BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OPTIC_NUT" data-source="post: 3284538" data-attributes="member: 121951">I slapped a ruler up...the Leica field produces straighter lines.for the walls, there is a receding perspective curve, but notas much as with the Cooke.It doesn't necessarily need a flattener, if it has enough length.Actually, all zooms must necessarily correct curvature.I think the difference is more dramatic because the movie sethas too many perfectly straight lines.   Thing is, when it's small,the curvature doesn't do anything locally...it just arranges thingsover the span of the field.  Here's something to ponder:  your eyeball is quite small and curved.Bigger optics .... film cameras, binoculars, etc...aren't.Trouble is: they are acting as a proxy for your eye.Let's look past the flattener as good or evil to the result: a flattened field.The question is:  does a truly flat image match what your eye would see?Large TV screens are specifically curved to correct for the problem of a flatimage at a fixed distance.  You see a virtual image through eyepieces.Perhaps a slightly curved image is what your eye wants.It would be interesting to film with Cooke and Leica and look at the resultson a big flat and big curved screen!In the days of slide projectors, fancier apochromats had a little curveat screen edges. Was that for a 'natural' look?I may be stirring more sediment than I'm settling, butI thnk this is interesting.  I think Custom-lovers can do some experiments,to confirm "hey, when I sweep fast there is a bit of rolling ball, but I surelove the view when it settles".</blockquote>

Verification