KurtH Posted June 3 Report Share Posted June 3 One thing I've been curious about is it seems Kintsugi is doing enough math to account for fall off of the flash, but was wondering if that is based on math assuming the flash at (or very close) to the distance of the lens. On a turntable system or our X-Y easel, there may be ways that I might be able to emulate a point source more by moving the flash further behind the camera (having to watch for the camera casting a shadow) but concerned that would negatively impact the fall off math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Tetzlaff Posted June 4 Report Share Posted June 4 Yes, that's correct -- it's assuming the flash is more or less at the lens distance. If the flash is significantly behind the lens, we'd need to calibrate for that, or just turn the feature off completely so that it doesn't try to account for falloff -- which might be close enough if the light is significantly farther away. I'll add a feature request to the backlog to address this use case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtH Posted June 5 Author Report Share Posted June 5 20 hours ago, Michael Tetzlaff said: Yes, that's correct -- it's assuming the flash is more or less at the lens distance. If the flash is significantly behind the lens, we'd need to calibrate for that, or just turn the feature off completely so that it doesn't try to account for falloff -- which might be close enough if the light is significantly farther away. I'll add a feature request to the backlog to address this use case. Thanks... not a huge priority and wanted not to try something that would cause problems. Just scheming a bit down the road. Unlikely for objects on a turntable, but for paintings with our X-Y easel I could see us having the camera 40" from the painting and have a flash 4-5x farther back (12-18 feet) but the depth of the painting is so small I doubt it would impact the fall off anyway. Distance would be a way to make the light source more point-like and was thinking of ways of seeing how much the shape of the light impacts things. Also makes me think I'll have to be more careful if doing macro work where the camera distance has to be VERY close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Tetzlaff Posted June 5 Report Share Posted June 5 Yes, that makes sense. I think the easiest thing would be to just turn off the falloff compensation for use cases like the X-Y easel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.