Although I haven't seen it in the flesh either, this sounds like the early
panoramic cameras (Cirkut, Kodak) of 80-90 years ago, updated and
technisized. The Kodak used a swiveling anistigmat lens and slot arrangement
with a curved film back. The Cirkut was unique in that it swiveled the
entire camera with a gear mechanism. I've never actually seen one of those,
but I'd love to have one (s'pose eBay would have them? ;-) ).
The only thing relevant to the current discussion, I think, is that
"Whatever goes around, Comes around." :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:30 +0100 (BST)
>
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:17:28 -0400 Dave King (kingphoto@mindspring.com)
>wrote:
>
> > If there are no mirrors in either, what would explain better sharpness
> > in the Imacon (assuming flat film in the Polaroid and Nikon)?
>
>A bigger budget for the lens? ;) - but also the whole point of a curved
>film gate is to equalise raypath lengths. There is no such creature as a
>truly flat-field lens, and this is especially true of macros.
>
>AIUI the Imacons work rather like a drumscanner, presumably moving either
>the film or lens/CCD relative to the film (I still haven't seen one in the
>flesh so don't know which). The curved film plane eliminates focus errors
>due to differing focal points along the longest dimension.
>
>Of course, to do it properly the Imacon would need the film to be dished
>in both directions :)
>
>Regards
>
>Tony Sleep
> - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
>info & comparisons
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
