Talk:Fisheye lens

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Filmmaking project?

message: 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)
thread_title: Pinhole camera fisheye

message: 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)
thread_title:  "moderately wide angles of view" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nikon 16mm missing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Even more Nikon lenses missing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Edits

message: 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. 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. Searching the term used in the phrase "Rectangular Fisheye lens"  brings 1 hit in book. 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)
thread_title:  Full-Frame Fisheye 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inventor 

message: See the german Wikipedia []. 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)
thread_title:  More mappings 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fastest fisheye

message: 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)
thread_title: No distortion when projected onto a hemispheric screen

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion