This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Pano-mania
p.3 #1Pano-mania
mengenlehre wrote:
In particular, I'd like to know if anyone has succeeded in stitching a group of (typically 5) photos obtained by shifting a lens from one end to the other (camera on tripod, of course).
Do you mean shifting the tripod 10-20 feet? Or shifting a tilt-shift lens?
The first will give you massive parallax problems unless you're shooting something that's perfectly flat, parallel to you, and with nondescript fore- and backgrounds. Staying parallel to your subject is a nightmare.
I did it successfully with a two shot pano. Results were...okayish. If there had been any detail in the building though, stitching would've been close to impossible, since in spite of my best efforts I wasn't even close to moving parallel to the building. If I had to do it again, I'd bring a tape measure and chalk out a line on the ground to follow. I'll dig out the pic and post it if you really want. It's the same building as my first picture and in the same style, and rather uninspiring.
The second is trivial.
Hugin automatic functions fail miserably and I have to struggle a lot to get just decent results. Before you ask: no big parallax issues.
Try stitching manually. In my limited experience, I've never had a software stitch come out looking nice. I've never had a software HDR come out looking nice either.
In particular, I'd like to know if anyone has succeeded in stitching a group of (typically 5) photos obtained by shifting a lens from one end to the other (camera on tripod, of course).
Do you mean shifting the tripod 10-20 feet? Or shifting a tilt-shift lens?
The first will give you massive parallax problems unless you're shooting something that's perfectly flat, parallel to you, and with nondescript fore- and backgrounds. Staying parallel to your subject is a nightmare.
I did it successfully with a two shot pano. Results were...okayish. If there had been any detail in the building though, stitching would've been close to impossible, since in spite of my best efforts I wasn't even close to moving parallel to the building. If I had to do it again, I'd bring a tape measure and chalk out a line on the ground to follow. I'll dig out the pic and post it if you really want. It's the same building as my first picture and in the same style, and rather uninspiring.
The second is trivial.
Hugin automatic functions fail miserably and I have to struggle a lot to get just decent results. Before you ask: no big parallax issues.
Try stitching manually. In my limited experience, I've never had a software stitch come out looking nice. I've never had a software HDR come out looking nice either.
Jun 03, 2011 at 03:39 PM
p.3 #2Pano-mania
Central Park, NYC:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=13067458
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8468680
Thailand:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12167896
Double-clicking on the images will make them full-size.
Robert DeCandido PhD
NYC
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=13067458
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8468680
Thailand:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12167896
Double-clicking on the images will make them full-size.
Robert DeCandido PhD
NYC
Jun 03, 2011 at 04:31 PM
p.3 #3Pano-mania
A thread I can handle 
Steel-Bridge-Pano by nerdvac, on Flickr
VS 35-70 @ 35 on a 20D
Burgundy-Sunset-Redux-3 by nerdvac, on Flickr
Same combo, not sure about specific focal length
Whitney-at-dawn by nerdvac, on Flickr
Fuji F31FD I wasn't about to lug a heavy camera to the top!
The-Seven-Devils by nerdvac, on Flickr
Canon 70-200/4 on a 5D. Near the 200 end iirc
Edited on Jun 03, 2011 at 04:46 PM · View previous versions
Steel-Bridge-Pano by nerdvac, on Flickr
VS 35-70 @ 35 on a 20D
Burgundy-Sunset-Redux-3 by nerdvac, on Flickr
Same combo, not sure about specific focal length
Whitney-at-dawn by nerdvac, on Flickr
Fuji F31FD
I wasn't about to lug a heavy camera to the top!The-Seven-Devils by nerdvac, on Flickr
Canon 70-200/4 on a 5D. Near the 200 end iirc
Edited on Jun 03, 2011 at 04:46 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2011 at 04:44 PM
p.3 #4Pano-mania
mengenlehre wrote:
In particular, I'd like to know if anyone has succeeded in stitching a group of (typically 5) photos obtained by shifting a lens from one end to the other (camera on tripod, of course). Hugin automatic functions fail miserably and I have to struggle a lot to get just decent results. Before you ask: no big parallax issues.
Assuming you mean stitching from a shift lens, Hugin can do it so long as you take partial manual control of the position optimization process. Instructions:
The same procedure should also work for stitching from moving the camera/tripod, but the results will probably not be as good. In that case, make sure all control points are on the plane of the main object you are translating along (not in the background with different parallax relations).
In particular, I'd like to know if anyone has succeeded in stitching a group of (typically 5) photos obtained by shifting a lens from one end to the other (camera on tripod, of course). Hugin automatic functions fail miserably and I have to struggle a lot to get just decent results. Before you ask: no big parallax issues.
Assuming you mean stitching from a shift lens, Hugin can do it so long as you take partial manual control of the position optimization process. Instructions:
- Do NOT let Hugin do everything automatically, but load the pictures and create control points between them.
- In the "Camera and Images" tab, select all the images and "unlink" the image center shift parameters (d,e).
- In the "Optimizer" tab, select "custom variables" in the top left "Optimize" menu.
- Un-check EVERY check box in the lists below, then re-check x- and y-shift (d,e) for all but the center image.
- Click the "Optimize Now!" button, and Hugin will optimize only the image shifts (which is what you wanted).
- Use the preview window to center/crop the image as you want.
- Generate stitched/blended output from the "Stitcher" tab (you probably want "rectilinear" projection).
The same procedure should also work for stitching from moving the camera/tripod, but the results will probably not be as good. In that case, make sure all control points are on the plane of the main object you are translating along (not in the background with different parallax relations).
Jun 03, 2011 at 04:46 PM
p.3 #5Pano-mania
Bifurcator wrote:
We should perhaps agree on a max width. It would make the thread a lot more enjoyable in the long run, I think. How about 1200? That should fit on most computers, but is a little larger than normal shots, which helps the presentation.No.
Besides Fred already defined it. "A reasonable height and just let run off the end as needed." (paraphrased).
I am on a 30" screen, 2560x1600 and some of the panoramas in this thread run off the right edge by quite a margin, maybe 40%, when my browser is full screen. This completely ruins my impression of the image as a whole, since I can only see a small chunk of it at a time, and imagine how people browsing on 15" and 17" laptops feel. Other panoramas here are maybe 600 wide, just thumbnail size, unless you click on to another site. This means that I have no way to just scroll down and see various panoramas, one after the other. I have to click a bunch and scroll a bunch, and honestly, if a panorama doesn't have anything at 1200 wide, it just won't be effective on any screen, and should be put on a wall.
I think I will go start my own thread on getdpi with 1200 wide panoramas. I find that the presentation differences here totally ruin the experience.
Sorry to sound so harsh, but it is just the way I feel (for this thread only).
carstenw wrote
Well, we now have panos in all different sizes We should perhaps agree on a max width. It would make the thread a lot more enjoyable in the long run, I think. How about 1200? That should fit on most computers, but is a little larger than normal shots, which helps the presentation.Besides Fred already defined it. "A reasonable height and just let run off the end as needed." (paraphrased).
I am on a 30" screen, 2560x1600 and some of the panoramas in this thread run off the right edge by quite a margin, maybe 40%, when my browser is full screen. This completely ruins my impression of the image as a whole, since I can only see a small chunk of it at a time, and imagine how people browsing on 15" and 17" laptops feel. Other panoramas here are maybe 600 wide, just thumbnail size, unless you click on to another site. This means that I have no way to just scroll down and see various panoramas, one after the other. I have to click a bunch and scroll a bunch, and honestly, if a panorama doesn't have anything at 1200 wide, it just won't be effective on any screen, and should be put on a wall.
I think I will go start my own thread on getdpi with 1200 wide panoramas. I find that the presentation differences here totally ruin the experience.
Sorry to sound so harsh, but it is just the way I feel (for this thread only).
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:15 PM
p.3 #6Pano-mania
Many incredible shots! Too many to compliment :-)
Here's one with Voigtlander 180mm f/4 on a 5D2, not entirely sure but about 14 pictures vertical handheld, always wanted to capture those sunrays in their entirety.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/80257/voigtlander/solstafir_pano_small.jpg
(For those interested, here's a much larger version]
Here's one with Voigtlander 180mm f/4 on a 5D2, not entirely sure but about 14 pictures vertical handheld, always wanted to capture those sunrays in their entirety.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/80257/voigtlander/solstafir_pano_small.jpg
(For those interested, here's a much larger version]
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:32 PM
p.3 #7Pano-mania
from Devil's Punchbowl Natural Area; CY 35-70 on 5D:
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_devilschair.jpg
an older one from Rio Tinto, Spain; IR-converted Nikon 950:
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_irpano.jpg
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_devilschair.jpg
an older one from Rio Tinto, Spain; IR-converted Nikon 950:
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_irpano.jpg
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:34 PM
p.3 #8Pano-mania
carstenw wrote:
I am on a 30" screen, 2560x1600 and some of the panoramas in this thread run off the right edge by quite a margin, maybe 40%, when my browser is full screen. This completely ruins my impression of the image as a whole, since I can only see a small chunk of it at a time, and imagine how people browsing on 15" and 17" laptops feel. Other panoramas here are maybe 600 wide, just thumbnail size, unless you click on to another site. This means that I have no way to just scroll down and see various panoramas, one...Show more →
Hmm.... I must say that I actually prefer the scroll variety - it shows that it's really a high res panorama. Limiting the width makes it at web resolution indistinguishable from simple (cropped) wide angle shots..
At least in my opinion this leaves less of an impression:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-336.jpg
I am on a 30" screen, 2560x1600 and some of the panoramas in this thread run off the right edge by quite a margin, maybe 40%, when my browser is full screen. This completely ruins my impression of the image as a whole, since I can only see a small chunk of it at a time, and imagine how people browsing on 15" and 17" laptops feel. Other panoramas here are maybe 600 wide, just thumbnail size, unless you click on to another site. This means that I have no way to just scroll down and see various panoramas, one...Show more →
Hmm.... I must say that I actually prefer the scroll variety - it shows that it's really a high res panorama. Limiting the width makes it at web resolution indistinguishable from simple (cropped) wide angle shots..
At least in my opinion this leaves less of an impression:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-336.jpg
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:38 PM
p.3 #10Pano-mania
Kiddik -- So fantastic, especially at the larger size, to see all the small condos and other buildings.
Perhaps you can explain your method of posting at 1200 in the thread, but having the instant access to full image size? That might address Carsten's displeasure with images he feels are too large to enjoy on the screen.
denoir -- I was hoping you'd start posting some of your super-clean evening panos! Thanks.
Martin -- I love that shot behind the buildings with cars and carefully stacked "stuff". At first, it seemed a bit dark. But then as I stared into it, I just fell into that moment of deep afternoon shadow, nearing sunset. Nice self-portrait there on the right!
Edited on Jun 03, 2011 at 05:45 PM · View previous versions
Perhaps you can explain your method of posting at 1200 in the thread, but having the instant access to full image size? That might address Carsten's displeasure with images he feels are too large to enjoy on the screen.
denoir -- I was hoping you'd start posting some of your super-clean evening panos! Thanks.
Martin -- I love that shot behind the buildings with cars and carefully stacked "stuff". At first, it seemed a bit dark. But then as I stared into it, I just fell into that moment of deep afternoon shadow, nearing sunset. Nice self-portrait there on the right!
Edited on Jun 03, 2011 at 05:45 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:40 PM
p.3 #11Pano-mania
Really?
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/Capture201106042.jpg
Keep in mind that the original screenshot is almost 2560x1600. The only way for me to see your photo as a whole is to scroll along a whole bunch, seeing chunks at a time, or just to downsize it, which means that I see it the size I prefer, but without the sharpness that you intend. That image in this medium has no possibility of making any kind of impact, other than it is BIG.
And this is only a side issue anyway. You posting an image 2867 wide means that apart from a few people with high-end IBM monitors, no one will be able to see your image without scrolling, and probably a significant proportion of people will not even be able to see the full height, yet just a few posts before you, someone posts a 600-wide panorama. I cannot understand that it seems I am the only person bothered by this lack of standardization. Are there only PC users here?
Edited on Jun 03, 2011 at 05:54 PM · View previous versions
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/Capture201106042.jpg
Keep in mind that the original screenshot is almost 2560x1600. The only way for me to see your photo as a whole is to scroll along a whole bunch, seeing chunks at a time, or just to downsize it, which means that I see it the size I prefer, but without the sharpness that you intend. That image in this medium has no possibility of making any kind of impact, other than it is BIG.
And this is only a side issue anyway. You posting an image 2867 wide means that apart from a few people with high-end IBM monitors, no one will be able to see your image without scrolling, and probably a significant proportion of people will not even be able to see the full height, yet just a few posts before you, someone posts a 600-wide panorama. I cannot understand that it seems I am the only person bothered by this lack of standardization. Are there only PC users here?
Edited on Jun 03, 2011 at 05:54 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:44 PM
p.3 #12Pano-mania
I'm on a 15" MBP, so:
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_recursive.jpg
Maybe we need a different thread for recursive screenshots
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_recursive.jpg
Maybe we need a different thread for recursive screenshots
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:50 PM
p.3 #13Pano-mania
Hehe, we had that once. What was it again?... I think this was the thread about how reflective screens ruin browsing
I chose 1200 carefully. Any reasonable computer has at least 1280 pixels width, meaning that there is room for a little chrome. I normally prefer 1024, but panoramas call for more.
Anyway, we are not in the majority here it seems.
Edited on Jun 03, 2011 at 05:59 PM · View previous versions
I chose 1200 carefully. Any reasonable computer has at least 1280 pixels width, meaning that there is room for a little chrome. I normally prefer 1024, but panoramas call for more.
Anyway, we are not in the majority here it seems.
Edited on Jun 03, 2011 at 05:59 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:52 PM
p.3 #14Pano-mania
Carsten, yep, I prefer scrolling. I actually have the choice of stretching the browser across two monitors:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano.jpg
..but I typically don't do that. In a way, I understand your point about seeing the whole image but for me panoramas are a special case. I see it as a semi-interactive thing where I scroll and take in the detail. 1200 wide (excluding frame) is the size I post my regular images (landscape mode).
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano.jpg
..but I typically don't do that. In a way, I understand your point about seeing the whole image but for me panoramas are a special case. I see it as a semi-interactive thing where I scroll and take in the detail. 1200 wide (excluding frame) is the size I post my regular images (landscape mode).
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:54 PM
p.3 #15Pano-mania
Okay, different approach. For me, the photo has to make an immediate impact as a whole, or it moves from my brain's right hemisphere into the more mechanical left, and loses all artistic merit in the process. I don't want to think when I am viewing photos, just feel. If I have to think (about something not *in* the photo I mean), I have lost at least half my enjoyment already, and all of my feeling of immersion.
Anyway, where are the two monitor bezels in your demo capture?
I thought you posted your images in 1300 wide? Although I have a 2560x1600 monitor, a 1300 pixel wide image sticks out to the right. If I make my browser too wide, reading normal text becomes much more difficult.
Anyway, where are the two monitor bezels in your demo capture?
I thought you posted your images in 1300 wide? Although I have a 2560x1600 monitor, a 1300 pixel wide image sticks out to the right. If I make my browser too wide, reading normal text becomes much more difficult.
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:56 PM
p.3 #16Pano-mania
In general, I would agree with you - but as I said, panoramas are a special case for me. Perhaps that's why I don't really do a lot of panos. My main interest in it has been to get a large format look, although I have not been doing that a lot either...
Anyway, where are the two monitor bezels in your demo capture?
You can see where the windows taskbar ends. I've got two 1920x1600 monitors.
I thought you posted your images in 1300 wide? Although I have a 2560x1600 monitor, a 1300 pixel wide image sticks out to the right. If I make my browser too wide, reading normal text becomes much more difficult.
1200 sans border. The border adds some 100-150 pixels.
Anyway, where are the two monitor bezels in your demo capture?
You can see where the windows taskbar ends. I've got two 1920x1600 monitors.
I thought you posted your images in 1300 wide? Although I have a 2560x1600 monitor, a 1300 pixel wide image sticks out to the right. If I make my browser too wide, reading normal text becomes much more difficult.
1200 sans border. The border adds some 100-150 pixels.
Jun 03, 2011 at 05:59 PM
p.3 #17Pano-mania
OK everyone. Post at 1200-1500 wide from now on.
1500 works great for me on my 1920 x 1200 monitor.
1500 works great for me on my 1920 x 1200 monitor.Jun 03, 2011 at 06:07 PM
p.3 #18Pano-mania
Gunzorro wrote:
denoir -- I was hoping you'd start posting some of your super-clean evening panos!
Jim, sorry to disappoint, but that's basically the only one.
I have something else though of a technical rather than artistic nature.
When you started this thread I got an idea for a test. I'd take the worst possible lens, do a massive pano and then compare the result (resized) to the best wide angle lens I have. My theory was that if I did a sufficiently large pano, the crappy lens would outdo the good one. In short, this is a test of using panoramas to increase image quality.
So, the equipment.. For the pano I used my worst lens, the Sigma 18-200 OS. It is impossible to describe in words how bad this lens is. It's an old consumer grade super zoom - it really can't get worse. I keep it around because I can on occasion use it for test shots like this one and the alternative would have been to chuck it into the nearest garbage bin. While it's best performance is at 200mm, which is what I shot at, you can see from the following 100% crop just how bad it is:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_sigma_crop.jpg
The camera used for the pano was a Canon 7D and I shot it at ISO 800.
My choice of wide angle was the Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon ZM. The reason for choosing this lens is that according to Zeiss it's the only production lens in the world that hits the diffraction limit at f/4 - i.e it can't theoretically be sharper. The camera used for the single shot was a Leica M9 and I used ISO 160 (base ISO for the M9). The theory here of course is that the lens should not be the limiting factor.
The panorama consists of a whopping 396 images making the final image a 7 Gigapixel shot. Before you ask, no, I'm not a crazy person with infinite time on my hands - the panorama was shot automatically using a Gigapan Epic Pro robotic panorama head.
Wide angle shot:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_wa.jpg
396 image Pano:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_pano.jpg
And now to the results and the goal of this test - how do the images compare when the pano is resized to the size of the single WA shot:
100% crop near the center of the image:
WA on the left, pano on the right:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_comp_crop.jpg
The arrows point out that in the pano the blinds in the window are distinguishable while they are not in the other shot. The resized pano shot using a Sigma 18-200, one of the worst lenses imaginable mounted on a 7D cropper and shot at ISO 800 clearly outresolves the single M9 + ZM 25, ISO160 shot.
The result is perhaps not so surprising given that the former is a 7 Gigapixel shot resized to 18 megapixel, but I wanted to try it in practice and as the panorama was shot automagically it required very little effort on my part.
Generally speaking a smaller panorama resized to the camera's native resolution using a high quality lens can be used to simulate a theoretically perfect lens - i.e where the MTF is maxed out at all detail levels.
denoir -- I was hoping you'd start posting some of your super-clean evening panos!
Jim, sorry to disappoint, but that's basically the only one.
I have something else though of a technical rather than artistic nature.
When you started this thread I got an idea for a test. I'd take the worst possible lens, do a massive pano and then compare the result (resized) to the best wide angle lens I have. My theory was that if I did a sufficiently large pano, the crappy lens would outdo the good one. In short, this is a test of using panoramas to increase image quality.
So, the equipment.. For the pano I used my worst lens, the Sigma 18-200 OS. It is impossible to describe in words how bad this lens is. It's an old consumer grade super zoom - it really can't get worse. I keep it around because I can on occasion use it for test shots like this one and the alternative would have been to chuck it into the nearest garbage bin. While it's best performance is at 200mm, which is what I shot at, you can see from the following 100% crop just how bad it is:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_sigma_crop.jpg
The camera used for the pano was a Canon 7D and I shot it at ISO 800.
My choice of wide angle was the Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon ZM. The reason for choosing this lens is that according to Zeiss it's the only production lens in the world that hits the diffraction limit at f/4 - i.e it can't theoretically be sharper. The camera used for the single shot was a Leica M9 and I used ISO 160 (base ISO for the M9). The theory here of course is that the lens should not be the limiting factor.
The panorama consists of a whopping 396 images making the final image a 7 Gigapixel shot. Before you ask, no, I'm not a crazy person with infinite time on my hands - the panorama was shot automatically using a Gigapan Epic Pro robotic panorama head.
Wide angle shot:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_wa.jpg
396 image Pano:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_pano.jpg
And now to the results and the goal of this test - how do the images compare when the pano is resized to the size of the single WA shot:
100% crop near the center of the image:
WA on the left, pano on the right:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_comp_crop.jpg
The arrows point out that in the pano the blinds in the window are distinguishable while they are not in the other shot. The resized pano shot using a Sigma 18-200, one of the worst lenses imaginable mounted on a 7D cropper and shot at ISO 800 clearly outresolves the single M9 + ZM 25, ISO160 shot.
The result is perhaps not so surprising given that the former is a 7 Gigapixel shot resized to 18 megapixel, but I wanted to try it in practice and as the panorama was shot automagically it required very little effort on my part.
Generally speaking a smaller panorama resized to the camera's native resolution using a high quality lens can be used to simulate a theoretically perfect lens - i.e where the MTF is maxed out at all detail levels.
Jun 03, 2011 at 06:54 PM
p.3 #19Pano-mania
Denoir -- Beautifully done!
Could we see the extrime building sides compared at a larger size?
I see the pano was shot slightly earlier, and the single shot is slightly less exposed. Still, the single shot has much better color overall.
It would be interesting so see more of these comparison, reducing the number of pano images for a bad lens, until the two match at the same ISO. Maybe 12 image pano? More?
Could we see the extrime building sides compared at a larger size?
I see the pano was shot slightly earlier, and the single shot is slightly less exposed. Still, the single shot has much better color overall.
It would be interesting so see more of these comparison, reducing the number of pano images for a bad lens, until the two match at the same ISO. Maybe 12 image pano? More?
Jun 03, 2011 at 08:22 PM
p.3 #20Pano-mania
carstenw wrote:
I am on a 30" screen, 2560x1600 and some of the panoramas in this thread run off the right edge by quite a margin, maybe 40%, when my browser is full screen. This completely ruins my impression of the image as a whole, since I can only see a small chunk of it at a time, and imagine how people browsing on 15" and 17" laptops feel. Other panoramas here are maybe 600 wide, just thumbnail size, unless you click on to another site. This means that I have no way to just scroll down and see various panoramas, one...Show more →
i totally disagree, there is no point in making a panorama to display it at only 1200 pixels wide. why bother stitching if your going to display it at such a tiny size, just use a p&s. panoramas should be panned through by the viewer e.g. you should need to turn your head to take it all in on print (just like the actual scenery) or scroll through on a computer monitor (obviously the print way is better but impossible over the good ol' tubal interweb). i find scrolling through a panorama much preferible to looking at something that is only 200 pixels tall.
just my opinion, but i don't think i would get past the first page of such a thread.
anyway here are a couple panos that actually fit you're criteria since they were not meant to be particularly epic. both were shot on the rokinon 85/1.4 wide open just as proof of concept.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5644798870_9771b1af87_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2068/5696269378_66dbc790a7_b.jpg
I am on a 30" screen, 2560x1600 and some of the panoramas in this thread run off the right edge by quite a margin, maybe 40%, when my browser is full screen. This completely ruins my impression of the image as a whole, since I can only see a small chunk of it at a time, and imagine how people browsing on 15" and 17" laptops feel. Other panoramas here are maybe 600 wide, just thumbnail size, unless you click on to another site. This means that I have no way to just scroll down and see various panoramas, one...Show more →
i totally disagree, there is no point in making a panorama to display it at only 1200 pixels wide. why bother stitching if your going to display it at such a tiny size, just use a p&s. panoramas should be panned through by the viewer e.g. you should need to turn your head to take it all in on print (just like the actual scenery) or scroll through on a computer monitor (obviously the print way is better but impossible over the good ol' tubal interweb). i find scrolling through a panorama much preferible to looking at something that is only 200 pixels tall.
just my opinion, but i don't think i would get past the first page of such a thread.
anyway here are a couple panos that actually fit you're criteria since they were not meant to be particularly epic. both were shot on the rokinon 85/1.4 wide open just as proof of concept.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5644798870_9771b1af87_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2068/5696269378_66dbc790a7_b.jpg
Jun 03, 2011 at 08:51 PM