Shooting photos with an IMAX projector lens
theslantedlens.com
theslantedlens.com
[0]: https://emulsive.org/articles/building-a-naked-aero-ektar-sp...
https://news.avclub.com/why-does-everyone-on-youtube-make-th...
Of course, it's also a self-reinforcing thing; there's articles telling people to put reaction faces on their preview images to increase engagement, there's articles telling people to use jump cuts, enthousiastic / shouty voices, certain microphone / camera setups, etc. Thousands of "do this ONE TRICK to boost your engagement on youtube by 0.34%" kind of articles and tutorials, trying to cargo cult aspiring video makers into doing the same thing that some of the top youtubers do.
I'll stick to my series of disembodied hamhands and Scottish space nerds, thank you.
It's as distracting. And hard to follow. As it would be. To read a sentence. That has had full stops added. All over the place. Like this.
cmd + f `huge .* lens` -> 7 results
So many questions, but the author decided to use it to take portraits in day light ...
And his website is easy to read and navigate, which is rare for review sites.
Maybe I'm too distracted by the formatting of the website. I find his pages to contain ridiculously large size photos that make the article hard to read. No tables or organization of information in a consistent way (or across lenses, cameras) that makes comparisons or reading easy. Very hard to tell if he's actually expert at something or his credibility. All of his observations are just qualitative (as is any typical amateur enthusiast camera website).
I much prefer DPreview.com's reviews of cameras and lenses.
[1] - https://vintage-camera-lenses.com/pentacon-135-2-8/ - I have the version 2 (less desirable!) one.
I think imax lenses are easily 5-6 figures unfortunately. Edit: It was a lens apparently, wow. It doesn't look like any of the IMAX lenses I can find online!
https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2012/DarkKnightRises/im...
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/you-cant-afford-this-expens...
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lens-100mm-mov...
Methinks the projection lens is so oddly shaped to function with the curved theater screen, etc. and is not what is used to take the images.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYX22a35sKhA0T6ee7uZfvg
A wide angle lens actually designed for 35mm would perform better if so.
What he did is sadly a good tactic to get publicity/followers though, which in the photography world directly translates to more customers and revenue.
I really enjoyed this guy’s enthusiasm and his “guerrilla” setup. It’s easy to criticize his method, but he went out and shot some skaters with a big weird lens!
This lens would be much better suited to nature and panaramic shots. Portrait shots not so much.
Since it doesn’t have a flat plane of focus, you can never get any more than a small portion of the picture in focus.
You could maybe do a shot with only a single tree in focus, or something, but not a regular landscape.
This one is very wide and still blurs the background.
(who knows, it might not be anything out of the ordinary)
Completely spit balling, but I suspect that front lens element is worth about as much as a house.
It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that knows anything about cameras that if you don't have the lens lined up properly you'll get a tilt-shift effect. This is basically a rig that does controlled "lens whacking", where you don't mount the lens but you hold it freely to let light bleed through the mount and mess up the focal plane (https://philipbloom.net/blog/the-art-of-lens-whacking-real-l...)
I bet if the lens was mounted properly it would look... like a normal wide angle lens.
At least use a GFX-100 (which itself isn't even 645).
Edit: of course, renting is an option. But personally even with insurance I would not be comfortable with the risk of renting such expensive equipment for a project that was purely for my own entertainment/curiosity.
In the case of large format, 4 x 5 inch films can record approximately 298.7 million pixels, and 1,200 million pixels in the case of 8 x 10 inch film.
I've never heard this expression before. Does he mean "guerilla", as in "improvised"?
(just a guess)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYX22a35sKhA0T6ee7uZfvg
the lens was designed for a film format with much larger surface dimension. The lens' image circle is likewise large - much larger than the sensor in the camera this guy used.
The digital sensor will simply be overlayed with a cropped portion of the full image circle projected by this lens.
big deal!?
I much prefer this than watching a whole video. Less bandwidth, less ads, I can skip to the part I want, the content' doesn't keep going on while I want to re-read something or examine a picture, while it is light on processing power.
In short, I can scroll at my own pace.
Well, at least, I got a simple answer to the question the title prompted me: "how does it look". I got baited, but didn't have to sit trough it.
(the answer is "not bad, a lot of depth of field, that lens is bigger than I imagined, and the resulting quality doesn't seem to be worth it).
OK, to be fair, I had missed the "lens" part, and was really curious.
So, no, this doesn't have anything to do with smart phones.
In ye' olde times, induced background blur would have been a gaussian blur in software. I'm not sure what special magic they do today. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.05698 suggests things have moved on.
In any case, gaussian blur is definitely the wrong kernel to do it. There could be definite improvements before jumping to deep learning.