![]() ![]() this example of yours sums up what I hate about most of the rectilinear "corrections" that I made. LR maintains the aspect ratio by default when the profile is applied so to see the whole reprojected image, you have to adjust the "scale" slider in the "manual" section of the LR lens corrections.Īs you can see, this looks pretty dreadful in most respects. I am not sure you saw this version of your images when you played with them in LR. The rectilinear version, defished by Ken's profile, looks like this in its entirety (if you only crop the image just enough to make the image rectangular after stretching). The point I wanted to make in my prior post (and my OP) is simply that you (and others reading this thread) should look into other defishing alternatives than rectilinear, if/when you find it appropriate to try some kind of defishing at all (we agree that FE shots can be great as they are).Ĭonsider again the example in my OP. ![]() So for Panini, you have to leave the LR environment for the time being (though plug-ins for that purpose may well become available in the future unless they are added as features by Adobe themselves). But as he explained in the thread where he first made the profiles available, the profile tools LR puts at his disposal didn't allow that. I am sure Ken would have devised a profile for Panini too if that had been possible. The others are just different kinds of fisheye projections that are relatively similar to one another. And yes, the rectilinear is the only one that makes a big difference. Yes, I realize that you played with the lens profiles Ken made for LR to begin with. Rectilinear made a big difference the others came across as just variations on the original look. Panini may be better, but I experimented with the lens profiles in LR4 that were available to me (from the download : those were equidistant, stereographic and rectilinear (and a fourth that I don't immediately remember right now). Yes, it is the pushing away of the center that bugs me most, because that is usually (at least in a fisheye shot) where I place subjects of interest (I don't do as much rule-of-thirds with fisheye as with other lenses). It's one thing to reject rectilinear defishing and quite another to reject defishing to projections other than the original fisheye, especially Panini which seems very useful and likeable to me. ![]() In short: Don't throw out the baby with the water. The Panini projection will not push the center away and make it smaller (which seems to be one of the things you dislike about rectilinear defishing) and it won't make objects at the edges lose their proportions either. ![]() On the other hand, partly defishing a fisheye to Panini makes eminent sense to me in quite a few cases, although keeping the original fisheye projection may certainly be a better idea in others. I even exemplified, in both threads, how I might want to "refish" some of the images I have taken/will take with my 7-14 rectilinear UWA, i.e., reproject them not to fisheye but to Panini (which can be described as a hybrid between fisheye and rectilinear). I have no trouble agreeing with you that defishing to rectilinear usually won't make much sense (except possibly in some cases if you crop quite a bit). As I pointed out in this thread as well as the one you started about the Rokinon 7.5 versus the Oly 8 mm, there is defishing and defishing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |