This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Pano-mania
p.4 #1Pano-mania
5D with Nikkor 105 f2.5
Lake Tahoe
Lake Tahoe15 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Lake Tahoe
Lake Tahoe15 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Jun 03, 2011 at 09:03 PM
p.4 #2Pano-mania
Gunzorro wrote:
Could we see the extrime building sides compared at a larger size?
Sure. Remember the 100% crop from the Sigma:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_sigma_crop.jpg
Well, this is how it looks in the pano after it has been resized:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_comp_crop2.jpg
(Left WA, right Pano). It's at the extreme right edge of the image.
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.
The pano was shot directly after the WA shot and the light didn't really change. However there are differences in exposure, white balance, cameras etc so it could be a number of different things responsible for the weaker shots in the pano.
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?
Much more. I think at low ISO you could perhaps get away with 100 images for a lens as bad as that particular Sigma superzoom. If you use a better lens much fewer images will be needed. The curse of any such technique is that it follows a square law - so the number of images increases rapidly.
Here's a quick and dirty test of getting a good zoom lens (5D2) match the resolution of an excellent prime (M9). I shot this handheld and the stitching isn't the best, but it doesn't matter for the test as we'll be looking at center resolution.
The zoom in question is the Canon 16-35/II used with a 5DII and the prime in question is the Zeiss 18/4 ZM used with an M9.
Single shot ZM18:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/B_wa1.jpg
Single shot 16-35:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/B_wa2.jpg
4 image Pano:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/B_pano.jpg
100% Crop comparison when the pano is resized to the native size of the M9:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/B_comp_crop.jpg
This was actually more interesting than I thought. The pano crop matches and even perhaps slightly exceeds the ZM 18 crop in terms of resolution. The ZM 18 still has distinctly more micro contrast and thus appears to still be sharper. Yet if you actually look at the fine detail you'll see that the pano is no worse in that respect. So the resolution is similar while the micro contrast is different.
Could we see the extrime building sides compared at a larger size?
Sure. Remember the 100% crop from the Sigma:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_sigma_crop.jpg
Well, this is how it looks in the pano after it has been resized:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/A_comp_crop2.jpg
(Left WA, right Pano). It's at the extreme right edge of the image.
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.
The pano was shot directly after the WA shot and the light didn't really change. However there are differences in exposure, white balance, cameras etc so it could be a number of different things responsible for the weaker shots in the pano.
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?
Much more. I think at low ISO you could perhaps get away with 100 images for a lens as bad as that particular Sigma superzoom. If you use a better lens much fewer images will be needed. The curse of any such technique is that it follows a square law - so the number of images increases rapidly.
Here's a quick and dirty test of getting a good zoom lens (5D2) match the resolution of an excellent prime (M9). I shot this handheld and the stitching isn't the best, but it doesn't matter for the test as we'll be looking at center resolution.
The zoom in question is the Canon 16-35/II used with a 5DII and the prime in question is the Zeiss 18/4 ZM used with an M9.
Single shot ZM18:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/B_wa1.jpg
Single shot 16-35:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/B_wa2.jpg
4 image Pano:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/B_pano.jpg
100% Crop comparison when the pano is resized to the native size of the M9:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/pano/B_comp_crop.jpg
This was actually more interesting than I thought. The pano crop matches and even perhaps slightly exceeds the ZM 18 crop in terms of resolution. The ZM 18 still has distinctly more micro contrast and thus appears to still be sharper. Yet if you actually look at the fine detail you'll see that the pano is no worse in that respect. So the resolution is similar while the micro contrast is different.
Jun 04, 2011 at 01:47 AM
p.4 #3Pano-mania
My offerings
Boston docks
http://i.pbase.com/o3/63/551663/1/132957495.99a2UobA.Bostonpanoautotifm8k15951625.jpg
Mt Auburn Cemetery
http://i.pbase.com/o3/63/551663/1/133643893.GVuHHXRy.MtAuburn.jpg
Abandoned factory
http://i.pbase.com/o3/63/551663/1/133643883.6HswMSXP.PigeonCove1000901_10009266images.jpg
Sesuit marina
http://i.pbase.com/g3/63/551663/2/89366481.lQVVa3Pm.jpg
Aspen grove
http://i.pbase.com/g3/63/551663/2/88607519.zG3xGGib.jpg
White Cedar swamp
http://i.pbase.com/g3/63/551663/2/89366391.oqscEDlg.jpg
Chatham harbour (IR)
http://i.pbase.com/o3/63/551663/1/129479021.t0vXKjIA.Chatham_10309627images.jpg
Mike
Boston docks
http://i.pbase.com/o3/63/551663/1/132957495.99a2UobA.Bostonpanoautotifm8k15951625.jpg
Mt Auburn Cemetery
http://i.pbase.com/o3/63/551663/1/133643893.GVuHHXRy.MtAuburn.jpg
Abandoned factory
http://i.pbase.com/o3/63/551663/1/133643883.6HswMSXP.PigeonCove1000901_10009266images.jpg
Sesuit marina
http://i.pbase.com/g3/63/551663/2/89366481.lQVVa3Pm.jpg
Aspen grove
http://i.pbase.com/g3/63/551663/2/88607519.zG3xGGib.jpg
White Cedar swamp
http://i.pbase.com/g3/63/551663/2/89366391.oqscEDlg.jpg
Chatham harbour (IR)
http://i.pbase.com/o3/63/551663/1/129479021.t0vXKjIA.Chatham_10309627images.jpg
Mike
Jun 04, 2011 at 04:42 AM
p.4 #4Pano-mania
Very nice shots, sebboh. Well, I guess we disagree. There are two camps I suppose, and I have started a 1200-wide panorama thread on getdpi where I will try to get customers for my idea. In this thread, everyone can post in their own favorite size, as they already do.
Part of the problem here is that the images are centered. That means that if there is a single 2500-wide image on a page, all the narrower image will hang off the centre of the posts, i.e. stick out of the screen on the right.
My point is that I am not thinking about the individual shots, but about the thread as a collection of shots. In a free-for-all thread with no guideline the presentation will be wildly different from image to image and post to post. With a width guideline, the images will hang together as a whole. I suppose it won't really become apparent until both threads are somewhat longer though.
Part of the problem here is that the images are centered. That means that if there is a single 2500-wide image on a page, all the narrower image will hang off the centre of the posts, i.e. stick out of the screen on the right.
My point is that I am not thinking about the individual shots, but about the thread as a collection of shots. In a free-for-all thread with no guideline the presentation will be wildly different from image to image and post to post. With a width guideline, the images will hang together as a whole. I suppose it won't really become apparent until both threads are somewhat longer though.
Jun 04, 2011 at 04:42 AM
p.4 #5Pano-mania
denoir wrote:
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...
If you just scroll down a single page of this thread, I think you see my problem. I think the best solution to your concern would be if everyone would post a 1200-wide panorama, and a link to one twice as large.
Anyway, our concerns are different. You are after the best presentation for one image, I am after the best presentation for the collection.
You can see where the windows taskbar ends. I've got two 1920x1600 monitors.
I mean the actual bezels. What you posted looks like a stitch of two separate screen shots. In real life you wouldn't see it that way, due to the interfering bezels.
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...
If you just scroll down a single page of this thread, I think you see my problem. I think the best solution to your concern would be if everyone would post a 1200-wide panorama, and a link to one twice as large.
Anyway, our concerns are different. You are after the best presentation for one image, I am after the best presentation for the collection.
Earlier quote
Anyway, where are the two monitor bezels in your demo capture?I mean the actual bezels. What you posted looks like a stitch of two separate screen shots. In real life you wouldn't see it that way, due to the interfering bezels.
Jun 04, 2011 at 05:00 AM
p.4 #6Pano-mania
All this talk of resolution its a little irrelevent to me as i'm too much of a cheapskate to pay for a flickr pro account. So some stuff at 1024px wide: A couple from one of our many many norwegian ferries, and the view over Singapore harbour from Singapore Hill.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2290/5795793425_ece90ede5a_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/5795793365_7436665882_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5795814721_7c16e808c0_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2290/5795793425_ece90ede5a_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/5795793365_7436665882_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5795814721_7c16e808c0_b.jpg
Jun 04, 2011 at 05:04 AM
p.4 #7Pano-mania
Very nice! Especially the way you captured the light in the third one, although the first one is my favorite from the set.
Jun 04, 2011 at 06:01 AM
p.4 #8Pano-mania
carstenw wrote:
Sorry to sound so harsh, but it is just the way I feel (for this thread only).
Use the control +/- button. All your personal problems will be solved.
HerbChong wrote:
some infrared and B&W panoramas.
Herb...
Herb, you're my new hero! IR Panos! Awesome!
Here's a 14 image one from my Minolta A2:
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Panoramas/Group_1-PICT9645_PICT9651-14_images_Small.jpg
Edited on Jun 04, 2011 at 08:24 AM · View previous versions
Sorry to sound so harsh, but it is just the way I feel (for this thread only).
Use the control +/- button. All your personal problems will be solved.
HerbChong wrote:
some infrared and B&W panoramas.
Herb...
Herb, you're my new hero! IR Panos! Awesome!
Here's a 14 image one from my Minolta A2:
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Panoramas/Group_1-PICT9645_PICT9651-14_images_Small.jpg
Edited on Jun 04, 2011 at 08:24 AM · View previous versions
Jun 04, 2011 at 08:12 AM
p.4 #10Pano-mania
Here's one that's a bit spooky. There's a man walking his invisible girlfriend in the beginning and a headless man near the end. This is also with the Minolta A2 and it's APO lens:
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Panoramas/Group_1-PICT9615_PICT9642-27_images_Small.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Panoramas/Group_1-PICT9615_PICT9642-27_images_Small.jpg
Jun 04, 2011 at 09:03 AM
p.4 #11Pano-mania
Gunzorro wrote:
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.
Thanks! It's really simple, just one ordinary link to a "webthumbnail" size and another URL link for the larger file. It's best to use the hyperlink icon in the message editor (with the globe and the chains) so that the larger one doesn't get posted automatically. You could even wrap the URL around the photo so you can click on the photo directly for the larger size
I added spaces & *'s to prevent the code from being parsed.
[ url=http:// site / largefile.jpg ] h**p:// site / thumbnail.jpg [ /url ]
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.
Thanks! It's really simple, just one ordinary link to a "webthumbnail" size and another URL link for the larger file. It's best to use the hyperlink icon in the message editor (with the globe and the chains) so that the larger one doesn't get posted automatically. You could even wrap the URL around the photo so you can click on the photo directly for the larger size
I added spaces & *'s to prevent the code from being parsed.
[ url=http:// site / largefile.jpg ] h**p:// site / thumbnail.jpg [ /url ]
Jun 04, 2011 at 09:17 AM
p.4 #12Pano-mania
Rome, crummy weather, wonderfully diffused light.
4-5 (can't remember) horizontal pics, 5D, Contax 28.28 @ probably f/8
http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/113453622/large.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/113453622/original.jpg
4-5 (can't remember) horizontal pics, 5D, Contax 28.28 @ probably f/8
http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/113453622/large.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/113453622/original.jpg
Jun 04, 2011 at 09:38 AM
p.4 #13Pano-mania
kiddik -- Thanks. I'll have to try to figure out how to do this via Photobucket. Anyone else familiar with Photobucket and posting larger sizes?
denoir -- Yes! Thank you! Very interesting stuff, and a very worthwhile foray into the subject. So, using the Inverse Square Law, the next incremental improvement would be at 16 images, where the 16-35 should well surpass the Zeiss. As you mention, doubling its resolution with four images has matched or slightly surpassed the Zeiss in acutance of small details.
You mentioned you haven't been doing much in the way of panos, but weren't you doing similar pano-composites with your Giga-monster and the Zeiss 100MP a little while ago, trying to emulate a large format effect?
mcbroomf -- Excellent contributions!
Herb -- Wonderful work. I particulaly like the later wooded stream with its greens and the lighting on the glistening rocks.
One question: On the first one of the gushing rapids, there are blurry dots about 1/3 way down the image in the foliage, going at what seems regular intervals horizontally across the frame on right toward the middle. What is the cause of that?
denoir -- Yes! Thank you! Very interesting stuff, and a very worthwhile foray into the subject. So, using the Inverse Square Law, the next incremental improvement would be at 16 images, where the 16-35 should well surpass the Zeiss. As you mention, doubling its resolution with four images has matched or slightly surpassed the Zeiss in acutance of small details.
You mentioned you haven't been doing much in the way of panos, but weren't you doing similar pano-composites with your Giga-monster and the Zeiss 100MP a little while ago, trying to emulate a large format effect?
mcbroomf -- Excellent contributions!
Herb -- Wonderful work. I particulaly like the later wooded stream with its greens and the lighting on the glistening rocks.
One question: On the first one of the gushing rapids, there are blurry dots about 1/3 way down the image in the foliage, going at what seems regular intervals horizontally across the frame on right toward the middle. What is the cause of that?
Jun 04, 2011 at 09:52 AM
p.4 #14Pano-mania
Gunzorro wrote:
denoir -- Yes! Thank you! Very interesting stuff, and a very worthwhile foray into the subject. So, using the Inverse Square Law, the next incremental improvement would be at 16 images, where the 16-35 should well surpass the Zeiss. As you mention, doubling its resolution with four images has matched or slightly surpassed the Zeiss in acutance of small details.
Yepp. There is of course a limit to how much information you can pack per pixel. If we take M9 sized files (5212x3468) there's an upper limit to how many line pairs per mm it can resolve. Number of lp:s = 5212/2 and lp/mm = (5212/2)/36 = 72 as the long side of the sensor is 36mm.
So a resolution of 72 lp/mm is the best we can get from an image of that size. Now consider the MTF chart of a good lens:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/mtf/mtf-75cron.JPG
It shows the curves here for 5 lp/mm, 10 lp/mm, 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm. If we want push the 40 lp/mm MTF to be on the level of say the 10 lp/mm we'd have to quadruple the resolution of the image - i.e 4^2 => 16 images. Now if we'd like to get our theoretical limit of 72 lp/mm up to the MTF of the for all practical purposes perfect 5 lp/mm, we'd have to use (72/5)^2 = 207 images - at least in theory.
However I think you could use substantially less without any lessening in quality being obvious. There is also of course the issue of how you resize the image. Bicubic resize for instance averages neighboring pixels and as such reduces the contrast between the pixels - it's a very destructive algorithm in that respect.
denoir -- Yes! Thank you! Very interesting stuff, and a very worthwhile foray into the subject. So, using the Inverse Square Law, the next incremental improvement would be at 16 images, where the 16-35 should well surpass the Zeiss. As you mention, doubling its resolution with four images has matched or slightly surpassed the Zeiss in acutance of small details.
Yepp. There is of course a limit to how much information you can pack per pixel. If we take M9 sized files (5212x3468) there's an upper limit to how many line pairs per mm it can resolve. Number of lp:s = 5212/2 and lp/mm = (5212/2)/36 = 72 as the long side of the sensor is 36mm.
So a resolution of 72 lp/mm is the best we can get from an image of that size. Now consider the MTF chart of a good lens:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/mtf/mtf-75cron.JPG
It shows the curves here for 5 lp/mm, 10 lp/mm, 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm. If we want push the 40 lp/mm MTF to be on the level of say the 10 lp/mm we'd have to quadruple the resolution of the image - i.e 4^2 => 16 images. Now if we'd like to get our theoretical limit of 72 lp/mm up to the MTF of the for all practical purposes perfect 5 lp/mm, we'd have to use (72/5)^2 = 207 images - at least in theory.
However I think you could use substantially less without any lessening in quality being obvious. There is also of course the issue of how you resize the image. Bicubic resize for instance averages neighboring pixels and as such reduces the contrast between the pixels - it's a very destructive algorithm in that respect.
Jun 04, 2011 at 10:18 AM
p.4 #15Pano-mania
denoir wrote:
Bicubic resize for instance averages neighboring pixels and as such reduces the contrast between the pixels - it's a very destructive algorithm in that respect.
So while others have been promoting bicubic as "the best thing since sliced bread" ... and the antidote is
Bicubic resize for instance averages neighboring pixels and as such reduces the contrast between the pixels - it's a very destructive algorithm in that respect.
So while others have been promoting bicubic as "the best thing since sliced bread" ... and the antidote is
Jun 04, 2011 at 10:39 AM
p.4 #16Pano-mania
Bifurcator wrote:
Use the control +/- button. All your personal problems will be solved.
I wish. The too-large size problem is solved at the cost of sharpness. The varying size problem is not solved (unless I press Cmd++ and Cmd+- for each photo, which I am not going to do).
carstenw wrote
Sorry to sound so harsh, but it is just the way I feel (for this thread only).I wish. The too-large size problem is solved at the cost of sharpness. The varying size problem is not solved (unless I press Cmd++ and Cmd+- for each photo, which I am not going to do).
Jun 04, 2011 at 10:51 AM
p.4 #17Pano-mania
RustyBug wrote:
So while others have been promoting bicubic as "the best thing since sliced bread" ... and the antidote is
Obviously, sharpening. Bicubic is good because it doesn't really create unwanted artifacts, aside from softness.
So while others have been promoting bicubic as "the best thing since sliced bread" ... and the antidote is
Obviously, sharpening. Bicubic is good because it doesn't really create unwanted artifacts, aside from softness.
Jun 04, 2011 at 11:13 AM
p.4 #18Pano-mania
Great thread! Not sure if these are 'allowed' due to being m43 but I find one way to make that system really sing is to shoot pano's with it.
Olympus E-P1 w/ kit lens 12 shot vert:
http://verndewit.com/img/v15/p499084245.jpg
Sony Nex 18-200mm Calgary and the Rockies many shot vert:
http://verndewit.com/img/v15/p374922566.jpg
Olympus E-P2 w/ kit lens 4 shot vert:
http://verndewit.com/img/v13/p74346090.jpg
Panny GH-1 w/ kit lens 9 shot vert:
http://verndewit.com/img/v10/p211899886.jpg
Olympus E-P1 w/ kit lens 12 shot vert:
http://verndewit.com/img/v15/p499084245.jpg
Sony Nex 18-200mm Calgary and the Rockies many shot vert:
http://verndewit.com/img/v15/p374922566.jpg
Olympus E-P2 w/ kit lens 4 shot vert:
http://verndewit.com/img/v13/p74346090.jpg
Panny GH-1 w/ kit lens 9 shot vert:
http://verndewit.com/img/v10/p211899886.jpg
Jun 04, 2011 at 11:22 AM
p.4 #19Pano-mania
denoir -- Thanks again -- very thought provoking stuff.
Vern -- Great work. Of course M43 is welcome. This is the Wild West of imaging!
Vern -- Great work. Of course M43 is welcome. This is the Wild West of imaging!
Jun 04, 2011 at 12:09 PM
p.4 #20Pano-mania
(Note: Apologies in advance to all experienced advanced panoramic photographers – you probably won’t be interested in this basic summary of equipment and procedure. But anyone is perfectly free to correct my information or to expand on the various topics covered here.)
Basic Nuts and Bolts of Panoramas
I make no claim to being an expert in panoramas -- more like an avid advanced beginner.
For those contemplating the subject, I’ll list my approach and understanding.
Panos rely on software of one type or another. I won’t get into that subject, beyond what I am using currently, which is one step up from the original Canon stitch software: PS Elements 8 (v. 9 is current), with LR3 for other PP needs.
Outside of software, it is all about planning and equipment.
Care should always be taken to align the top and bottom edges while panning along the horizon to avoid distortion. A significant amount of overlap on each side is needed to ensure proper matching by the software. Many types of software can remove slight perspective distortion if the camera is intentionally raised or lowered to capture tops of buildings or foreground details – be aware that even more overlap of images is needed to cover for the sections that will be chopped off at these angles. Doing a “dry run” is recommended to establish your starting point, how many frames to shoot, amount of overlap, and to look for significant features in each frame to match with the next. My rule of thumb is to use 15-20% overlap on each side, depending on significant features that may repeat and be easily recognized by the software.
Landscape vs. Portrait – the advantage of portrait orientation is that there are far more images per pano which reduces the horizontal perspective distortion and improves resolution to the highest level. Granted, you lose a lot more image due to overlap (up to 40% total per image), it takes longer to produce one image due to more frames shot – lending itself to a tripod, and especially auto-indexing (more on this later), but the improvement in image quality is worth it.
The simplest set up is a handheld camera in landscape (horizontal) mode shooting a single row of images. In this approach you will shoot the least frames, making it easier and more spontaneous, and use your wider angle lenses to good effect.
Next in complexity is to do the same with the camera handheld in the vertical (portrait) position. In this position, you will shoot more frames and need to be more careful of your vertical camera alignment. But this method makes even your moderate wide angle and normal lenses into super-wides, due to the long side of the frame going up and down, instead of side-to–side.
The next added complexity is the earlier two methods mounted on a leveled tripod. The tripod is essential for slower shutter speeds, but is also a terrific asset at any time to keep alignment the same between frames, resulting in less loss in the software stage, which equates to wider angles of view.
Beyond a leveled camera on tripod in landscape and portrait mode comes the addition of adjustable L-brackets and base slides for placing the lens above the center of the axis of rotation (finding its “nodal point”) to reduce parallax and keep all frame breaks/overlaps invisible.
A close-up of the adjustable angled brackets for orienting camera and lens.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9456.jpg
More sophisticated still is an auto-indexing manually rotating base plate. This plate offers adjustments to suit different angles of view in lenses, so the overlap is exactly the same from frame to frame, along the same row of exposure (single row panos are the simplest, but you can also do multi-row assemblages to produce monstrously large and detailed image files! – requires a pivoting gimbal system.
Here is a view from below of the adjustable indexing Kaidan base. The knurled brass nob on the right is the removable index stop, and the detents are the stops for various angles of view.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9453.jpg
Finally, motorized and programmable platforms are available to automate the entire capture process.
Here's my rig for tripod mounted panos.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9446.jpg
My set-up is fairly advanced in concept, but relatively obsolete in manufacture. My rig is by Kaidan, a US company now out of business for several years. The design of my Quick Pan II QPU-2 (circa 2000), was superseded by several version 3 units before closing the doors. This has an auto-indexing base, which is manually rotated. Some current manufacturers include Novaflex, Really Right Stuff, and Kirk. Even Bogen/Manfrotto offers a somewhat out-dated (circa 2005?) auto-indexing system. The good news about mine: despite being obsolete, despite the manufacturer being out of business, despite the lack of manual or information – the set-up works, and cost me $85+10 shipping on eBay!
These larger pano heads need a fairly sturdy tripod if they are to be used for twilight or night shots, so I pressed my trusty Bogen/Manfrotto 3051 into service with its 3047 head with quick-release plates. In the process, I inspected and disassembled parts of the tripod, adding new lubricant to the pivot points and giving it a general tune-up (long overdue!). I even ordered a tensioning bolt to remove the play from the center column (currently has a makeshift bolt pressed into service).
At first I thought I would simply remove the 3047 head, and replace it on top of the tripod legs with the Kaidan pano head. That turned out to not be ideal. The pano base still needs to be exactly oriented, and some degree of control is needed for leveling and adjustment that can't be provided by the tripod base or the the pano base. Newer units are smaller, using ball heads and Arca-Swiss-style dovetail devices.
A significant point to be aware of is that the rotating bases (whether simply the tripod head, or the pano head) must be absolutely level, or else your horizon will be “tilty” – easily seen in any extended pano, and hilarious to see in a 360 degree pano with the horizon jumping up and sinking down. This required the greatest amount of effort in my rehab process for the 3051 legs – I had to get them perfectly level according to the built-in bubble level – guess what? – that level wasn’t level!
I had various small leveling devices around the garage from carpentry, and a camera hotshoe bubble level, so I went to work checking all the angles and making adjustments to every single bubble level in the assemblage – a total of four individual points! 1) Tripod legs (grossly adjustable by direct pressure), 2) tripod head (two directional, individually screw adjustable), 3) Kaidan base (three screw-adjustable legs), and finally camera hot shoe bubble level. All must agree, and be confirmed by exact match in 360 degree rotation. This is the hardest part of preparation.
Here are the bubble level points on my system:
3051 legs
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9447.jpg
3047 head
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9448.jpg
Kaidan rotating base
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9449.jpg
Hotshoe mount
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9450.jpg
In building a panoramic image (even if it is handheld) the rule is: everything must be perfectly level for best results. That means from the lowest variable point on up to the camera, everything needs to be exactly aligned. If that is all you learn from my adventure, I’ll be happy and satisfied.
Orienting the camera/lens – This is the next most important alignment to ensure excellent panos from a tripod. The lens axis must be directly above the rotational point of the platform it is mounted to. Additionally, there is a point in each lens that offers a perfect balance of rotation without distortion, called the nodal point, or lens node. This located in the lens, not the body or base of camera. The point varies from lens to lens. I won’t go into the method for establishing this point precisely – I made an educated guess and by eyeballing the alignment – and got very good results for images without too many prominent foreground objects.
This is where my "guess-and-by-golly" placed the camera/lens over the rotational point.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9462.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9461.jpg
Those are the basics of panoramas from my experience on the journey. You can make it as tough or as simple as you want, but best results will require greater precision, as with any activity.
Good luck on your journey and I hope this write-up helps speed you on your way.
Edited on Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43 PM · View previous versions
Basic Nuts and Bolts of Panoramas
I make no claim to being an expert in panoramas -- more like an avid advanced beginner.
For those contemplating the subject, I’ll list my approach and understanding.
Panos rely on software of one type or another. I won’t get into that subject, beyond what I am using currently, which is one step up from the original Canon stitch software: PS Elements 8 (v. 9 is current), with LR3 for other PP needs.
Outside of software, it is all about planning and equipment.
Care should always be taken to align the top and bottom edges while panning along the horizon to avoid distortion. A significant amount of overlap on each side is needed to ensure proper matching by the software. Many types of software can remove slight perspective distortion if the camera is intentionally raised or lowered to capture tops of buildings or foreground details – be aware that even more overlap of images is needed to cover for the sections that will be chopped off at these angles. Doing a “dry run” is recommended to establish your starting point, how many frames to shoot, amount of overlap, and to look for significant features in each frame to match with the next. My rule of thumb is to use 15-20% overlap on each side, depending on significant features that may repeat and be easily recognized by the software.
Landscape vs. Portrait – the advantage of portrait orientation is that there are far more images per pano which reduces the horizontal perspective distortion and improves resolution to the highest level. Granted, you lose a lot more image due to overlap (up to 40% total per image), it takes longer to produce one image due to more frames shot – lending itself to a tripod, and especially auto-indexing (more on this later), but the improvement in image quality is worth it.
The simplest set up is a handheld camera in landscape (horizontal) mode shooting a single row of images. In this approach you will shoot the least frames, making it easier and more spontaneous, and use your wider angle lenses to good effect.
Next in complexity is to do the same with the camera handheld in the vertical (portrait) position. In this position, you will shoot more frames and need to be more careful of your vertical camera alignment. But this method makes even your moderate wide angle and normal lenses into super-wides, due to the long side of the frame going up and down, instead of side-to–side.
The next added complexity is the earlier two methods mounted on a leveled tripod. The tripod is essential for slower shutter speeds, but is also a terrific asset at any time to keep alignment the same between frames, resulting in less loss in the software stage, which equates to wider angles of view.
Beyond a leveled camera on tripod in landscape and portrait mode comes the addition of adjustable L-brackets and base slides for placing the lens above the center of the axis of rotation (finding its “nodal point”) to reduce parallax and keep all frame breaks/overlaps invisible.
A close-up of the adjustable angled brackets for orienting camera and lens.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9456.jpg
More sophisticated still is an auto-indexing manually rotating base plate. This plate offers adjustments to suit different angles of view in lenses, so the overlap is exactly the same from frame to frame, along the same row of exposure (single row panos are the simplest, but you can also do multi-row assemblages to produce monstrously large and detailed image files! – requires a pivoting gimbal system.
Here is a view from below of the adjustable indexing Kaidan base. The knurled brass nob on the right is the removable index stop, and the detents are the stops for various angles of view.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9453.jpg
Finally, motorized and programmable platforms are available to automate the entire capture process.
Here's my rig for tripod mounted panos.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9446.jpg
My set-up is fairly advanced in concept, but relatively obsolete in manufacture. My rig is by Kaidan, a US company now out of business for several years. The design of my Quick Pan II QPU-2 (circa 2000), was superseded by several version 3 units before closing the doors. This has an auto-indexing base, which is manually rotated. Some current manufacturers include Novaflex, Really Right Stuff, and Kirk. Even Bogen/Manfrotto offers a somewhat out-dated (circa 2005?) auto-indexing system. The good news about mine: despite being obsolete, despite the manufacturer being out of business, despite the lack of manual or information – the set-up works, and cost me $85+10 shipping on eBay!
These larger pano heads need a fairly sturdy tripod if they are to be used for twilight or night shots, so I pressed my trusty Bogen/Manfrotto 3051 into service with its 3047 head with quick-release plates. In the process, I inspected and disassembled parts of the tripod, adding new lubricant to the pivot points and giving it a general tune-up (long overdue!). I even ordered a tensioning bolt to remove the play from the center column (currently has a makeshift bolt pressed into service).
At first I thought I would simply remove the 3047 head, and replace it on top of the tripod legs with the Kaidan pano head. That turned out to not be ideal. The pano base still needs to be exactly oriented, and some degree of control is needed for leveling and adjustment that can't be provided by the tripod base or the the pano base. Newer units are smaller, using ball heads and Arca-Swiss-style dovetail devices.
A significant point to be aware of is that the rotating bases (whether simply the tripod head, or the pano head) must be absolutely level, or else your horizon will be “tilty” – easily seen in any extended pano, and hilarious to see in a 360 degree pano with the horizon jumping up and sinking down. This required the greatest amount of effort in my rehab process for the 3051 legs – I had to get them perfectly level according to the built-in bubble level – guess what? – that level wasn’t level!
I had various small leveling devices around the garage from carpentry, and a camera hotshoe bubble level, so I went to work checking all the angles and making adjustments to every single bubble level in the assemblage – a total of four individual points! 1) Tripod legs (grossly adjustable by direct pressure), 2) tripod head (two directional, individually screw adjustable), 3) Kaidan base (three screw-adjustable legs), and finally camera hot shoe bubble level. All must agree, and be confirmed by exact match in 360 degree rotation. This is the hardest part of preparation.
Here are the bubble level points on my system:
3051 legs
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9447.jpg
3047 head
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9448.jpg
Kaidan rotating base
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9449.jpg
Hotshoe mount
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9450.jpg
In building a panoramic image (even if it is handheld) the rule is: everything must be perfectly level for best results. That means from the lowest variable point on up to the camera, everything needs to be exactly aligned. If that is all you learn from my adventure, I’ll be happy and satisfied.
Orienting the camera/lens – This is the next most important alignment to ensure excellent panos from a tripod. The lens axis must be directly above the rotational point of the platform it is mounted to. Additionally, there is a point in each lens that offers a perfect balance of rotation without distortion, called the nodal point, or lens node. This located in the lens, not the body or base of camera. The point varies from lens to lens. I won’t go into the method for establishing this point precisely – I made an educated guess and by eyeballing the alignment – and got very good results for images without too many prominent foreground objects.
This is where my "guess-and-by-golly" placed the camera/lens over the rotational point.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9462.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9461.jpg
Those are the basics of panoramas from my experience on the journey. You can make it as tough or as simple as you want, but best results will require greater precision, as with any activity.
Good luck on your journey and I hope this write-up helps speed you on your way.
Edited on Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43 PM · View previous versions
Jun 04, 2011 at 12:24 PM