hi all
I hope it's ok posting this question here - it's a bit of woodworking
and a bit cabinet making!
Please see this image;
http://s307.photobucket.com/albums/nn281/jzfredricks/?action=view¤t=cabinet.jpg
It's not the best, but hopefully it's enough. I'm thinking of making
something like this, and one thing that I can't quite work out is how
the hinges work.
If you look closely, you'll see the doors aren't perpendicular to the
base, but rather are on a slight angle.
Won't the doors swing out funnily? With part of the door ending up
beneath the level of the base?
What kind of hinges would I use?
thanks in advance
On Feb 25, 9:37=A0pm, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are you sure of that? =A0Have you actually seen the object?
>
> More likely is that the object is distorted in the photo because the top =
is
> closer to the camera than the bottom; that makes the sides *look* tapered=
.
Yeah, it was I who took the photo. I've several others, but that's the
best one :)
On Feb 24, 11:24=A0pm, jzfredricks <[email protected]> wrote:
> hi all
>
> I hope it's ok posting this question here - it's a bit of woodworking
> and a bit cabinet making!
>
> Please see this image;http://s307.photobucket.com/albums/nn281/jzfredrick=
s/?action=3Dview&cur...
>
> It's not the best, but hopefully it's enough. I'm thinking of making
> something like this, and one thing that I can't quite work out is how
> the hinges work.
>
> If you look closely, you'll see the doors aren't perpendicular to the
> base, but rather are on a slight angle.
>
> Won't the doors swing out funnily? With part of the door ending up
> beneath the level of the base?
>
> What kind of hinges would I use?
>
> thanks in advance
Build it like this?
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3Dca=
binet.jpg
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:56:22 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Charlie Groh wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:53:49 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Charlie Groh wrote:
>>>>> I'm getting into architectural
>>>>> photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
>>>>> *not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut
>>>>
>>>> Tough, no; expensive, can be but not necessarily.
>>>>
>>>> All you need is a view camera with tilting/sliding/rising/falling
>>>> front and back. Biggest problem IMO is that when you correct for
>>>> converging lines you get a "flat iron" appearance. My preferance
>>>> was/is partial correction - after all, lines *do* appear to
>>>> converge when we look at them - to avoid camera induced
>>>> accentuation of same.
>>>>
>>>> As far as expense goes, you can easily find a decent used camera
>>>> such as Cambo/Calumet, Omega etc. *with* lens for around $500. Toyo
>>>> too but probably a bit more. One does not *have* to have a Sinar :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> A set of rubber tanks, some 4x5 hangers, a big enlarger... *drools*.
>>> I loved that hobby.
>>>
>>> The 'correction' of the cabinet posted by the OP I did in Photoshop.
>>> Very sloppily done on the fly with the 'distort transform*
>>>
>>> And you are correct. It looks way nicer to do a partial correction.
>>> Btw, Nikon and leica and i believe Contax all made (or still make) a
>>> lens or two with mechanical correction capability. I think the Nikon
>>> had a focal length of 35 mm.
>>> I have also seen mini bellows used on a Contax RTS.
>>
>> ...I've gotten a decent wide angle that will do for now...doubt if
>> I'll ever go the bellows route, there's some nice software to help
>> correct, too. You guys sound like you know the biz...I tend to spend
>> money when I think it'll solve a problem, not at the expense of
>> knowledge vis-a-vis the goal, but to achieve maximum speed...and
>> maximum may be minimum in many circumstances...
>
>If you keep the film plane of the camera parallel to your subject you'll
>have fewer problems with distortion. That's all view cameras do...let you
>keep the film plane parallel.
...yessir, that's understood...pitch,yaw and roll come to
mind...tilt/shift (TS) lenses are what I was referring to when
mentioning expense. Changing the plane of focus...
cg
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:37:22 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>jzfredricks wrote:
>> hi all
>>
>> I hope it's ok posting this question here - it's a bit of woodworking
>> and a bit cabinet making!
>>
>> Please see this image;
>> http://s307.photobucket.com/albums/nn281/jzfredricks/?action=view¤t=cabinet.jpg
>>
>> It's not the best, but hopefully it's enough. I'm thinking of making
>> something like this, and one thing that I can't quite work out is how
>> the hinges work.
>>
>> If you look closely, you'll see the doors aren't perpendicular to the
>> base, but rather are on a slight angle.
>
>Are you sure of that? Have you actually seen the object?
>
>More likely is that the object is distorted in the photo because the top is
>closer to the camera than the bottom; that makes the sides *look* tapered.
...bingo, give the man a ceeeeegar. I'm getting into architectural
photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
*not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut (I believe
Robotoy found one of the same doors that got close, but you'll notice
it still isn't quite correct). If you want to swing doors off of
jambs that are not plumb with doors shaped to match, and french no
less, well, buckle up. Best idea I've seen is to "pocket" them and
even that would be funky, imagine the jamb sides when the doors are in
the open position. Now, a paralellogram-shaped opening...heh...
cg
"jzfredricks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> It's not the best, but hopefully it's enough. I'm thinking of making
> something like this, and one thing that I can't quite work out is how
> the hinges work.
Strap hinges on an opposite angle equal to or greater than the current angle
of the frame. If you want to get exotic and have them open properly, then
pocket doors would make them look good and function properly.
On Feb 25, 3:59=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Yup. =A0So? =A0The doors are well off the floor, plenty of clearance. =A0=
If
> you build quirky stuff it's going to do quirky things. =A0Maybe put
> chains on the doors to keep them from swinging all the way out, or
> hinges that stop at 95-100 degrees.
I was mainly trying to get an idea of the quirky stuff I might
encounter.
On Feb 25, 3:43=A0pm, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Groh wrote:
> > =A0I'm getting into architectural
> > photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
> > *not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut
>
> Tough, no; expensive, can be but not necessarily.
>
> All you need is a view camera with tilting/sliding/rising/falling front a=
nd
> back. =A0Biggest problem IMO is that when you correct for converging line=
s you
> get a "flat iron" appearance. =A0My preferance was/is partial correction =
-
> after all, lines *do* appear to converge when we look at them - to avoid
> camera induced accentuation of same.
>
> As far as expense goes, you can easily find a decent used camera such as
> Cambo/Calumet, Omega etc. *with* lens for around $500. =A0Toyo too but
> probably a bit more. =A0One does not *have* to have a Sinar =A0:)
>
A set of rubber tanks, some 4x5 hangers, a big enlarger... *drools*. I
loved that hobby.
The 'correction' of the cabinet posted by the OP I did in Photoshop.
Very sloppily done on the fly with the 'distort transform*
And you are correct. It looks way nicer to do a partial correction.
Btw, Nikon and leica and i believe Contax all made (or still make) a
lens or two with mechanical correction capability. I think the Nikon
had a focal length of 35 mm.
I have also seen mini bellows used on a Contax RTS.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Mistake. Strap hinges should be on the same angle or greater than the frame.
> Strap hinges on an opposite angle equal to or greater than the current
angle
> of the frame.
Charlie Groh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:53:49 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Charlie Groh wrote:
>>>> I'm getting into architectural
>>>> photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
>>>> *not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut
>>>
>>> Tough, no; expensive, can be but not necessarily.
>>>
>>> All you need is a view camera with tilting/sliding/rising/falling
>>> front and back. Biggest problem IMO is that when you correct for
>>> converging lines you get a "flat iron" appearance. My preferance
>>> was/is partial correction - after all, lines *do* appear to
>>> converge when we look at them - to avoid camera induced
>>> accentuation of same.
>>>
>>> As far as expense goes, you can easily find a decent used camera
>>> such as Cambo/Calumet, Omega etc. *with* lens for around $500. Toyo
>>> too but probably a bit more. One does not *have* to have a Sinar :)
>>>
>>
>> A set of rubber tanks, some 4x5 hangers, a big enlarger... *drools*.
>> I loved that hobby.
>>
>> The 'correction' of the cabinet posted by the OP I did in Photoshop.
>> Very sloppily done on the fly with the 'distort transform*
>>
>> And you are correct. It looks way nicer to do a partial correction.
>> Btw, Nikon and leica and i believe Contax all made (or still make) a
>> lens or two with mechanical correction capability. I think the Nikon
>> had a focal length of 35 mm.
>> I have also seen mini bellows used on a Contax RTS.
>
> ...I've gotten a decent wide angle that will do for now...doubt if
> I'll ever go the bellows route, there's some nice software to help
> correct, too. You guys sound like you know the biz...I tend to spend
> money when I think it'll solve a problem, not at the expense of
> knowledge vis-a-vis the goal, but to achieve maximum speed...and
> maximum may be minimum in many circumstances...
If you keep the film plane of the camera parallel to your subject you'll
have fewer problems with distortion. That's all view cameras do...let you
keep the film plane parallel.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:00:30 -0800, Charlie Groh
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:37:22 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>jzfredricks wrote:
>>> hi all
>>>
>>> I hope it's ok posting this question here - it's a bit of woodworking
>>> and a bit cabinet making!
>>>
>>> Please see this image;
>>> http://s307.photobucket.com/albums/nn281/jzfredricks/?action=view¤t=cabinet.jpg
>>>
>>> It's not the best, but hopefully it's enough. I'm thinking of making
>>> something like this, and one thing that I can't quite work out is how
>>> the hinges work.
>>>
>>> If you look closely, you'll see the doors aren't perpendicular to the
>>> base, but rather are on a slight angle.
>>
>>Are you sure of that? Have you actually seen the object?
>>
>>More likely is that the object is distorted in the photo because the top is
>>closer to the camera than the bottom; that makes the sides *look* tapered.
>
>...bingo, give the man a ceeeeegar. I'm getting into architectural
>photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
>*not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut (I believe
>Robotoy found one of the same doors that got close, but you'll notice
>it still isn't quite correct). If you want to swing doors off of
>jambs that are not plumb with doors shaped to match, and french no
>less, well, buckle up. Best idea I've seen is to "pocket" them and
>even that would be funky, imagine the jamb sides when the doors are in
>the open position. Now, a paralellogram-shaped opening...heh...
>
>
>cg
...forget that paralellogram idea, too. Hehehe...
cg
jzfredricks wrote:
> hi all
>
> I hope it's ok posting this question here - it's a bit of woodworking
> and a bit cabinet making!
>
> Please see this image;
> http://s307.photobucket.com/albums/nn281/jzfredricks/?action=view¤t=cabinet.jpg
>
> It's not the best, but hopefully it's enough. I'm thinking of making
> something like this, and one thing that I can't quite work out is how
> the hinges work.
>
> If you look closely, you'll see the doors aren't perpendicular to the
> base, but rather are on a slight angle.
Are you sure of that? Have you actually seen the object?
More likely is that the object is distorted in the photo because the top is
closer to the camera than the bottom; that makes the sides *look* tapered.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Charlie Groh wrote:
> I'm getting into architectural
> photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
> *not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut
Tough, no; expensive, can be but not necessarily.
All you need is a view camera with tilting/sliding/rising/falling front and
back. Biggest problem IMO is that when you correct for converging lines you
get a "flat iron" appearance. My preferance was/is partial correction -
after all, lines *do* appear to converge when we look at them - to avoid
camera induced accentuation of same.
As far as expense goes, you can easily find a decent used camera such as
Cambo/Calumet, Omega etc. *with* lens for around $500. Toyo too but
probably a bit more. One does not *have* to have a Sinar :)
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
On Feb 24, 11:24 pm, jzfredricks <[email protected]> wrote:
> hi all
>
> I hope it's ok posting this question here - it's a bit of woodworking
> and a bit cabinet making!
>
> Please see this image;http://s307.photobucket.com/albums/nn281/jzfredricks/?action=view&cur...
>
> It's not the best, but hopefully it's enough. I'm thinking of making
> something like this, and one thing that I can't quite work out is how
> the hinges work.
>
> If you look closely, you'll see the doors aren't perpendicular to the
> base, but rather are on a slight angle.
>
> Won't the doors swing out funnily? With part of the door ending up
> beneath the level of the base?
Yup. So? The doors are well off the floor, plenty of clearance. If
you build quirky stuff it's going to do quirky things. Maybe put
chains on the doors to keep them from swinging all the way out, or
hinges that stop at 95-100 degrees.
-Kevin
Charlie Groh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:37:22 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>> hi all
>>>
>>> I hope it's ok posting this question here - it's a bit of
>>> woodworking and a bit cabinet making!
>>>
>>> Please see this image;
>>> http://s307.photobucket.com/albums/nn281/jzfredricks/?action=view¤t=cabinet.jpg
>>>
>>> It's not the best, but hopefully it's enough. I'm thinking of making
>>> something like this, and one thing that I can't quite work out is
>>> how the hinges work.
>>>
>>> If you look closely, you'll see the doors aren't perpendicular to
>>> the base, but rather are on a slight angle.
>>
>> Are you sure of that? Have you actually seen the object?
>>
>> More likely is that the object is distorted in the photo because the
>> top is closer to the camera than the bottom; that makes the sides
>> *look* tapered.
>
> ...bingo, give the man a ceeeeegar. I'm getting into architectural
> photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
> *not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut
FWIW, depending on your standards and intended market, it doesn't have to be
all that expensive. Any decent photo editor can correct that sort of
distortion, at the sacrifice of some pixels and a bit of genloss.
Another option is to use an extreme wide angle held level and then crop out
the bottom half of the picture--that if you maintain original aspect ratio
costs you 3/4 of your pixels though--that might be fine though for small
prints.
The "right" but expensive way to do it is a lens with shifts.
> (I believe
> Robotoy found one of the same doors that got close, but you'll notice
> it still isn't quite correct). If you want to swing doors off of
> jambs that are not plumb with doors shaped to match, and french no
> less, well, buckle up. Best idea I've seen is to "pocket" them and
> even that would be funky, imagine the jamb sides when the doors are in
> the open position. Now, a paralellogram-shaped opening...heh...
>
>
> cg
Charlie Groh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:53:49 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Charlie Groh wrote:
>>>> I'm getting into architectural
>>>> photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
>>>> *not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut
>>>
>>> Tough, no; expensive, can be but not necessarily.
>>>
>>> All you need is a view camera with tilting/sliding/rising/falling
>>> front and back. Biggest problem IMO is that when you correct for
>>> converging lines you get a "flat iron" appearance. My preferance
>>> was/is partial correction - after all, lines *do* appear to
>>> converge when we look at them - to avoid camera induced
>>> accentuation of same.
>>>
>>> As far as expense goes, you can easily find a decent used camera
>>> such as Cambo/Calumet, Omega etc. *with* lens for around $500. Toyo
>>> too but probably a bit more. One does not *have* to have a Sinar :)
>>>
>>
>> A set of rubber tanks, some 4x5 hangers, a big enlarger... *drools*.
>> I loved that hobby.
>>
>> The 'correction' of the cabinet posted by the OP I did in Photoshop.
>> Very sloppily done on the fly with the 'distort transform*
>>
>> And you are correct. It looks way nicer to do a partial correction.
>> Btw, Nikon and leica and i believe Contax all made (or still make) a
>> lens or two with mechanical correction capability. I think the Nikon
>> had a focal length of 35 mm.
>> I have also seen mini bellows used on a Contax RTS.
>
> ...I've gotten a decent wide angle that will do for now...doubt if
> I'll ever go the bellows route, there's some nice software to help
> correct, too. You guys sound like you know the biz...I tend to spend
> money when I think it'll solve a problem, not at the expense of
> knowledge vis-a-vis the goal, but to achieve maximum speed...and
> maximum may be minimum in many circumstances...
FWIW, Nikon has three tilt/shift lenses in the current line, from 24-85mm,
and Canon has four, from 17-90mm.
None of them are particularly cheap.
The Ukrainians are making a 35mm 2.8 tilt/shift that can be had fairly
cheaply--there are two up on ebay right now for under 300 bucks, one in
Canon and the other in Nikon mount--search "Arsat shift" and include
descriptions and you'll find them and a lot of others. Not the greatest
lens ever made but decent enough, and the build quality is Soviet military
or better (the factory was producing them for the Soviet government before
the Fall, and from all accounts they've been improving the quality ever
since), which means it looks rough but everything works and it will take a
beating.
With any of these you want an eyepiece magnifier--the ones that Dealextreme
sells are usable and cheap (main problem is that they aren't parfocal--when
you change from low to high power you have to readjust them), the ones from
the camera manufacturers are generally better but not necessarily enough so
to justify the cost differential. The reason you want the magnifier is that
none of the tilt/shift lenses are autofocus, with the lens off-axis any
focusing aids in the viewfinder are iffy, and just forget about the focus
confirmation getting you close enough.
In article <[email protected]>
jzfredricks <[email protected]> writes:
>On Feb 25, 9:37 pm, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Are you sure of that? Have you actually seen the object?
>>
>> More likely is that the object is distorted in the photo because the top is
>> closer to the camera than the bottom; that makes the sides *look* tapered.
>
>Yeah, it was I who took the photo. I've several others, but that's the
>best one :)
In that case, did you open the doors and see how they hinged?
Funky stuff like that is popular with scifi shows. One thing I
commonly see is that the doors pivot on a vertical axis that is
inset from the "hinge" side of the door. So the bulk of the door
comes out while a narrow strip along the side goes into the cabinet.
No clue how you build that. I'm still trying to figure out why the
garage hasn't built anything with all of the tools that I bought
and put out there. (Spring, and fewer excuses, will soon be here.)
--
Drew Lawson | Savage bed foot-warmer
| of purest feline ancestry
| Look out little furry folk
| it's the all-night working cat
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:53:49 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Groh wrote:
>> > I'm getting into architectural
>> > photography and one of the *big* deals is converging lines...how to
>> > *not* get converging lines is a tough...and expensive...nut
>>
>> Tough, no; expensive, can be but not necessarily.
>>
>> All you need is a view camera with tilting/sliding/rising/falling front and
>> back. Biggest problem IMO is that when you correct for converging lines you
>> get a "flat iron" appearance. My preferance was/is partial correction -
>> after all, lines *do* appear to converge when we look at them - to avoid
>> camera induced accentuation of same.
>>
>> As far as expense goes, you can easily find a decent used camera such as
>> Cambo/Calumet, Omega etc. *with* lens for around $500. Toyo too but
>> probably a bit more. One does not *have* to have a Sinar :)
>>
>
>A set of rubber tanks, some 4x5 hangers, a big enlarger... *drools*. I
>loved that hobby.
>
>The 'correction' of the cabinet posted by the OP I did in Photoshop.
>Very sloppily done on the fly with the 'distort transform*
>
>And you are correct. It looks way nicer to do a partial correction.
>Btw, Nikon and leica and i believe Contax all made (or still make) a
>lens or two with mechanical correction capability. I think the Nikon
>had a focal length of 35 mm.
>I have also seen mini bellows used on a Contax RTS.
...I've gotten a decent wide angle that will do for now...doubt if
I'll ever go the bellows route, there's some nice software to help
correct, too. You guys sound like you know the biz...I tend to spend
money when I think it'll solve a problem, not at the expense of
knowledge vis-a-vis the goal, but to achieve maximum speed...and
maximum may be minimum in many circumstances...
cg