Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:catadioptric lens

Expand Messages
  • jeffrey
    This looks like a PR stunt to me. first of all, the images are all pointing down. all the lines are straight in a fisheye image too, pointing down. second,
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This looks like a PR stunt to me. first of all, the images are all
      pointing down. all the lines are straight in a fisheye image too,
      pointing down. second, it's just a nasty mirror, not a parabolic
      mirror, but some other shape. what's the big deal?
    • rogerhoward@rogerroger.org
      ... Oh. I agree. The marketing BS in the various articles is a bit thick. This is a relatively cheap, obviously dubious quality reflector; frankly I don t find
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Dec 1, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Roger D. Williams wrote:

        > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 06:49:02 +0900, Roger Howard
        > <rogerhoward@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Interesting new lens design:
        > >
        > >http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/
        > Inexpensive_Design_Aims_To_Improve_Indoor_Security_Robot_Navigation_99
        > 9.html
        > >
        > > Not going to dump my fisheye anytime soon, despite all the anti-
        > fisheye
        > > rhetoric, but if these are really so inexpensive it could be fun for
        > > playing with (and based on the samples on the product web site I
        > doubt
        > > it'll be much good for anything beyond play!).
        > >
        > > Certainly interesting to see such extreme wide rectilinear images...
        >
        > As you say, Roger. But it is always surprising to me how the fact that
        > straight lines remain straight in the final images is seen as implying
        > that there is no distortion. In fact there is simply a substitution of
        > one form of distortion for another. The extreme spatial distortion you
        > get in the corners of rectilinear images is quite as disturbing to me
        > as the curvilinear distortion your get from fisheyes. And at the kinds
        > of FOV they are achieving this becomes VERY pronounced.

        Oh. I agree. The marketing BS in the various articles is a bit thick.
        This is a relatively cheap, obviously dubious quality reflector;
        frankly I don't find 150 degree rectilinear images all that useful,
        I'd *rather* look at a fisheye at that FOV. And yes, distortion is
        obvious; I mean if we can expect fisheyes to be called distorted then
        I would certainly call any such wide rectilinear image distorted, as
        this is *nothing* like what my brain sees in the real world.

        Btw guys, there *are* image samples, at the manufacturers site, in
        all their glorious craptitude.

        -Rh
      • Serge Maandag (yahoo)
        I m over 400 posts behind on the list and catching up, so this is a bit of a late reply.. ... I agree to that.. ... Well, theoretically the rectilinear image
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm over 400 posts behind on the list and catching up, so this is a bit
          of a late reply..

          > frankly I don't find 150 degree rectilinear images all that useful,
          > I'd *rather* look at a fisheye at that FOV.

          I agree to that..

          > I mean if we can expect fisheyes to be called distorted then
          > I would certainly call any such wide rectilinear image distorted, as
          > this is *nothing* like what my brain sees in the real world.

          Well, theoretically the rectilinear image is undistorted if you look at it
          from a distance of 1 cm. If the viewing angle is as big as the projection
          angle, the distortion is gone..

          (just had to mention, sorry..)

          Serge.
        • Luca Vascon
          ... From: Serge Maandag (yahoo) To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:25 AM Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] catadioptric lens I m over
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 10, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            :-DDD



            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Serge Maandag (yahoo)
            To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:25 AM
            Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] catadioptric lens


            I'm over 400 posts behind on the list and catching up, so this is a bit
            of a late reply..

            > frankly I don't find 150 degree rectilinear images all that useful,
            > I'd *rather* look at a fisheye at that FOV.

            I agree to that..

            > I mean if we can expect fisheyes to be called distorted then
            > I would certainly call any such wide rectilinear image distorted, as
            > this is *nothing* like what my brain sees in the real world.

            Well, theoretically the rectilinear image is undistorted if you look at it
            from a distance of 1 cm. If the viewing angle is as big as the projection
            angle, the distortion is gone..

            (just had to mention, sorry..)

            Serge.




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.