This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Pano-mania
p.31 #1Pano-mania
Gary Clennan wrote:
Very nice Sebboh. Can you please remind me what software you use for stitching?
thanks, photoshop (cs4) or hugin depending on the job and how much other stuff my computer is chugging away at.
Very nice Sebboh. Can you please remind me what software you use for stitching?
thanks, photoshop (cs4) or hugin depending on the job and how much other stuff my computer is chugging away at.
Mar 11, 2012 at 09:35 PM
p.31 #2Pano-mania
Ruahrc wrote:
For those who say you need nodal rails, I disagree (to a point)
. These two were taken without the use of a nodal rail. what I did instead was to tie a string with a weight onto the lens in roughly the position of the nodal point. Then I marked on the floor with a coin where the weight hung. That way, as I turned the camera I readjusted the position of the tripod to keep the weight over the coin. Not as fast, easy, or elegant as a nodal rail, but works in a pinch!
Norman
That is a great tip, Norman. Now, what type of string do you use, and which coins are best? Just kidding
For those who say you need nodal rails, I disagree (to a point)
. These two were taken without the use of a nodal rail. what I did instead was to tie a string with a weight onto the lens in roughly the position of the nodal point. Then I marked on the floor with a coin where the weight hung. That way, as I turned the camera I readjusted the position of the tripod to keep the weight over the coin. Not as fast, easy, or elegant as a nodal rail, but works in a pinch!Norman
That is a great tip, Norman. Now, what type of string do you use, and which coins are best? Just kidding
Mar 12, 2012 at 03:49 AM
Mar 17, 2012 at 06:29 PM
p.31 #4Pano-mania
mirkoc wrote:
. These two were taken without the use of a nodal rail. what I did instead was to tie a string with a weight onto the lens in roughly the position of the nodal point. Then I marked on the floor with a coin where the weight hung. That way, as I turned the camera I readjusted the position of the tripod to keep the weight over the coin. Not as fast, easy, or elegant as a nodal rail, but works in a pinch!
NormanThat is a great tip, Norman. Now, what type of string do you use, and which coins are best? Just kidding
Silk string, and Danish coins are great, several of them already have holes in them
Ruahrc wrote
For those who say you need nodal rails, I disagree (to a point). These two were taken without the use of a nodal rail. what I did instead was to tie a string with a weight onto the lens in roughly the position of the nodal point. Then I marked on the floor with a coin where the weight hung. That way, as I turned the camera I readjusted the position of the tripod to keep the weight over the coin. Not as fast, easy, or elegant as a nodal rail, but works in a pinch!Norman
Silk string, and Danish coins are great, several of them already have holes in them
Mar 18, 2012 at 03:36 AM
p.31 #6Pano-mania
Brenizer? He was a late-comer! Rather look at people like Daniel Buck, and he also claims to have seen someone else doing it before him. I think even in film days some were doing it.
Mar 18, 2012 at 01:07 PM
p.31 #7Pano-mania
carstenw wrote:
Brenizer? He was a late-comer! Rather look at people like Daniel Buck, and he also claims to have seen someone else doing it before him. I think even in film days some were doing it.
I know Brenizer wasn't the first, but the method is called after him.
Brenizer? He was a late-comer! Rather look at people like Daniel Buck, and he also claims to have seen someone else doing it before him. I think even in film days some were doing it.
I know Brenizer wasn't the first, but the method is called after him.
Mar 18, 2012 at 01:17 PM
p.31 #8Pano-mania
Yes, he called it like that after himself, even though he wasn't the first There are other names, such as boke panorama.
There are other names, such as boke panorama.Mar 18, 2012 at 02:27 PM
p.31 #9Pano-mania
7-shot pano with Leica R 60/2.8 macro in portrait format on 1Ds2.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Untitled_Panorama1-2-3-2.jpg
April 3, 2012 -- Here's a update shot. 9-shot pano taken with Canon 50/2.5 Macro and 5D2. No attempt to match processing, just thought it would be interesting to see a different version of pano.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Untitled_Panorama1-2-2-7.jpg
Edited on Apr 03, 2012 at 06:05 PM · View previous versions
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Untitled_Panorama1-2-3-2.jpg
April 3, 2012 -- Here's a update shot. 9-shot pano taken with Canon 50/2.5 Macro and 5D2. No attempt to match processing, just thought it would be interesting to see a different version of pano.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Untitled_Panorama1-2-2-7.jpg
Edited on Apr 03, 2012 at 06:05 PM · View previous versions
Mar 22, 2012 at 05:11 PM
p.31 #10Pano-mania
Let me know if this is too big:
http://corposant.smugmug.com/North-America/San-DiegoOrange-County/Salton-Sea/i-tgsMs3N/0/X2/11160011-Edit-X2.jpg
http://corposant.smugmug.com/North-America/San-DiegoOrange-County/Salton-Sea/i-tgsMs3N/0/X2/11160011-Edit-X2.jpg
Mar 22, 2012 at 10:46 PM
p.31 #11Pano-mania
corposant wrote:
Let me know if this is too big:
nice!
also, not big enough.
Let me know if this is too big:
nice!
also, not big enough.
Mar 22, 2012 at 11:42 PM
p.31 #13Pano-mania
testaroo
just tried to post and it appeared to go through but a got a "nothing specified" after it was finished.
just tried to post and it appeared to go through but a got a "nothing specified" after it was finished.
Mar 28, 2012 at 03:29 AM
p.31 #14Pano-mania
buttermilk Panos from Bishop, CA, Buttermilk Loop
sony Nex 7 contax CY 28-85 zoom f5.6
http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279893/large.jpg
original is here: http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279893/original
http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279894/large.jpg
original: http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279894/original
http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279898/large.jpg
original: http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279898/original
http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279896/large.jpg
original: http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279896/original
MIke
sony Nex 7 contax CY 28-85 zoom f5.6
http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279893/large.jpg
original is here: http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279893/original
http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279894/large.jpg
original: http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279894/original
http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279898/large.jpg
original: http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279898/original
http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279896/large.jpg
original: http://www.pbase.com/masimo/image/142279896/original
MIke
Mar 28, 2012 at 03:44 AM
p.31 #15Pano-mania
Been awhile in here........here's a new one!
23 shots stitched, Vancouver waterfront, Yashica 50mm F2 ML on Canon 7D. Big.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7104/7025862445_29535a06f9_o.jpg
23 shots stitched, Vancouver waterfront, Yashica 50mm F2 ML on Canon 7D. Big.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7104/7025862445_29535a06f9_o.jpg
Mar 28, 2012 at 11:19 PM
p.31 #16Pano-mania
U.C. wrote:
I know Brenizer wasn't the first, but the method is called after him.
I think the only reason why people have picked up on that name is that he has been very succesful using the low DOF pano method for much of his wedding shooting and he posted many examples on his flickr account. He made it into his trademark as a wedding photographer, but he certainly didn't invent the concept.
At least 4-5 years ago I saw Daniel Buck's low DOF panos, so I might as well call it the Daniel Buck method.
carstenw wrote
Brenizer? He was a late-comer! Rather look at people like Daniel Buck, and he also claims to have seen someone else doing it before him. I think even in film days some were doing it.I think the only reason why people have picked up on that name is that he has been very succesful using the low DOF pano method for much of his wedding shooting and he posted many examples on his flickr account. He made it into his trademark as a wedding photographer, but he certainly didn't invent the concept.
At least 4-5 years ago I saw Daniel Buck's low DOF panos, so I might as well call it the Daniel Buck method.
Mar 29, 2012 at 08:37 AM
p.31 #17Pano-mania
So we can call it: Shallow Depth of Field Panorama (SDoFP)
Or maybe: Simulating a Large Aperture Panorama (SLAP)
Or maybe: Simulating a Large Aperture Panorama (SLAP)
Mar 29, 2012 at 09:05 AM
p.31 #18Pano-mania
It's actually simulating large format, not large aperture. People use large aperture lenses (often f/1.2-1.4) and then stitch to get a wide field of view combined with the wide aperture. Brenizer seems to use his Sigma 85/1.4 mostly for his panos (wide open).
You could also argue that you're simulating a very large aperture wide angle lens. Your pano with the 100/2 would approximately need a 26mm f/0.5 lens to get the same DOF in a single frame (on a FF camera). I used this to calculate: http://brettmaxwellphoto.com/Brenizer-Method-Calculation/
I think the idea of simulating large format makes more sense though. You could shift the Zeiss MP100/2 around a large sensor and get the result that you got with stitching, but a 26/0.5 lens on a FF sensor most likely would create a very different look.
You could also argue that you're simulating a very large aperture wide angle lens. Your pano with the 100/2 would approximately need a 26mm f/0.5 lens to get the same DOF in a single frame (on a FF camera). I used this to calculate: http://brettmaxwellphoto.com/Brenizer-Method-Calculation/
I think the idea of simulating large format makes more sense though. You could shift the Zeiss MP100/2 around a large sensor and get the result that you got with stitching, but a 26/0.5 lens on a FF sensor most likely would create a very different look.
Mar 29, 2012 at 09:54 AM
p.31 #19Pano-mania
Are there large format combinations that are equivalent too 26/0.5 on FF?
Why should a well corrected wide-angle look very different to my shot (apart from the extremely small DoF)?
Why should a well corrected wide-angle look very different to my shot (apart from the extremely small DoF)?
Mar 29, 2012 at 11:10 AM
p.31 #20Pano-mania
U.C. wrote:
Are there large format combinations that are equivalent too 26/0.5 on FF?
Why should a well corrected wide-angle look very different to my shot (apart from the extremely small DoF)?With larger format you shoot with longer focal length. If you play around enough with formula to calculate CoC (or just shoot large format ) you will soon find that when you use larger format:
- you get maybe same DoF as smaller format shorter focal length and super large aperture...
- ...but the change from DoF to bokeh is steeper in larger format
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF @ f/5.6, 1/4s, ISO 100 - panorama made from 60 exposures:
(if there is no image above refresh the page and it should appear, happens about every 100th time, something wrong on my old php-scripts - apologies for the inconvenience)
Are there large format combinations that are equivalent too 26/0.5 on FF?
Why should a well corrected wide-angle look very different to my shot (apart from the extremely small DoF)?With larger format you shoot with longer focal length. If you play around enough with formula to calculate CoC (or just shoot large format
) you will soon find that when you use larger format:- you get maybe same DoF as smaller format shorter focal length and super large aperture...
- ...but the change from DoF to bokeh is steeper in larger format
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF @ f/5.6, 1/4s, ISO 100 - panorama made from 60 exposures:
(if there is no image above refresh the page and it should appear, happens about every 100th time, something wrong on my old php-scripts - apologies for the inconvenience)
Mar 29, 2012 at 01:28 PM