Mike Ganz wrote:
Gotta agree with cogi...I like having the ability to go really wide with a single shot. I'm not totally averse to stitching (there are several specific pano's that I have in mind and waiting to shoot), but sometimes multiple shots aren't very practical. Below is a shot of Horseshoe Bend along the Colorado River taken with a 5D/17-40L at 17mm focal length (single exposure). At the time, there were 40 mph wind gusts at the rim which didn't make it conducive to setting up a tripod and taking multiple exposures with a 'normal' lens. When a UWA will do the job and is available, why bother stitching?
Dan, that's fascinating. It's the first time I've ver seen a comparison of the same scene, stiched and no stitched. I know that near-far perspective changes, but I had no idea there would be such a difference in angle perception. Holy cow...
I can't decide which I prefer. (resolution aside.) It's especially hard to decide since we were not there to see what your eyes saw.
Could you possibly crop the pano, to be as close to the single-shot as possible, so this change is more easy to analyze?
Should be pretty obvious from Dan's stitch why stitching just doesn't work for some shots. Whatever stitching offers in terms of perspective correctness, it lacks in drama. The UWA Horseshoe Bend shot has drama, the stitched shot has none, at least to my eye.
No great high skies from stitching, either. Sometimes you need UWA to thrust the viewer into the image. Sometimes you don't. Neither overlap nor competition here, IMO.
davidearls wrote:
Should be pretty obvious from Dan's stitch why stitching just doesn't work for some shots. Whatever stitching offers in terms of perspective correctness, it lacks in drama. The UWA Horseshoe Bend shot has drama, the stitched shot has none, at least to my eye.
No great high skies from stitching, either. Sometimes you need UWA to thrust the viewer into the image. Sometimes you don't. Neither overlap nor competition here, IMO.
I think the reason you don't perceive the drama is due to the crop/image size reproduced here. If you cropped them identically, I think you'd see the drama.
Perspective has NOTHING to do with focal length. It has to do with relative subject distances.
justruss wrote:
I think the reason you don't perceive the drama is due to the crop/image size reproduced here. If you cropped them identically, I think you'd see the drama.
I have to agree with Dan. I downloaded the images, cropped and re-sized. It's not a great way to compare, since there are resolution issues (it should be done from the originals) but after doing so, I also think the pano lacks drama. VERY interesting.
The pano also has a VASTLY different shape & angles. The entire canyon looks different.
justruss wrote:
Perspective has NOTHING to do with focal length. It has to do with relative subject distances.
True, but FL often determines how far away you stand. Also, if you look at the two images with the pano cropped, you'll see that the relative size of the center formation, in relation to the back wall and distant objects, is very different in the two shots. That has to be coming from something.
The 'drama' we often see with ultrawides is due to the perspective distortion at the edges of the frame which stretch the image into lines which lead us into the frame. It can be effective on occasions but can also end up being a tiresome cliche. When you stitch you have the option of different 'projections' such as sperical or barrel and these remove this edge distortion to give the wide view a much more natural apperance. It doesn't work with all subjets as anything with straight lines will be rendered curved but with natural scenes it works very well.
shirozina wrote:
.....When you stitch you have the option of different 'projections' such as sperical or barrel and these remove this edge distortion to give the wide view a much more natural apperance.
Cableaddict wrote:
I also think the pano lacks drama. VERY interesting.
I have to disagree. I think that the pano in this case comes out on top. The wider view allowed by the stitching shows more of the walls of the canyon, therefore giving me a feeling of more depth going into the canyon. Of course if you crop the pano, you lose half of the advantage it gives - showing more of the panorama view than the wide lens can. In this case I would have done both - banged out a couple of shots with my 18mm Zuiko or my fisheye and afterwards done a quick pano with a vertically held "normal" lens.
I would never had gotten around to stitching them together, but that´s a different issue...
p.2 #10 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
...Also, if you look at the two images with the pano cropped, you'll see that the relative size of the center formation, in relation to the back wall and distant objects, is very different in the two shots. That has to be coming from something.
This is what I was referring to before seeing the stitched version, the UWA is always going to exaggerate aspects of a frame that longer lenses just cannot replicate
p.2 #12 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
This is what I was referring to before seeing the stitched version, the UWA is always going to exaggerate aspects of a frame that longer lenses just cannot replicate
Not really; just stitch in the rectilinear or planar projection....
Here's a example of exaggerated UW-looking stitch - 3 frames:
p.2 #13 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
hauxon wrote:
6) Like to shoot at night. Stars move and aurora moves fast. Stitching is simply not possible here besides the hassle of rearranging everything in the dark.
Best, Hrannar
Did you ever try that?
The stars are moving by 15 deg/hour; therefore 0,0625 deg/15 sec. Plenty of time to turn the panohead......
IMHO this should align well, but I'd really like to see some samples.
p.2 #15 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Daniel,
You can stitch images together when the subject matter isn't moving. I shoot long exposure star images, and the star trails would probably look odd/discontinuous if stitched. Instead I am using a Tokina 12-24 on crop, and use this usually at the shortest focal length (around 18mm on full frame). If I ever go full frame I will look carefully at Zeiss ultrawides to fit on my Canon.
p.2 #16 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
ovredal73 wrote:
Thats a cool stitch!
Thanks!
That was just a fun-stitch and I showed it for one purpose:
while stitching, you can create what I call a °virtual lens°; any HFOV and VFOV desired, in more than 8 projections, from a given p.o.v. In my book, this is the big advantage of stitching, apart from collecting pixels for huge end-formats.
But once again: horses for courses.
------
David: Did you ever tried starstitching?
With a 360 precision and a template, I'm sure it'll work!
p.2 #17 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
montespluga wrote:
while stitching, you can create what I call a °virtual lens°; any HFOV and VFOV desired, in more than 8 projections, from a given p.o.v. In my book, this is the big advantage of stitching, apart from collecting pixels for huge end-formats.
That's wild. Which software are you speaking of, exactly?
p.2 #18 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Cableaddict,
it's PTGui; I had bought Autopano Pro too, but once you understand PTGui, you can do anything you like - in the manual modus. Autopano is - nomen est omen - more automated, with less, or harder manual control.
Here's another example to show the potential of stitching:
http://imago.macbay.de/OPF/MKB/MKB_08_RR_C.jpg
105 x 95 degs, 5 x distagon 28, handheld out of a ferry wheel gondola, from about 60 m of height. I's not possible, whithout stitching
The purpose of that image is to relate the courtyard in the foreground to the city and the horizon.
p.2 #19 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Wow, this thread has really taken off. Let me address a few of the previous point.
First off, time is not a real issue in most of my stitched landscape shots. Once I have the equipment aligned it really does not take any significant time to shot the adjoining frames. I normally use my one of my side AF sensor marks as my overlap point. Then I position, lock mirror, fire with remote, position, lock mirror, fire with remote, etc, etc. It really is a short time and cloud movement, sun movement, shadows normally do not come into play. I mean realistically I can shoot off 10-15 frames in well under a minute like this. So, unless your fighting gale force winds or something similiar it's no big deal.
Resolution is out of this world, I do have wide lenses up to 17mm but only use them when I must. The decision to stitch versus using the ultra-wide is a personal choice much like everything else we do in photography. There will never be one perfect solution that applies to all of us.
Skies are not normally a problem as some have stated, at least not in my work.
Slow shutter speeds moving water shots can be done if planned and executed properly. But, some scenes do not lend to this. Once again it's just understanding the proper tool.
As too the "drama" issue with the compared shots. I don't see anything other than a different crop of the scene but maybe that is my own weakness.
Oh, and while I do have a pano head I'd say 75% of my stitched shots are done on my regular ballhead or "gasp" some are even handheld. It really isn't that tough to shot most of them.
But, yes it can take a lot of time to stitch and for some that may be a turn off. I typically use my Leica R 180/3.4 for the stitched Panos. But at f/8 or f/11 it still viginettes so I converted the RAW images to TIFFS and dial in viginette correction as I batch process the files. Then I run photomerge in CS2. Now for some reason my computer chokes on anything more than 14 images. So if it's a really large multi-row image I do each row individually then combine the various rows and yes it can be time-consuming.
p.2 #20 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
jamesdak wrote:
...I typically use my Leica R 180/3.4 for the stitched Panos. But at f/8 or f/11 it still viginettes so I converted the RAW images to TIFFS and dial in viginette correction as I batch process the files...
Try PTGui Pro. It corrects vignetting automatically and is quite good at it.
