Raimo K wrote:
Why you cannot accept that distortion is just distortion.
And coma is just coma, and CA is just CA. C'mon...it doesn't belong.
If it shows up in a print or transparency or on the digital image, it is not right. If it was not there in the subject, it doesn't belong in the print. Period.
But OK, distortion is one of the aberrations but usually dealt separately as barrel or pincushion distortion. There are many types aberrations, like the basic seven aberrations: spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism, field curvature, distortion (yes, here it is), chromatic aberration (longitudinal and lateral) - and then we have the higher order aberrations like the Seidel aberrations... and the fifth order aberrations (the nine Schwarzschild aberrations) and so on ad infinitum. You would impress more if you could spell "aberration".
Now you're getting picky because my spell catcher failed to catch my error. Tsk, tsk...
On the other hand, I'm not trying to impress anyone, merely be correct.
Raimo K
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Long zoom recommendations
Then what would those experts CALL that abberation, if it weren't a distortion?
If the squiggle you see was not purposefully designed into the optical formula, and it show up in the print, it's a distortion of the image, and as such is an ABBERATION! What else COULD it be? Gremlins?
keith whaley
Raimo K wrote:
Not according to experts.
If any "expert" claims that distortion of a lens-delivered image is an acceptable condition of image portrayal, then this so-called expert is fulla beans!
keith
