Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Douglas,
Sounds like a better case than mine. With my astigmatism all
picture frames are slightly larger on one side and one of two glasses of
wine with equal volumes always appears slightly larger. I claim that this
astigmatism accounts for my sloping horizons, the verticals are usually
OK. Perhaps it will be better when I get "bionic" lens for my flaring mark
I models.
Lee
At 12:46 AM 5/18/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>Much better Peter,
>I know I'm a nit-picker, shifts, be they ever so small, just hit me
>right in the optic nerve.
>
>It's a matter of "Seismogram Eyeball", I spent over 30 years having to
>recognise amplitude and phase differences of seismic signals and logs, or
>time shifts of around 1 millisecond on seismic profiles (at a standard
>display scale that's about 0.1mm differences or smaller).Not finding the
>signal could mean the difference between drilling on a dry prospect or
>finding a gas reservoir.
>"Sharps Eyes" had quite a reputation in the world of exploration geophysics.
>
>It has a nasty side effect - I turned into a habitual picture frame
>straightener,BTW my wife is an architect and has the same gift/problem.
>
>I put a narrow grid over the picture to check how much I was out on my
>first estimate, and I came to 0.4 - 0.85 degrees left correction. 0.85 at
>the left hand edge (the parapet and windows of the rectangular building),
>0.5 over the ends of the handrails at each side of the shot, based on
>putting the spire of St Pauls as a vertical axis dead centre. 0.4 - 0.5
>also fits the columns of the dome. This could infer a tiny bit of lens
>distortion, that the camera was not quite in the horizontal plane,
>possibly tilted up a bit, or that the scanned negative was not quite flat.
>cheers
>Douglas
>
>Peter Dzwig wrote:
>
>>Douglas Sharp wrote:
>>
>>>An excellent shot Peter,
>>>love the symmetry!
>>>but couldn't it take a slight correction of the horizontal?
>>>I think its about 1 or 1.5 degrees out of kilter. Otherwise perfect for
>>>me.
>>>cheers
>>>Douglas
>>Douglas and List,
>>see which one you you think is straight...
>>http://gallery.leica-users.org/album164/MilleniumBridge200505
>>the original
>>or:
>>http://gallery.leica-users.org/album164/MilleniumBridge200505Rot1
>>I think that it is it straightened...it took 0.4 degrees of rotation. If
>>that does truly fix it (I am not entirely sure) Douglas you have very
>>sharp eyes!!
>>All the best,
>>Peter
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information