Talk:Fisheye lens

Image

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

It seems that the above comment refers to a previous photo. The current photo (a room with all 4 walls visible) seems to be a "real" fisheye image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.71.141 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-10

Filmmaking project?

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)

I've seen them used in movies about drug addicts. Can't think of any titles off the top of my head because I hate movies about drug addicts, but yes, they are made for and used in film. -seinman 06:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There's always 2001: A Space Odyssey and HAL's "eyes" around the ship. Fisheyes often show up in music video clips, especially hip-hop. Fisheyes are also used for IMAX Dome/OMNIMAX to capture a very wide field of view and to then project it onto the inside of a dome. --Imroy 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Seinman and Imroy. Thanks for your examples. I'm really don't want to be too argumentative about this but in what percentage of movies do you think fisheye lenses are used? Do you think its high enough to merit including them in this project?Anoneditor 22:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really follow wp filmmaking, so I don't really have an answer to that question. Fisheyes are much more prevalent in video, especially skateboarding/snowboarding/BMX videos. Is there any sort of wikiproject that covers something like that, which could be a better fit, perhaps? -seinman 22:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say them being used in 2001: A Space Odyssey alone merits the articles inclusion in the filmmaking project. But IANAFM. W 08:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The film "Hot Shots" has a guy with "Wall-eye vision". Filmed using fish-eye lens. Also, any film in which they show a sequence through a "peep-hole" on a front door. 140.203.8.209 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (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)

Pinhole camera fisheye

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 $R=f\tan \theta$ as with any pinhole camera, only $\theta$ is a nonlinear function of the refractive indexes and the position of the point to be projected: $\theta =\arcsin {\left({\frac {n_{t}}{n_{f}}}\sin {\theta _{t}}\right)}$, where $n_{t}$ and $n_{f}$ are the refractive indexes on the target and focal plane sides, respectively, and $\theta _{t}$ is the angle from the viewing axis to the the point to be projected, assuming the pinhole is at the origin.

If $n_{t}<n_{f}$ you have a fisheye pinhole lens. If $n_{t}>n_{f}$ you have a telephoto pinhole lens. Only in the special case $n_{t}=n_{f}$ 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)

Link to olypedia.de

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)

"moderately wide angles of view"

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)

Nikon 16mm missing?

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)

Even more Nikon lenses missing

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)

Poor/commercial references

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)

Commercial web sites DO meet the WP:RS, third-party and all other Wikipedia requirements. Period. Tagremover (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've protected this article for a few days. Both of you seem to have some misunderstandings.

The links in question aren't third party sources. They're primary sources. WP:RS says to exercise extreme caution when using them, but doesn't prohibit them. Secondary sources are preferred, and indeed required for opinions, analyses, or interpretations. In this case however, the links in contention are simply links to data sheets or product descriptions in a list of specific products. When citing a statement that merely lists a model or describes specs, the manufacturer's document is as reliable a source as one can get.

It's another question entirely whether those links are necessary in this article. The fact that a link is commercial is not a reason to remove it. But the fact that it's a valid source is likewise not a reason to keep it. One must ask, do they have encyclopedic value to the article? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They add reliable info. FACTS !!! Period. Tagremover (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats even more important: Fountains of Bryn Mawr is vandalising MANY articles with his strange, irrational ideas about Wikipedia. I want him STOP ! Tagremover (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What brought me to this article was a linkspam edit added (and re-added[1]) to the same company across several articles. The revert[2] at Fisheye lens is incorrect because it was wholesale, I cited many other problems (such as un-cited claims), not just commercial links. Editors citing their observation of what lenses exist (to ad copy) is WP:OR/analyses, there is no secondary source being cited (required per WP:SECONDARY) to back up what lenses belong in that class. Whole sections such as "Miniature fisheye lenses" have no support at all and simply seem to be the same spammers adding material over and over again[3][4][5]Sunex spammer. Tagremover I suggest you read WP:CIVIL for a start. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be true that some of the commercial sources are poor, unsuitable as RS. But if that's so, we should challenge them, one at a time, not just remove the sources for the statements in the article. There are a variety of manufacturers represented, so I see no evidence of any spamming. In some cases, better non-commercial sources may be available, and we could make an effort to find those. if Fountains wants to help, he should bring up the issues specifically, and volunteer to help fix it, not just remove stuff. I'll help, too, if he points out which ones he really thinks are problematic. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note my removal was by section - not all at once, more problems than just commercial links were noted (and were taged), some links are to personal webspace - not even commercial links, all of which were reverted in one edit without discrimination[6]. Please try to read the edit history when you comment on it... thanks.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I just see a lot of "rm commercial link as reference". Now that those rms are disputed, we should consider them individually, no? If there are other problems, were they disputed, too? Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well if you read the edit history you will see more than "rm commercial" such as "rm unsupported statementstatement", added "fact" tags, etc. You can follow those if you want to get a start on whats problimatic. The original revert of my edit was not a dispute over content, it appears to be something else. "remove(ing) stuff" is part of WP:BRD, something needed when articles get this bad. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking again, all I see are 6 in a row on March 5, all with "rm commercial link as reference"; if there are other edits earlier, that's not what I'm talking about; I don't see them. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 7 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)

Partially correct. A company's promotional material should never be considered a reliable source. But a company's product specifications (dimensions, focal length, aperture, power requirements, interface description, etc.) are reliable sources for that information. That's really no different than a MSDS for a chemical substance. Here, all that's being done is listing a product and providing a link to an information page about that product. Where the information is objective (just data) and not promotional, the link may be appropriate. I am skeptical that citing those sources, however, add value to this article in every case. There may be instances where a lens might deserve its own article (as some on the list already do) but the article doesn't exist yet, so an external link for reference may be appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've located a third-party academic paper that mentions miniature fisheye lenses (they happen to use Sunex brand, since they seem to be the main supplier). "Camera calibration for miniature, low-cost, wide-angle imaging systems", Frank, O. and Katz, R. and Tisse, C.L. and Durrant-Whyte, H., Proceedings of the 18th British Machine Vision Conference, Warwick, England, 2007. Let's put that in when the page is unlocked. But keep the refs to the manufacturers, too. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The criteria on what to include in a list pretty simple (WP:LIST).... and WP:ABOUTSELF is not one of them BTW... its Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not (see Wikipedia:Notability). Question one.... should there be a list? List have to have some sort of list definition (missing). If the list def is "Fisheye lenses for 35 mm cameras" then we probably should not have a list... Wikipedia is not a directory. If the list def is "Notable" then each lens needs to have an article (the list is a navigation aid) (can always be a redlinked with reference from a reliable source if the lens seems notable). WP:ABOUTSELF only comes into play when something about a lens that has already met the criteria for list inclusion needs to be referenced.

Re: "miniature fisheye lenses", the section list three types of fisheye lenses, Circular, Full-frame, and Miniature. There needs to be a reliable source that states "there are three types of fisheye lenses, Circular, Full-frame, and Miniature". Simply noting that we see some browsing the web is WP:OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Um... not exactly. One doesn't need to find sources for claims such as "2+2=4" or other facts that are self-evident or obvious. I'm not sure about the "miniature" designation, but circular and full-frame fisheyes appear to be common distinctions, which becomes obvious in any casual browsing of fisheye lens products — but if you insist, a quick search of Google books reveals several photography books that clearly state that circular and full-frame are distinct types. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Um... "2+2=4" is verifiable. I see circular and full-frame fisheyes but I don't see "miniature".... that's my point. "miniature" addition is not only probable WP:OR its probably spam.... it was added may times to the article as a spam link and deleted every time by different editors. Who ever was adding the like got smart... put it in as a sub-section and turned the spam link into refspam[7]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So, merge those miniature lenses into the other sections. If a link to a miniature lens is all that concerns you, remove it.

What I'm looking for here is an argument that the links fail to meet the reason for including any external links in the first place. Links should provide encyclopedic value beyond the scope of this article. If they don't, they should be removed. I'm waiting to see that argument. The fact that they are "commercial" isn't a valid reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The argument against the citation links is not that they fail to provide encyclopedic value, its that they are not encyclopedic, period. Its a valid reasons to remove the links, in this case it means the content should go also, along with the links.

• Citation with a link to a commercial webpage to show a lens exists with certain features? (What we have in this article).... Existence is not the criteria to be in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a directory of lenses, and commercial links can be spam (In fact Mr spammer is going to raise his hand and say "My lens exists, here's my commercial webpage showing its specs, include my lens since you included all the others"). If a lens is notable it does not need any citations at all.... it has its own article listing all that information with citations.
• Citation with a link to a retail commercial sales webpage to show specifications of a lens? No - its spam, retailer may not be a reliable source on a manufacturer's product.
• WP:ABOUTSELF generally deals with articles, and it has to be a manufacturer talking about them selves. So on an article page about a specific lens you may have a citation with a link to commercial website with a manufacturers product specification sheet, article (and WP:ABOUTSELF) follows WP:PST, "the article is not based primarily on such sources"

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fountains: "The argument against the citation links is not that they fail to provide encyclopedic value, its that they are not encyclopedic, period." Wrong, probably senseless. Period.

Miniature Fisheyes are increasingly used. Important. Tagremover (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Done some moves. Nothing deleted. Tagremover (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits

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)

Wikipedia is wonderful to show lists. Include only your WP:POV, whats notable, will remove the main value of the list. DO NOT REMOVE REFERENCES. Tagremover (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Basic notability is built into the function of WP:LIST, the member has an article. List was trimmed back, and missed items added, to match this guideline. If you think any other items are notable, put up a stub article and see if it gets deleted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There was agreement that you do not remove references. And your WP:POV valuation about lists has to be discussed. A list looses most of its value if its highly incomplete. WP:LIST does not give reason for any removal. Tagremover (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no such agreement on removing references, in fact discussion seemed to reach a conclusion that the references were not encyclopedic. WP:LIST and Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat give guidelines on what is (and what should not be) in a list. You have simply blanket reverted the article here, here, and here 3 reverting, removing obvious list members, and removing non-related edits. This is considered disruptive editing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an agreement on remove references, also you decided to do disruptive editing by stating your WP:POINT, which is just your WP:POV. You have reverted 3 times, including your reverts before the page was blocked. Your "edit" was a revert and with no agreement. Tagremover (talk) 15:36, 14 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 have done all that i could. Others have to protect the page if they want to. Tagremover (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

References are unnecessary. Members of a list are notable and referenced since they have articles (i.e. referencing and notability check has been already done by other Wikipedia editors). If they don't have an article then they don't belong in the list (lists are not for everything). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: the list Fisheye lenses for 35 mm cameras, editors should list below any valid reason not to follow the community consensus guideline WP:LIST. Please note the criteria for lists:Lists contain internally linked terms and avoid lists that consists primarily of red links. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Full-Frame Fisheye

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)

The section title is currently "Full-frame fisheye" because that is what they are called by reference[8]. We really can't give new names to things, only go by the referenced name. Searching the term used in the phrase "full frame fisheye lens" brings 991 hits in book[9]. Searching the term used in the phrase "Rectangular Fisheye lens" brings 1 hit in book[10]. I don't really see any confusion myself - it is explained. If there is referenced confusion (a book or magazine article noting people confusing the two terms) you could add that with a reference. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Inventor

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)

More mappings

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)

Fastest fisheye

"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)

Its a good reason to remove the paragraph, its unverified. We really need a reliable source stating what lens is the fastest. I have removed this claim here and at the lens Wiki page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think, it's not an error. The equivalent 16mm f/3.6 becomes only real if using a tele converter. But the lens works with 8mm f/1.8 - the image is as bright as f/1.8 but smaller than 35mm format. The equivalent 16mm is only a help for 35mm-thinking-people. And it's a fact that 8mm f/1.8 MFT is faster then older 8mm f/2.8 MFT. Peter Wieden (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We can't base this on opinion of Wikipedia editors, actually need a reliable source for claims such as this. Claim is only made by the manufacturer and its old (2015) so does not meet WP:V. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No distortion when projected onto a hemispheric screen

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Peleng8.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)