This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Pano-mania
p.16 #1Pano-mania
The first shot is very nice! I find the others do have too narrow depth of field, which I don't find adds to these particular shots. Still a neat effect, but somehow (for my taste), less effective as photographs.
Aug 15, 2011 at 01:44 AM
p.16 #2Pano-mania
denoir wrote:
I should add that I'm not following that advice myself as I can't resist the temptation of shooting at max aperture, but I've seen over and over again that it's problematic. My biggest problem though are geometrical distortions and projections. I don't know the exact nodal points (i.e exit pupil position) for the lenses I use which becomes problematic when you shoot close ups. Furthermore when doing close up shots (as part of wide angle panos) the fact that you have spherical geometry rather than a planar focal plane becomes obvious. I've been thinking about if one could perhaps motorize...Show more →
Using a motorized solution to shift the lens and the back (you couldn't use a gigapan) would preserve the flat focal plane, but your pano size would be limited by the size of your image circle. For modern 35mm TS lenses, that's ~67mm, or about five shots.
You'd only get really huge panos if you used large format lenses on a view camera, in which case it would make more sense just to shoot film instead of dragging around the home-brew gigapan, a view camera, a DSLR back adapter, a DSLR, and two tripods and fifty pounds of sandbags to dampen the vibration from your motor unit.
I should add that I'm not following that advice myself as I can't resist the temptation of shooting at max aperture, but I've seen over and over again that it's problematic. My biggest problem though are geometrical distortions and projections. I don't know the exact nodal points (i.e exit pupil position) for the lenses I use which becomes problematic when you shoot close ups. Furthermore when doing close up shots (as part of wide angle panos) the fact that you have spherical geometry rather than a planar focal plane becomes obvious. I've been thinking about if one could perhaps motorize...Show more →
Using a motorized solution to shift the lens and the back (you couldn't use a gigapan) would preserve the flat focal plane, but your pano size would be limited by the size of your image circle. For modern 35mm TS lenses, that's ~67mm, or about five shots.
You'd only get really huge panos if you used large format lenses on a view camera, in which case it would make more sense just to shoot film instead of dragging around the home-brew gigapan, a view camera, a DSLR back adapter, a DSLR, and two tripods and fifty pounds of sandbags to dampen the vibration from your motor unit.
Aug 15, 2011 at 06:07 AM
p.16 #3Pano-mania
More banal research . . .
Possibly overkill, or splitting hairs unnecessarily, but here is a comparison of image handling that I produced today, and thought it might be of interest regarding post processing of the images that make up the panoramas.
This set features four shots taken with a humble Canon G6 as individual 4MP fine jpg files, four shots, processed with LR3 and PSE8. All three of the variations below are from the same original four shots.
All shots were vertical, at the widest 7.2mm focal length (35mm -- FF equiv.), at f/4.0.
The first version is straight OOC from the original jpg, stitched on the Auto setting in PSE8. You'll notice it is stretched, most noticably on the sides, increasing the image magnification slightly (more evident in the 100% close-up further down the page). The stitch was imported into LR3, and slight modified for exposure and not much more.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rosebushpano1-2-3.jpg
The second version was OOC as well, but stitched in the Cylindrical setting in PSE8. Imported into LR3 for similar tweaks in PP, but slightly more extensive, including +13 on Manual Distortion and -3 on Vertical.
There isn't much difference in details between 1 and 2, but I'd say the look has been enhanced in 2, but compressing the sides, removing some of the added "barrel" distortion from combining the images, and the slightly richer color in 2.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rosebushpano2-2-3.jpg
The third version was imported into LR3 where each individual file was (mildly) processed as though it were for web reproduction, including some NR, and Sharpening to 20. Distortion was increased to +17.
It is always hard to predict how images will reproduce on web forums. In this case, all the images are lighter and sharper than on my LR3 and Photobucket screens. Please don't evaluate the images on whether the exposure or color matches.
The point is whether or not pre- or post- image processing will provide the results you want.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rosebushpano3rework-2-4.jpg
Here are the 100% details of the above variations. The first shows the increased magnification (looks more zoomed-in) and the reduced fine details (noticably in the roses and roof vents) due to no added sharpening. The second shows the benefit of PP on the stitched image. Greatest improvement (although slightly over-sharpened) comes from the third version where the images are processed before stitching.
Keep in mind that PSE8 introduces exposure and sharpening controls of its own to "fix" and blend images. I'm sure other programs do the same, so pre-stitch PP is sort of a learning experience to determine how much is enought without overdoing it.
Version 1 detail
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rose-bush-pano1-2-2-crop-2.jpg
Version 2 detail
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rose-bush-pano2-2-2-crop-2.jpg
Version 3 detail
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rose-bush-pano3-rework-2-2--2.jpg
The net result is that it is possible to generate quality images via panoramas from modest low-MP cameras like the G6 (and even P&S), as well as the earlier DSLRs like the Canon 1D and Nikon D1X.
But . . . straight OOC jpgs are somewhat lacking, and to get the most out of them, they will benefit most from processing prior to stitching, although PP on the stitched image is not without merit. I usually shoot RAW in DSLR and make my mods first in LR3 before moving to the stitching, but have been curious how jpgs would do instead. Not bad at all!
I'm prepping-up for an Alaskan cruise where I hope to get some decent panos with the 60D and G6. At least I now know I have a fighting chance, if the G6 is all I feel like carrying around. And jpgs, yet! Who woulda thunk it?
Possibly overkill, or splitting hairs unnecessarily, but here is a comparison of image handling that I produced today, and thought it might be of interest regarding post processing of the images that make up the panoramas.
This set features four shots taken with a humble Canon G6 as individual 4MP fine jpg files, four shots, processed with LR3 and PSE8. All three of the variations below are from the same original four shots.
All shots were vertical, at the widest 7.2mm focal length (35mm -- FF equiv.), at f/4.0.
The first version is straight OOC from the original jpg, stitched on the Auto setting in PSE8. You'll notice it is stretched, most noticably on the sides, increasing the image magnification slightly (more evident in the 100% close-up further down the page). The stitch was imported into LR3, and slight modified for exposure and not much more.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rosebushpano1-2-3.jpg
The second version was OOC as well, but stitched in the Cylindrical setting in PSE8. Imported into LR3 for similar tweaks in PP, but slightly more extensive, including +13 on Manual Distortion and -3 on Vertical.
There isn't much difference in details between 1 and 2, but I'd say the look has been enhanced in 2, but compressing the sides, removing some of the added "barrel" distortion from combining the images, and the slightly richer color in 2.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rosebushpano2-2-3.jpg
The third version was imported into LR3 where each individual file was (mildly) processed as though it were for web reproduction, including some NR, and Sharpening to 20. Distortion was increased to +17.
It is always hard to predict how images will reproduce on web forums. In this case, all the images are lighter and sharper than on my LR3 and Photobucket screens. Please don't evaluate the images on whether the exposure or color matches.
The point is whether or not pre- or post- image processing will provide the results you want.http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rosebushpano3rework-2-4.jpg
Here are the 100% details of the above variations. The first shows the increased magnification (looks more zoomed-in) and the reduced fine details (noticably in the roses and roof vents) due to no added sharpening. The second shows the benefit of PP on the stitched image. Greatest improvement (although slightly over-sharpened) comes from the third version where the images are processed before stitching.
Keep in mind that PSE8 introduces exposure and sharpening controls of its own to "fix" and blend images. I'm sure other programs do the same, so pre-stitch PP is sort of a learning experience to determine how much is enought without overdoing it.
Version 1 detail
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rose-bush-pano1-2-2-crop-2.jpg
Version 2 detail
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rose-bush-pano2-2-2-crop-2.jpg
Version 3 detail
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Rose-bush-pano3-rework-2-2--2.jpg
The net result is that it is possible to generate quality images via panoramas from modest low-MP cameras like the G6 (and even P&S), as well as the earlier DSLRs like the Canon 1D and Nikon D1X.
But . . . straight OOC jpgs are somewhat lacking, and to get the most out of them, they will benefit most from processing prior to stitching, although PP on the stitched image is not without merit. I usually shoot RAW in DSLR and make my mods first in LR3 before moving to the stitching, but have been curious how jpgs would do instead. Not bad at all!
I'm prepping-up for an Alaskan cruise where I hope to get some decent panos with the 60D and G6. At least I now know I have a fighting chance, if the G6 is all I feel like carrying around. And jpgs, yet! Who woulda thunk it?
Aug 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM
p.16 #4Pano-mania
"Dexter's Kill Room"
Canon G6, 7.2mm (35mm equiv.), 1/60 @ f4.0, ISO 50, built-in flash. 10 shot pano in two rows of five jpg images, PP in LR3 and PSE8.
Cheers!
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/DextersKillRoompano-2-2.jpg
Canon G6, 7.2mm (35mm equiv.), 1/60 @ f4.0, ISO 50, built-in flash. 10 shot pano in two rows of five jpg images, PP in LR3 and PSE8.
Cheers!
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/DextersKillRoompano-2-2.jpg
Aug 15, 2011 at 09:28 PM
p.16 #5Pano-mania
The third shot is stunning! The last one is very nice too.
Aug 16, 2011 at 04:18 PM
p.16 #6Pano-mania
Amazing shots, absolutely love 3
Here is a pan with a 21 ZE
http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/2/86362/1801847/VT6S1395-Edit_1024.jpg
Here is a pan with a 21 ZE
http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/2/86362/1801847/VT6S1395-Edit_1024.jpg
Aug 16, 2011 at 04:19 PM
p.16 #8Pano-mania
Today, I was doing some testing/comparison between the D7000 (which I keep trying [unsuccessfully] to like) and the D1X (which I like, seemingly beyond explanation). During the course of the shots and the camera adjustments, I (naturally and compulsively) made a couple quick panos at the end with the D1X.
8 vertical shots with 35/1.8 DX, jpgs at f/4, ISO 125.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/D1Xpano-2-3.jpg
3 horizontal shots with same as above.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/D1Xpano2-2-3.jpg
PS -- I see after posting that these again come out lighter (highlights blown) and sharpened, much more than what I placed on Photobucket. I'm trying to get a handle on where this elevated exposure and sharpening are coming in -- is it the FM site? Photobucket manipulating? It's particularly noticeable with jpgs, as they can't tolerate much PP with showing visible fringing and other artifacts. Anyone have any ideas how to better prepare images to get accurate "look" of the originals?
8 vertical shots with 35/1.8 DX, jpgs at f/4, ISO 125.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/D1Xpano-2-3.jpg
3 horizontal shots with same as above.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/D1Xpano2-2-3.jpg
PS -- I see after posting that these again come out lighter (highlights blown) and sharpened, much more than what I placed on Photobucket. I'm trying to get a handle on where this elevated exposure and sharpening are coming in -- is it the FM site? Photobucket manipulating? It's particularly noticeable with jpgs, as they can't tolerate much PP with showing visible fringing and other artifacts. Anyone have any ideas how to better prepare images to get accurate "look" of the originals?
Aug 17, 2011 at 05:48 PM
p.16 #9Pano-mania
http://www.dementlieu.com/users/obik/fpics/sm_MG_2167_MG_2230_MG_2231c.jpg
larger
It wasn't still enough OR windy enough to do what I wanted...
larger
It wasn't still enough OR windy enough to do what I wanted...
Aug 23, 2011 at 07:54 PM
p.16 #10Pano-mania
Obik, neat shot! Is that a swimming pool? Where is one meant to get in?
Aug 23, 2011 at 08:17 PM
p.16 #11Pano-mania
carstenw wrote:
Obik, neat shot! Is that a swimming pool? Where is one meant to get in?
Glad you like it.
Yeah, it's a pool. There are four entrances--two service entrances off to my left, a truck entrance off to my right, and the main entrance is on the other side of the pool, out of frame on the right side. I'm probably gonna shoot the opposite of this pano (one light in the middle, dark bamboo on either side) since I'm not entirely happy with the composition.
Obik, neat shot! Is that a swimming pool? Where is one meant to get in?
Glad you like it.
Yeah, it's a pool. There are four entrances--two service entrances off to my left, a truck entrance off to my right, and the main entrance is on the other side of the pool, out of frame on the right side. I'm probably gonna shoot the opposite of this pano (one light in the middle, dark bamboo on either side) since I'm not entirely happy with the composition.
Aug 23, 2011 at 08:58 PM
p.16 #12Pano-mania
A truck entrance? I meant how does one get in the water without damaging the plants. I hope no trucks get in 
Aug 23, 2011 at 09:14 PM
p.16 #13Pano-mania
One more technical test type of shot. The background can be found in this thread with some guy making an 8x10 digital back for product photography. I wondered why he did not just use a scanning back and it was pointed out that strobes + scanning backs were a bad combination. So I was curious if one could work with a panorama shot + strobes for product photography.
I jerry-rigged a crude soft box with two strobes (the built in on the 7D and an external slave) with a metal camera case serving as a reflector. I should point out that I know nothing about setting up lighting so it's probably all wrong:
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001_setup.jpg
I used a 100mm macro lens and adjusted the whole thing to produce an equivalent to a 4x5 large format image (~50 or so images in the pano):
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001.jpg
100% crops:
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001_crop1.jpg
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001_crop2.jpg
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001_crop3.jpg
It woked... sort of. There were some stitching issues, but the strobe thing worked as expected. I would still not really recommend such a set up for product photography. Any close ups require very exact adjustments of the pivot of the lens as to minimize parallax, and you still can't avoid getting a spherical focal 'plane' (although that's not too problematic when you shoot at small apertures).
I jerry-rigged a crude soft box with two strobes (the built in on the 7D and an external slave) with a metal camera case serving as a reflector. I should point out that I know nothing about setting up lighting so it's probably all wrong:
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001_setup.jpg
I used a 100mm macro lens and adjusted the whole thing to produce an equivalent to a 4x5 large format image (~50 or so images in the pano):
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001.jpg
100% crops:
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001_crop1.jpg
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001_crop2.jpg
http://peltarion.eu/img/pano/p-001_crop3.jpg
It woked... sort of. There were some stitching issues, but the strobe thing worked as expected. I would still not really recommend such a set up for product photography. Any close ups require very exact adjustments of the pivot of the lens as to minimize parallax, and you still can't avoid getting a spherical focal 'plane' (although that's not too problematic when you shoot at small apertures).
Aug 24, 2011 at 02:00 PM
p.16 #14Pano-mania
Luka -- Great images and very informative too! Thanks, as always.
Here are a few overcast panos from my recent trip up the Alaska panhandle via cruise ship. All with Canon 60D and 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS lens, except the Ketchikan hillside that used the Zeiss Contax 50/1.4.
Ketchikan waterfront from 10th deck, from near bow.
15mm, 1/250 @ f/8, ISO 400
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Ketchicanwaterfront-2-2.jpg
Ketchikan hillside from 10th deck, from stern.
50mm Zeiss, 1/160 @ f/5.6, ISO 200
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Ketchicanhillside-2-2.jpg
Tracy Fjord Glacier and crowd on 10th deck aft. (Yes, those are raindrops on the filter showing up prominently -- very photo-journalistic, eh?)
15mm, 1/200 @ f/8, ISO 400
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/TracyFjordGlacier-2-2.jpg
Juneau Harbor from State office building, 8th floor plaza.
32mm vertical (10 shots), 1/250 @ f/6.3, ISO 400
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Juneauharborpano-2-2.jpg
Here are a few overcast panos from my recent trip up the Alaska panhandle via cruise ship. All with Canon 60D and 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS lens, except the Ketchikan hillside that used the Zeiss Contax 50/1.4.
Ketchikan waterfront from 10th deck, from near bow.
15mm, 1/250 @ f/8, ISO 400
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Ketchicanwaterfront-2-2.jpg
Ketchikan hillside from 10th deck, from stern.
50mm Zeiss, 1/160 @ f/5.6, ISO 200
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Ketchicanhillside-2-2.jpg
Tracy Fjord Glacier and crowd on 10th deck aft. (Yes, those are raindrops on the filter showing up prominently -- very photo-journalistic, eh?)
15mm, 1/200 @ f/8, ISO 400
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/TracyFjordGlacier-2-2.jpg
Juneau Harbor from State office building, 8th floor plaza.
32mm vertical (10 shots), 1/250 @ f/6.3, ISO 400
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Juneauharborpano-2-2.jpg
Aug 30, 2011 at 04:49 PM
p.16 #15Pano-mania
Quandary-Peak-Pano by nerdvac, on Flickr
Fuji F31. Crunched in photoshop. Might have to print this one up as a 10x20
Aug 30, 2011 at 05:25 PM
p.16 #16Pano-mania
The large version will make your brain itch.
http://www.dementlieu.com/users/obik/fpics/sm_MG_2954_MG_2957b.jpg
larger
http://www.dementlieu.com/users/obik/fpics/sm_MG_2954_MG_2957b.jpg
larger
Sep 05, 2011 at 07:11 PM
p.16 #17Pano-mania
16 shots, Yashica 50mm F2.0 ML on a Canon 7D. Handheld, stitched in ICE, processed in CS5.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6122535366_d5480387d1_o.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6122535366_d5480387d1_o.jpg
Sep 06, 2011 at 07:44 PM
p.16 #18Pano-mania
Campx, Outstanding pano. beautiful image. feels like I'm looking out of a window. wow!
Sep 08, 2011 at 09:43 PM
p.16 #19Pano-mania
8-frame panos from the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. This Android tablet has a 3MP rear-facing camera which can stitch in either orientation (examples below are portrait mode for a less elongated result). The pano is never flawless, but it's easy, automated and fast.
Sep 15, 2011 at 02:08 AM
p.16 #20Pano-mania
here's a low light handheld pano, rokkor 24/2.8 wide open, 10 shots portrait orientation, roughly 170 degrees:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6152119748_2860138efe_o.jpg
should have probably stopped down, increased shutter speed, and increased iso.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6152119748_2860138efe_o.jpg
should have probably stopped down, increased shutter speed, and increased iso.
Sep 16, 2011 at 01:13 AM