This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fisheye lens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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
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)
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)
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 as with any pinhole camera, only is a nonlinear function of the refractive indexes and the position of the point to be projected: , where and are the refractive indexes on the target and focal plane sides, respectively, and is the angle from the viewing axis to the the point to be projected, assuming the pinhole is at the origin.
If you have a fisheye pinhole lens. If you have a telephoto pinhole lens. Only in the special case 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I see some misunderstanding on both sides, regarding citations to a company's publications about its own products. Such publications are never reliable sources. They are, however, sometimes allowed under Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically when they meet the criteria given at WP:ABOUTSELF.-- Srleffler ( talk) 05:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Edited "Fisheye lenses for 35 mm cameras" and cleaned up per WP:LIST, added sentence for list's inclusion criteria (notable). Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Note that anyone can be blocked for edit warring even if you haven't exceeded three reverts. I suggest you go over each reference under contention one at a time and come to an agreement whether it is or isn't encyclopedic. Nothing is harmed by leaving the article in whatever state it's currently in while you discuss things. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that using the term "full-frame" to describe rectangular fisheye lenses is confusing and should be avoided. This webpage just adds to the confusion. In photography, "full-frame" is normally used to signify standard size sensors equivalent to 35mm film. I believe "Full-Frame Fisheye" should be renamed as "Rectangular Fisheye" to stop perpetuating this confusion. Also, it makes the term more consistent with "Circular Fisheye". Maybe we should call "Circular Fisheye" as "Partial-Frame Fisheye" instead for consistency (sarcasm intended) Powerslide ( talk)
I'm willing to bet that references to "full frame fisheye" predate the plethora of crop-sensor digital interchangeable-lens cameras. Today "full frame" means a sensor ~24x36 mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.154.43 ( talk) 13:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it known who the inventor of the lens was? Apparently James Clerk Maxwell wrote a paper about such a lens. Tweisbach ( talk) 04:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
See the german Wikipedia [ [11]]. Something may be usefull for the English Wikipedia. But I'm not able to write perfect English. Who would do it?
Peter Wieden ( talk) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
All links are broken in the external links. Two are on the wayback machine at: https://web.archive.org/web/20161101000000*/http://panopticus.altervista.org/fishlist/fishlist.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20161117162354/http://wiki.panotools.org/Fisheye_Projection
its possible that the panotools link has just moved.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.136.9.4 ( talk) 13:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"The fastest commercially available fisheye lens with autofocus is the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 8 mm f/1.8 Fisheye Pro for system cameras of the Micro Four Thirds system." This seems to be an error. In fact, for a M4/3 lens you need to multiply the f value for the crop factor. In this case, the lens is actually a 16mm f/3.6 on a 35mm equivalent, making it slower than some other lenses listed before. Enough to correct the page? LAUD ( talk) 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence mentions 'produces strong visual distortion'. It should be pointed out that this occurs (when not transformed) on a flat rectangular screen, but shows up completely un-distorted on a hemispherical screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sly Snake ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fisheye lens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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
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)
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)
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 as with any pinhole camera, only is a nonlinear function of the refractive indexes and the position of the point to be projected: , where and are the refractive indexes on the target and focal plane sides, respectively, and is the angle from the viewing axis to the the point to be projected, assuming the pinhole is at the origin.
If you have a fisheye pinhole lens. If you have a telephoto pinhole lens. Only in the special case 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I see some misunderstanding on both sides, regarding citations to a company's publications about its own products. Such publications are never reliable sources. They are, however, sometimes allowed under Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically when they meet the criteria given at WP:ABOUTSELF.-- Srleffler ( talk) 05:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Edited "Fisheye lenses for 35 mm cameras" and cleaned up per WP:LIST, added sentence for list's inclusion criteria (notable). Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Note that anyone can be blocked for edit warring even if you haven't exceeded three reverts. I suggest you go over each reference under contention one at a time and come to an agreement whether it is or isn't encyclopedic. Nothing is harmed by leaving the article in whatever state it's currently in while you discuss things. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that using the term "full-frame" to describe rectangular fisheye lenses is confusing and should be avoided. This webpage just adds to the confusion. In photography, "full-frame" is normally used to signify standard size sensors equivalent to 35mm film. I believe "Full-Frame Fisheye" should be renamed as "Rectangular Fisheye" to stop perpetuating this confusion. Also, it makes the term more consistent with "Circular Fisheye". Maybe we should call "Circular Fisheye" as "Partial-Frame Fisheye" instead for consistency (sarcasm intended) Powerslide ( talk)
I'm willing to bet that references to "full frame fisheye" predate the plethora of crop-sensor digital interchangeable-lens cameras. Today "full frame" means a sensor ~24x36 mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.154.43 ( talk) 13:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it known who the inventor of the lens was? Apparently James Clerk Maxwell wrote a paper about such a lens. Tweisbach ( talk) 04:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
See the german Wikipedia [ [11]]. Something may be usefull for the English Wikipedia. But I'm not able to write perfect English. Who would do it?
Peter Wieden ( talk) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
All links are broken in the external links. Two are on the wayback machine at: https://web.archive.org/web/20161101000000*/http://panopticus.altervista.org/fishlist/fishlist.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20161117162354/http://wiki.panotools.org/Fisheye_Projection
its possible that the panotools link has just moved.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.136.9.4 ( talk) 13:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"The fastest commercially available fisheye lens with autofocus is the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 8 mm f/1.8 Fisheye Pro for system cameras of the Micro Four Thirds system." This seems to be an error. In fact, for a M4/3 lens you need to multiply the f value for the crop factor. In this case, the lens is actually a 16mm f/3.6 on a 35mm equivalent, making it slower than some other lenses listed before. Enough to correct the page? LAUD ( talk) 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence mentions 'produces strong visual distortion'. It should be pointed out that this occurs (when not transformed) on a flat rectangular screen, but shows up completely un-distorted on a hemispherical screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sly Snake ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)