Author Topic: Panoramas (Read 19259 times)

madelaide · « **Reply #25 on:** February 14, 2013, 12:33 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on February 13, 2013, 11:10

You should be using at least a panoramic head to avoid parallax, but you can use a macro rail instead for single-row panos. You will need a spherical head (on your tripod, no surgery required) for multi-row panoramas. Most appropriate outlet for these is a specialist agency; these panoramas can be a lot of work, and I very much doubt RF pricing will generate a positive return.

Wow, a lot of technical info. Maybe it's the landscape panoramas I've built, the best ones were shot with a non-wide angle setting, so I don't have big parallax problems? Some with wide angle lenses do present a lot of distortion. The other day I shot in a stadium and I was at a corner. The stitching itself looked good, but the overall look was a bit odd - one would say the stadium was not oval.

Still, the wide view is appealing.

I haven't tried multi-row yet, but I planned to.

fotografer · « **Reply #26 on:** February 14, 2013, 13:14 »

Quote from: rubyroo on February 14, 2013, 04:05

Wow. Fotovoyager. Just looked at your website and have been clicking the the 'stories'. SUCH beautiful work. Congratulations on your fabulousness.

Double wow. What beautiful images.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #27 on:** February 14, 2013, 13:55 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 14, 2013, 12:33

Quote from: Pinocchio on February 13, 2013, 11:10
You should be using at least a panoramic head to avoid parallax, but you can use a macro rail instead for single-row panos. You will need a spherical head (on your tripod, no surgery required) for multi-row panoramas. Most appropriate outlet for these is a specialist agency; these panoramas can be a lot of work, and I very much doubt RF pricing will generate a positive return.

Wow, a lot of technical info. Maybe it's the landscape panoramas I've built, the best ones were shot with a non-wide angle setting, so I don't have big parallax problems? Some with wide angle lenses do present a lot of distortion. The other day I shot in a stadium and I was at a corner. The stitching itself looked good, but the overall look was a bit odd - one would say the stadium was not oval. Still, the wide view is appealing.

I haven't tried multi-row yet, but I planned to.

There's nothing particularly different about multi-row panos, except they may not look very much like the panoroamic shape. This is one that was forced on me by circumstance (long lens and a close subject) http://fineartamerica.com/featured/ancient-olive-paul-cowan.html

It was hand held, no expensive tripod head involved, and even though the subject was close parallax error does not seem to have been an issue. I think I selected "spherical" as the stitching mode.

You're absolutely right about telephotos working better than wide angle lenses on these. They have much less edge distortion.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #28 on:** February 14, 2013, 15:51 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 14, 2013, 12:33

Quote from: Pinocchio on February 13, 2013, 11:10
You should be using at least a panoramic head to avoid parallax, but you can use a macro rail instead for single-row panos. You will need a spherical head (on your tripod, no surgery required) for multi-row panoramas. Most appropriate outlet for these is a specialist agency; these panoramas can be a lot of work, and I very much doubt RF pricing will generate a positive return.
Wow, a lot of technical info. Maybe it's the landscape panoramas I've built, the best ones were shot with a non-wide angle setting, so I don't have big parallax problems? Some with wide angle lenses do present a lot of distortion. The other day I shot in a stadium and I was at a corner. The stitching itself looked good, but the overall look was a bit odd - one would say the stadium was not oval. Still, the wide view is appealing.

I haven't tried multi-row yet, but I planned to.

Parallax is most visible when you have something "close" to the camera. If most of your subject is "distant", you will have less parallax and it may be insignificant or invisible. Precise meaning of terms in "" is vague, and a matter of degree. You can definitely shoot panos quite effectively hand-held, easier with longer lenses. Wide-angle lenses can produce panoramas that look curved, and can be hard to straighten.

I have CS4, don't know anything about CS6, but I am a great fan of PTGUI for stitching. With that context, I'm not aware of any functionality in CS4 that addresses the question of lense distortion. It should have at least some such functionality because distortion hampers automatic identification of matching points, used to align overlapping images. Ironically, 360-degree panos are most often shot with fisheyes....

CS4 does not allow me to choose the projection for the pano, PTGUI does. If the field of view of the panorama becomes too large, it precludes the use of some of the available projections; this may explain why you think the stadium looks odd...

Panoramas are a little like macro in that both reveal details not otherwise visible.

Regards

Pinocchio · « **Reply #29 on:** February 14, 2013, 16:00 »

Youtube has an entertaining and enlightening set of 6 videos by an Irish fellow called Florian Knorn; these show creation of a 360-degree panorama shoot to final. No tripod for him, he's mastered the philopod and has a fisheye lense he likes. No kidding... Just search for "Florian Knorn"..

Regards

a1bercik · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2013, 16:05 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on February 13, 2013, 11:33

Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.

I do. But the subject is cityscapes. I recommend Autopano software.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #31 on:** February 14, 2013, 16:27 »

Pinocchio, CS4 offers a limited range of different projections. It's in the File menu >automate>photomerge and in the dialogue box it offers perspective/cylindrical/spherical etc.

I think the problem with wide angle lenses is that they already apply a rectilinear correction (assuming it's not a fish-eye) based on the centre point of the composition. If you have a large angle between the two images you try to merge and they have already been quite heavily corrected then there is going to be a mis-match between those correcitons. With a telephoto, you get a larger number of images with much less correction between the centre and the edge, so the stitching program has less work to do trying to match them.

sharpshot · « **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2013, 18:05 »

Does anyone use Hugin?

madelaide · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2013, 20:44 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on February 14, 2013, 15:51

Wide-angle lenses can produce panoramas that look curved, and can be hard to straighten.

Like this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adelaidephotos/8404232228/#in/set-72157632549995542

Not very marketable as stock, I guess, but still a fun image to play with, maybe marketable as a poster. Sky needs adjustment.

In fact PODs are one option I am considering for the panos.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #34 on:** February 15, 2013, 01:03 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 14, 2013, 18:05

Does anyone use Hugin?

I used to use it all the time but now I keep it as a backup.

Madelaide, Hugin might be useful for that lake of yours. You could try it with all sorts of different projections to see how it came out. With something like that, it's possible that the fisheye projection might look better than whichever you are using, but there are loads of other options, too. However, lakes do look tend to look lenticular, what with them being flat and all. A background feature helps. This is stitched in CS4 using cylindrical projection http://fineartamerica.com/featured/lake-kournas-on-crete-paul-cowan.html

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #35 on:** February 15, 2013, 03:48 »

I use Photoshop to stitch my panoramas. The upgrade to CS6 is worth the money for the excellent wide angle distortion correction tool - it really makes it easy to correct the bendiness you get in some panoramas.

I shoot handheld (though I've had a lot of practice) unless exposure times necessitate a tripod. I think you only need to worry about parallax for interiors or very close up stuff. Many of these errors can be corrected in post.

meldayus · « **Reply #36 on:** February 15, 2013, 16:31 »

I use Photoshop too. I keep meaning to investigate some of the specialist panorama programs out there, but haven't gotten around to it yet. That said, I'm pretty happy with Photoshop - just always wondering if there's anything better out there.

madelaide · « **Reply #37 on:** February 15, 2013, 17:44 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 15, 2013, 01:03

Madelaide, Hugin might be useful for that lake of yours.

I think I tried hugin a long time ago, the name is familiar. In which way would it be useful, for the general look or the polarized sky?

I think the very-wide-angle look may be the attractive point in a pano, more than just an image that looks like a regular one that is cropped. It' s bit too much in the previous, but I like it here:

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #38 on:** February 15, 2013, 17:49 »

Quote from: meldayus on February 15, 2013, 16:31

I use Photoshop too. I keep meaning to investigate some of the specialist panorama programs out there, but haven't gotten around to it yet. That said, I'm pretty happy with Photoshop - just always wondering if there's anything better out there.

Hugin is better in terms of offering a huge number of different projections, if you need them, and it doesn't get stuck the way earlier versions of PS do (not sure if the later ones also get confused) because you go in and organise the matching points in the images yourself. But it takes a lot more effort.

I stitched this using the fisheye option in Hugin http://fineartamerica.com/featured/venice-looking-east-paul-cowan.html which helped get around problems with bits of the tower I was in intruding too much into the picture, I don't think PS does fisheye projections, does it?

****
Madelaide, using a different projection might help that lake, but I'm really not sure. I doubt if it would help the sky - and is that polarised or is it a different exposure? Are you setting your exposure manually and sticking to the same thing in each shot? Normally there is only lens vignetting that needs correcting, not a dark central area.

meldayus · « **Reply #39 on:** February 15, 2013, 18:12 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 15, 2013, 17:49

Hugin is better in terms of offering a huge number of different projections, if you need them, and it doesn't get stuck the way earlier versions of PS do (not sure if the later ones also get confused) because you go in and organise the matching points in the images yourself. But it takes a lot more effort.

I stitched this using the fisheye option in Hugin http://fineartamerica.com/featured/venice-looking-east-paul-cowan.html which helped get around problems with bits of the tower I was in intruding too much into the picture, I don't think PS does fisheye projections, does it?

Paul, thanks. I've briefly looked at Hugin before, but always doubted that it would be better than Photoshop. However, your shot of Venice looks great, so I'll download a copy and see how it does on a few of my shots that Photoshop hasn't really been able to master. Cheers.

shotupdave · « **Reply #40 on:** February 16, 2013, 00:25 »

Has anyone used a giga pan head?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #41 on:** February 16, 2013, 01:18 »

Quote from: shotupdave on February 16, 2013, 00:25

Has anyone used a giga pan head?

I have the original in the closet if anyone needs one. Reasonable...

I shoot handheld or on a tripod, longer lenses, like people have mentioned, not wide angle.

If you read the original gigapan instructions, it was full zoom, some people shooting with extenders on the P&S cameras. Pretty much manual to avoid the changes in exposure and sometimes, manual focus sometimes works better too, except for the outer edge shots.

Kolor Autopano Pro blends and merges and corrects for parallax, so you don't need a pano head and special nodal point rotation. That's nice for big wide pans and 360s, but that's not what these 100 degree view and less involve.

This one was taken without a tripod with a 400MM lens. (just to be clear, I use a monopod) Much easier for hiking and easy to clip on a belt or use for a walking stick.

Mississippi: (14200x5480) 77MP anyone?

Mount Hosmer, Iowa: (only 54MP)

And A Gigapan taken with a 40D hand held.

http://gigapan.com/gigapans/16045

madelaide · « **Reply #42 on:** February 17, 2013, 14:24 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 15, 2013, 17:49

Madelaide, using a different projection might help that lake, but I'm really not sure. I doubt if it would help the sky - and is that polarised or is it a different exposure? Are you setting your exposure manually and sticking to the same thing in each shot? Normally there is only lens vignetting that needs correcting, not a dark central area.

I used a polarizer in the photos shot for the other lake, I'm sure. I have noticed in my manual stitched workflow that this can be an extra problem, because even with the same exposure, tones may vary in the overlapping areas.
Anyway, the Venice show is quite amazing! What is a multi-row stitch?

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #43 on:** February 17, 2013, 14:43 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 17, 2013, 14:24

I used a polarizer in the photos shot for the other lake, I'm sure. I have noticed in my manual stitched workflow that this can be an extra problem, because even with the same exposure, tones may vary in the overlapping areas.

You definitely shouldn't use a polariser for any stitched panorama.

You do see that variance in blue luminance across the sky on wide angle panos anyway but a polariser will make it much worse.

Poncke · « **Reply #44 on:** February 17, 2013, 14:44 »

Multi row stitch is more than one row of photos.

📖📖📖📖📖📖📖📖📖📖
📖📖📖📖📖📖📖📖📖📖

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #45 on:** February 17, 2013, 15:58 »

Yes, that's it.

You're better without a polariser. The sky is polarised at different degrees at different angles from the sun so even if it didn't create a complete mis-match you would still have strange variation across the sky.

a1bercik · « **Reply #46 on:** February 17, 2013, 16:03 »

Quote from: shotupdave on February 16, 2013, 00:25

Has anyone used a giga pan head?

I use it - great tool. Can't use Hugin on my Mac, it hangs the box... and Photoshop exports need really attention - sometimes I had ghosts, sometimes exposure problems - it takes too much time to fix for me. Don't know other software.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #47 on:** February 18, 2013, 01:28 »

I tried ICE with some of mine and it just says 0% and nothing happens. Probably my old XP computer with 2GB memory, or the files are too big. Uninstalled, and I'll try again fresh tomorrow. I thought it worked a year or two ago. Odd.

Quote from: a1bercik on February 17, 2013, 16:03

Quote from: shotupdave on February 16, 2013, 00:25
Has anyone used a giga pan head?

I use it - great tool. Can't use Hugin on my Mac, it hangs the box... and Photoshop exports need really attention - sometimes I had ghosts, sometimes exposure problems - it takes too much time to fix for me. Don't know other software.

Poncke · « **Reply #48 on:** February 18, 2013, 08:51 »

ICE is very limited.

shotupdave · « **Reply #49 on:** February 18, 2013, 16:02 »

Quote from: a1bercik on February 17, 2013, 16:03

Quote from: shotupdave on February 16, 2013, 00:25
Has anyone used a giga pan head?

I use it - great tool. Can't use Hugin on my Mac, it hangs the box... and Photoshop exports need really attention - sometimes I had ghosts, sometimes exposure problems - it takes too much time to fix for me. Don't know other software.

I am thinking purchases one, can you show some examples?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Panoramas (Read 19259 times)

madelaide

fotografer

BaldricksTrousers

Pinocchio

Pinocchio

a1bercik

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

madelaide

BaldricksTrousers

fotoVoyager

meldayus

madelaide

BaldricksTrousers

meldayus

shotupdave

RacePhoto

madelaide

fotoVoyager

Poncke

BaldricksTrousers

a1bercik

RacePhoto

Poncke

shotupdave

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors