My web page is down for a couple of days - try again then...
My collection of still cameras (with lotsa wide-angles,
which I prefer...;-) and video cameras is, well,
"unnecessarily large"...;-) The Greek architecture put
those curves in, following the rules of spherical perspective, which I think is a neat acknowledgement of
the fact that we see in "fisheye-ese", not in
"rectangular-ese"...;-) - but it was intended, I think,
to make the buildings look bigger than they were by making
them more, uh, "distorted" as if from closer viewing, or
from viewing a larger building at the same distance - a
neat trick! ;-) As for traditional photo gear/materials,
I predict a real collectors' market for these and the
chemical-based images at some point in the next quarter
century or so...;-)

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:18:22 GMT, paminof@att.net__ (paminof) wrote:

>Wow, we've got to chat some more about this. :)
>
>Very interesting comment about the Greek columns; indeed there are no
>straight lines in classical Greek temples. Columns are fluted, floor
>and roof are curved. Looks "perfect" from any viewing distance, any
>angle . . . very subtle
>
>6mm Nikkor, 12mm Voightlander, sounds like you have quite a
>collection. I've got some collection too, and I've been wondering if
>it's all obsolete hardware, collector's items, museum pieces.
>Sometimes I wonder if I should just sell it, then I doubt I'll get
>much money for it, besides I kind of like it . . . fine steel,
>precision glass, 35mm chemistry-based photography, an anachronism?
>
>BTW, your link is 404 - File not found

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 21:21:18 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:

>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:44:12 GMT, paminof@nospam.org
>>(paminof) wrote:
>>
>>>I've always been intrigued by the question of what focal length
>>>approximates the field of view of the human eye.
>>>
>>>In 35mm terms, everybody says 50mm, but I've always thought it's more
>>>like 65-75mm. Then again the human eye is designed for binocular
>>>vision, the brain processes the image in ways that no camera can
>>>approximate, and perception is hard to quantify simply in terms of
>>>millimeters . . . but it's somewhere between Zen and a neuron synapse.
>>>:-)
>>>
>>>Leonardo Da Vinci drawings, for example, have a field of view that is
>>>different than the famous 18th century paintings of Napoleonic battle
>>>scenes. How different artists perceived scenes (in space) before the
>>>advent of photography is an interesting comparison . . .

>>Ah, this has interested me, too...
>>But, my conclusions are different - see article I wrote on
>>this, at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective
>>The short of it: there is no FL that approximates the field
>>of view of the human eye except maybe the 6mm Nikkor lens
>>for 35mm, cropped vertically to approximate the cutoff of
>>the eyebrow and cheek structures... Interestingly, we do
>>see in spherical perspective, and VERY wide angle, yet most
>>people are hard to convince - but on the other side, most
>>people attend to only a tiny part of their vision acceptance
>>angle, so one could say that a 5000mm+ FL approximates the
>>angle of vision for many...;-) In photography, it has been
>>traditional to call a lens FL about equal to the diagonal
>>of the film "normal" - but this is just convention, with no
>>basis in what we see other than that the divergence between
>>the "look" of rectangular and spherical perspectives is not
>>very great within this convention. For me, I can see clearly
>>(and attend easily) an angle of view about the same as my
>>glasses show - but this angle is about the same as that
>>covered by my 12mm Voightlander rectangular-perspective
>>35mm-format lens (and the perspective is VERY different
>>from what I see - though similar to what the spherical
>>(fisheye) perspective viewfinder for the 12mm shows...;-)
>>I can also just about attend to items 90+ degrees
>>horizontal away from straight ahead view, something that
>>is impossible in rectangular ("normal") perspective
>>(though it would be possible in cylindrical perspective).
>>Anyway, this is a very interesting subject area, and it
>>is interesting to see old WA paintings of column rows with
>>arches that "fudge" somewhat into spherical perspective
>>'cuz strict "normal" perspective fails in WA views - and
>>the Greeks knew 'bout all this, and added fisheye
>>"distortion" ("entasis", as I recall...) to building lines
>>to make their buildings look bigger by exaggerating the
>>fisheye perspective effects of closer viewing...;-)