stitching action only costs money. i have seen a 360 pano setup for shooting public events without any motion blur. it's a 5 camera setup with a single release for all 5 cameras. 5 cameras, 5 lenses, 5 receivers, 1 mount, and 1 release.
Glad to see people arguing back and forth! Some good discussion is coming out as well. I knew my title would be inflamatory enough to get people to talk (I hope that's not trolling, not my intent)
I'll generally agree with the people stating that a lot of things (stars, clouds, light and water) aren't generally moving anywhere as fast as one believes. Then again, I'm willing to concede plenty of times a single capture is necessary. I just wonder how many of those super duper wide shots would not be as effective at a slightly longer focal length, where it is easier to make a superior lens, that is, IMO, more generally useable as well.
That said, there's a few of the ultrawide users (some of whom are participating in this thread) that can shoot the elements out of their ultrawides and produce stunning single frame shots.
I use hugin (free!) and it calculates and accounts for vignetting excellently. Then again so does DPP when using a Canon lens.
montespluga wrote:
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.
For night shots exposures are counted in seconds and sometimes minutes. If I shoot 30 seconds with my 18mm I can see trails at the edges. When doing a stitch you will magnify that problem.
For aurora shots I want to limit exposure time because they change shape pretty fast. A long exposure will make the aurora look like a green smoke/blob in the sky. I actually think my 18/3.5 is on the slower side and plan to add a 24/1.4 to be able to catch aurora shapes better. ...at least after the financial chrisis is over! 8-O
By trails I mean stars getting an oval shape or even a streak from stars. There are few factors that affect star movement in the frame.
First is time itself, the longer the exposure you will see more star trails. For my 18mm lens it is 1-2 minutes before they become noticable in all of the frame.
Then it is exaggeration because of the wide angle of view. You will notice star trail sooner in the corners than in the center.
Lens focal length will magnify the effect. Startrails will show up way sooner with a 50mm lens than with a 20mm one.
And last but not the least is earth's rotation axis relative to the stars. Stars on the axis (north or south) will move slower across the sky. That's why we see circular pattern with star trails of very long exposures (30 minutes+).
I want to stitch the movement of the stars, not a single star;
therefore several frames, with about 15 - 20 min of exposures each; did you ever try that?
Yes, I did some long exposures - but single frames, only.
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?
Thanks, Dan! It's much easier to judge with these higher-res examples.
I still prefer the single-shot, for this scene, even though the pano was taken with much better light.
I think it's because, in this case, the center formation is the main attraction, and the single shot sort of draws the eye towards the center.
In the pano, the eye is drawn more evenly to the edge formations, which doesn't work so well in this specific case. I also LIKE the distorted perspective. Definitely dramatic. The single-shot seems to be pulling me in to the canyon, while the pano seems to be pushing me away.
I would imagine that if the same comparison were done with a citiscape, the pano would probably be preferable, for the same reasons. Very, very interesting.
montespluga wrote:
okay, got it now - it was a misunderstanding:
I want to stitch the movement of the stars, not a single star;
therefore several frames, with about 15 - 20 min of exposures each; did you ever try that?
Yes, I did some long exposures - but single frames, only.
Do you mean that the next frame would take off where the other left? Interesting idea. Might be fun to try. :-)
I read an article once on doing star trail photography by shooting multiple shots and screening them together in photoshop. Been planning to do a shot like that but had forgotten about it.
p.3 #10 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
DanPBrown wrote:
Here you go. http://i.pbase.com/g1/34/218934/2/105895871.uVxThQZx.jpg
We weren't standing in the same spot so the framing is a little off. If I remember correctly I stitched this using the cylindrical projection in ptgui.
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com
Let me make sure I understand this. I can get the same drama from stitching 5-8 frames, provided I have the imagination and skill, that I could get from a single frame UWA killer lens.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
I hope everybody who bought a killer UWA 18 or 21 who now accepts stitching as the One True Path will simply list his/her killer UWA on the B&S Forum. Discounts deeply appreciated. I had funds for an Oly 18 f3.5, lost them when one came up, have funds again. Would also consider pre-ZE release C/Y Distagon 21 (I'd love to compare with the Oly 21 f3.5).
p.3 #11 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
I don't think that will happen Dave. Perhaps the best answer to my hypothesis is: it depends ;-)
Maybe the best thing to do, it seems, is to buy a 17-40 (or 17-35 nikkor) and really figure out how much you use the ultrawide perspective. If you're desiring something far more awesome and expensive than either of these lenses, there's places to spend your money. I'd be shocked if you couldn't recoup your cost on a 17-40 or equivalent.
I don't mind stitching at all, it's fun for me to do. For the cases when it doesn't work, I haven't felt limited by 24 mm, so I'm not likely to be one searching for super whiz-bang ultra-ultrawides. Then again, I might try one and fall in love with it. Who knows.
p.3 #12 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
No stitching and no ultrawides for me, simple reason being I cant compose with either, I simply dont have the talent for it. And I think very few people do, it's waay harder than people think. In my very honest opinion, most stitched or superwide shots that I see everyday are uniformly boring, with few exceptions from very talented photographers who can actually compose at this width and create something worth looking at. 24 is as wide as I go, plus a fisheye for a very certain and rare type of shot. Anything wider than 24, maybe 21 at the most, is a special effect lens in my book and it takes a special kind of photographer to master it.
p.3 #13 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
davidearls wrote:
Let me make sure I understand this. I can get the same drama from stitching 5-8 frames, provided I have the imagination and skill, that I could get from a single frame UWA killer lens.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
I hope everybody who bought a killer UWA 18 or 21 who now accepts stitching as the One True Path will simply list his/her killer UWA on the B&S Forum. Discounts deeply appreciated. I had funds for an Oly 18 f3.5, lost them when one came up, have funds again. Would also consider pre-ZE release C/Y Distagon 21 (I'd love to compare with the Oly 21 f3.5). ...Show more →
David,
Evidently you HAVE heard of Occam's Razor, (we've all seen that movie) but don't understand what it's about!
Regardless, the point here should now be somewhat obvious:
A "standard" pano has a very different perspective than a 1-shot, however, you can evidently use software to create the 1-shot's perspective.
YOU CANNOT DO THE REVERSE. -That's the important thing to realize.
Additionally, the pano gives you several perspective options, opening up creative avenues should you choose to explore them. And finally, of course, the pano will have a shite-load more resolution.
Why are you still shouting from that WA soapbox? Options is good!
p.3 #14 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Daniel,
There are just so many photographic realms where one needs focal lengths wider than 24mm. I'm a working pro, pay the rent, 5 kids, been doing it for 28 years and publish and exhibit my personal work. I have a broad range of work as do most working photographers I know. I love stitching. Do it all the time, mostly for urban twilight panos and some indoor architecture. However, there's no way I would shoot a factory, a classroom, in the metro, a group of street youth, a stockholders' meeting or a landscape without an ultra-wide angle in the bag. For this I use a Canon 17-40 (does the job) and a Nikon 15mm 3,5 AIS (no distortion, requires flare management) on a 1dsMk2.
I feel there's an overemphasis on landscape and nature photography on this forum that seems to have colored your perception of what people are shooting. By the way I love shooting and looking at nature and landscape photography.
You can see some of my stuff at www.peetsimard.com
p.3 #15 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Peet Simard wrote:
You can see some of my stuff at www.peetsimard.com
Peet
Nice website I only had time to check out your Paris section, and some great stitches there. Also loved the shot of the Eiffel Tower, presumably with your 17-40?
p.3 #16 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Thank you. You're right, the Eiffel tower shot was done with a 17-40 at 17mm. Most of the other Paris twilight stuff in that folder was either stitched (usually use cz 28mm 2,8) or done with a Canon 24tse.
p.3 #17 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
An ultrawide sometimes permits a closer viewing angle when something not wanted in the image is between the subject and the desired viewpoint. It also has various, non-architecture uses indoors.
p.3 #18 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Peet,
Excellent images! Love your corportate stuff and can see where ultrawides are useful here. You're right--I neglected the entire pj/corporate/urban world where confined spaces require being right on top of your subject.
p.3 #19 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
There's also the fisheye, as others have noted, which also gives a different perspective. The Horseshoe Bend shot has been taken ad infinitum and has become a must-have cliche' shot from the southwest. The fisheye plays on that and gives quite a different take on the subject (Canon 5D with EF15mm fish):
(I hope that's not trolling, not my intent)
