot of things too....) quicker than a Photoshop on a Pentium IV. Concluding that photography and perception of perspective by humans are very different (BTW this is my opinion too) by only geometrical reasoning address only a little part of the question. Ericd 19:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not addressing "eyes" here, only "eye" as in the station point of a perspective projection, i.e., steroscoptic coverage is irrelevant. RE "more or less", it is spherical or else rr tracks would not seem concurrent at horizon. I do not address photography except to note that distortion, per se, is independent of lenses. re "only a little part of the question", what part of the question do you see was omitted? .... Pat Kelso 20:08, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

None, as far as you deal with geometrical aspects. I only disagree with your conclusion they deal with part of the question being the whole question, they should give some "fresh air" about other aspects like an "information processing" analysis that complement a geometrical analysis.

Ericd 20:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Articles has been split in two - should probably be combined again. -- Egil 20:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Egil I would suggesst a "Middle of the Road Approach" as I thinks this question can go very far (What about "Perspective distortion caused by curved mirrors ?"). I think "Perspective distortion" needs a real article instead of a disanbig page and specialized artices about various "flavors" of distortion.

Ericd 20:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have fought this battle before with those who wanted to bring theology into the discussion. That is why I specified the title Perspective projection distortion for my new (moved) post.. Pat Kelso 20:41, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)