Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 6 March 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Filmmaking This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Glass This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Image

The image is not an example of a photo from a fisheye lens !! The Tiananmen Square was clearly captured as multiple images and stitched together to create a panorama.

Somebody should post a "real" fisheye image to better demonstrate the curvature effect. I would but all my lenses are rectilinear :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.232.128.103 (talk • contribs) 2005-05-02

It seems that the above comment refers to a previous photo. The current photo (a room with all 4 walls visible) seems to be a "real" fisheye image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.71.141 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-10

Filmmaking project?

Consistent with the position I took in the discussion section on wide angle lenses, I cannot understand why the editors would choose the fisheye lens for incorporation into the Filmmaking project. Has anyone seen any significant use of a fisheye lens in motion picture production? Are they even made for motion picture cameras? 67.190.55.164 05:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen them used in movies about drug addicts. Can't think of any titles off the top of my head because I hate movies about drug addicts, but yes, they are made for and used in film. -seinman 06:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There's always 2001: A Space Odyssey and HAL's "eyes" around the ship. Fisheyes often show up in music video clips, especially hip-hop. Fisheyes are also used for IMAX Dome/OMNIMAX to capture a very wide field of view and to then project it onto the inside of a dome. --Imroy 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Seinman and Imroy. Thanks for your examples. I'm really don't want to be too argumentative about this but in what percentage of movies do you think fisheye lenses are used? Do you think its high enough to merit including them in this project?Anoneditor 22:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really follow wp filmmaking, so I don't really have an answer to that question. Fisheyes are much more prevalent in video, especially skateboarding/snowboarding/BMX videos. Is there any sort of wikiproject that covers something like that, which could be a better fit, perhaps? -seinman 22:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say them being used in 2001: A Space Odyssey alone merits the articles inclusion in the filmmaking project. But IANAFM. W 08:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The film "Hot Shots" has a guy with "Wall-eye vision". Filmed using fish-eye lens. Also, any film in which they show a sequence through a "peep-hole" on a front door. 140.203.8.209 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Danger: Diabolik and In Like Flint - both from the late 1960s - used fisheye lenses in a few sequences. It seems to have been a popular fad effect in the late 1960s, early 1970s; I assume such lenses must have been available cheaply to hire. Presumably with the rise of HD video recording in digital SLRs, the fisheye perspective will appear more and more often. As mentioned above, it's a very cheap way of mocking up a "robot's eye vision" effect. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Pinhole camera fisheye

A generalized pinhole camera having different refractive indexes on either side of the pinhole can perform either a fisheye or telephoto lens function.

In this case, the radius from the center of the focal plane is still ${\displaystyle R=f\tan \theta }$ as with any pinhole camera, only ${\displaystyle \theta }$ is a nonlinear function of the refractive indexes and the position of the point to be projected: ${\displaystyle \theta =\arcsin {\left({\frac {n_{t}}{n_{f}}}\sin {\theta _{t}}\right)}}$, where ${\displaystyle n_{t}}$ and ${\displaystyle n_{f}}$ are the refractive indexes on the target and focal plane sides, respectively, and ${\displaystyle \theta _{t}}$ is the angle from the viewing axis to the the point to be projected, assuming the pinhole is at the origin.

If ${\displaystyle n_{t}<n_{f}}$ you have a fisheye pinhole lens. If ${\displaystyle n_{t}>n_{f}}$ you have a telephoto pinhole lens. Only in the special case ${\displaystyle n_{t}=n_{f}}$ do you get distortion-free straight lines.

Of course, the chromatic aberration in such a lens would be terrible, but it's obvious that a fisheye effect can be accomplished with a pinhole, and it's easy to simulate such a lens in a computer without the aberration effects.

Is this too obscure, or is it worth mentioning this aspect of a pinhole camera? -Amatulić (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to olypedia.de

Sorry, but olypedia.de is not spam, promotion or any other (we say in german) "Quatsch". It is THE german free wiki about olympus - nothing to do with olympus co! You find here many informations about olympus, that you can not find in en.wikipedia.org or other wikis. The most of the autors came from germany, for many of them (also my person) is english not a favorite language.

I try again....

Sorry - my english is for runaways...

Best regards from the lower rhine in germany rudolfo42 (http://olypedia.de/Benutzer:Rudolfo4)

"moderately wide angles of view"

What about some focal length figures (in 35mm, to be sure) for "moderate wide angles of view" in the lead? And maybe a formula/table for the relation between focal length and angle of view in 35mm? Terry Gilliam frequently uses extremely wide lenses (9.8mm Kinoptic, 8mm Zeiss...) which show no fisheye barrel distortion at all because they're rectilinear-corrected. What he's going for is no barrel distortion but more complex perspective distortion instead. Most people seem to think any fisheye would just be an ultra-wide angle, but there's definitely a difference between a rectilinear 8mm and a fisheye lens. Probably a disclaimer might be in order, here and in other articles, that ultra-wide angle doesn't necessarily equal fisheye. --79.193.62.79 (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nikon 16mm missing?

Just noticed that Nikon 16mm f/2.8D AF Fisheye-NIKKOR was missing in a fullframe list. 16mm Fish-eye. Its strange since its a real fullframe fish-eye. Gcardinal (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Even more Nikon lenses missing

Apart from the lens above, there have been more Nikon fish eye lenses.

Note on the 16 AF-D, it is a current lens, fully compatible with the Nikon D3 and similar FX (full-frame) cameras, and it can be made to work with (most) ANY Nikon SLR camera since 1960.

Circular: 6 mm 5.6 220 degrees, fix focus, a mirror-up compact design, made in the 1970's, some 120 samples made.

10 mm 5.6 180 degrees, fix focus, Orthographic projection, made in the 1970's

full frame: 20 mm f 8, fix-focus, a part of the "Amusing" and "Fun-Fun" lens sets (Rare, no serials on lens)

Regards, Gilbert Sandberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsandberg (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor/commercial references

I have removed all the commercial links that were being used as reference. References need to be WP:RS of some sort. What is left is iffy (blogs/self published). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Commercial web sites DO meet the WP:RS, third-party and all other Misplaced Pages requirements. Period. Tagremover (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've protected this article for a few days. Both of you seem to have some misunderstandings.

The links in question aren't third party sources. They're primary sources. WP:RS says to exercise extreme caution when using them, but doesn't prohibit them. Secondary sources are preferred, and indeed required for opinions, analyses, or interpretations. In this case however, the links in contention are simply links to data sheets or product descriptions in a list of specific products. When citing a statement that merely lists a model or describes specs, the manufacturer's document is as reliable a source as one can get.

It's another question entirely whether those links are necessary in this article. The fact that a link is commercial is not a reason to remove it. But the fact that it's a valid source is likewise not a reason to keep it. One must ask, do they have encyclopedic value to the article? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They add reliable info. FACTS !!! Period. Tagremover (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats even more important: Fountains of Bryn Mawr is vandalising MANY articles with his strange, irrational ideas about Misplaced Pages. I want him STOP ! Tagremover (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What brought me to this article was a linkspam edit added (and re-added) to the same company across several articles. The revert at Fisheye lens is incorrect because it was wholesale, I cited many other problems (such as un-cited claims), not just commercial links. Editors citing their observation of what lenses exist (to ad copy) is WP:OR/analyses, there is no secondary source being cited (required per WP:SECONDARY) to back up what lenses belong in that class. Whole sections such as "Miniature fisheye lenses" have no support at all and simply seem to be the same spammers adding material over and over againSunex spammer. Tagremover I suggest you read WP:CIVIL for a start. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be true that some of the commercial sources are poor, unsuitable as RS. But if that's so, we should challenge them, one at a time, not just remove the sources for the statements in the article. There are a variety of manufacturers represented, so I see no evidence of any spamming. In some cases, better non-commercial sources may be available, and we could make an effort to find those. if Fountains wants to help, he should bring up the issues specifically, and volunteer to help fix it, not just remove stuff. I'll help, too, if he points out which ones he really thinks are problematic. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class filmmaking articles
• Filmmaking task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class glass articles
• Unknown-importance glass articles
• C-Class glass articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Glass articles