Hi--

>> Ah, but the computer pretty much throws away the
>> format advantage, and the result would likely be inferior
>> to a print from 35mm film and a 20mm lens...
>> David Ruether

>Not to be argumentative but why would the digital
>advantage be lost if the two images were Kodak
>PCD scanned?

With the very highest quality scans, and the very highest
quality printouts, perhaps there would be no disadvantage
(though the costs could be high enough to justify just
renting a 4x5 and a good 65mm lens, and shooting a few
negatives...).

>In fact, I had the idea that instead of two images,
>one could take a third centre image (lens unshifted,
>lots of overlap). This way, only the central portion
>of the lens would be used for all parts of the final
>image. Since the Nikkor PC 28/4 is terrific wide open
>and unshifted, I could conceivably get high quality
>panoramic images at large apertures.

The 28mm f4PC's are very good stopped down (NECESSARY
for shifted use), but at f4, I would not call the image
top quality... BTW, with shifting, there is no need for
the third image for better image sharpness, since the
area near the stitch is already from the lens'
near-central coverage... The problems arise in the
outer edge coverage, for which there is no solution
other than stopping down (or, turning the lens, but
not having to do that is the point of stitching PC
images...).

>My concern is with such huge file sizes, I'd have
>problems getting them over to a service bureau
>to print them off.
>"Ottawa '97 GAC-MAC Joint Annual Meeting"

Ah, yes... Analogue darkrooms still have their advantages...;-)
(LOTSA "pixels", all stored on one tiny, thin "negative"...;-)
David Ruether