If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
overage and take more frames to cover the horizontal.
The reason you do that is you have the best stitch results if the middle of your picture lines up with the horizon. asssuming you plan on ignoring the rule of 1/3's that is. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
"kosh" wrote in message news overage and take more frames to cover the horizontal. The reason you do that is you have the best stitch results if the middle of your picture lines up with the horizon. asssuming you plan on ignoring the rule of 1/3's that is. Interesting comments on photographic "rules" at http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/ including the following advice from contributor Ken Tanaka -- "... But don't, don't, do not start confining your creative ambitions with "RULES." They do not exist. Take the pictures that you like to take and let your own frustration be your guide to developing your own set of best practices. You may, indeed, find that, say, the "rule of thirds" works for your own eyes, or not! " Also on the site are examples of great photos, together with the cliche "rules" that they've broken. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
On 6/30/06 10:40 PM, MMnospam posted the following:
Interesting comments on photographic "rules" at http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/ including the following advice from contributor Ken Tanaka -- "... But don't, don't, do not start confining your creative ambitions with "RULES." They do not exist. Take the pictures that you like to take and let your own frustration be your guide to developing your own set of best practices. You may, indeed, find that, say, the "rule of thirds" works for your own eyes, or not! " Pretty spot on, but taken solely at face value, is misleading. Rules of thumb do exist, and for tried and true reasons. BTW, if you do not hit Return as your text approaches the edge of your compose window, you won't get odd wrapping as above. -- john mcwilliams |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote:
: BTW, if you do not hit Return as your text approaches the edge of your : compose window, you won't get odd wrapping as above. Not neccissarily. Not all usenet software works the same. For example my software has a fixed line length and the original posting wraps correctly, but when quoting in a reply it automatically adds a quote character (in the above it is using ":") and then a return at the end of each line. But when I reply to a quote of a quote this return may be beyond the end of my particular line length and so there will be some wrapping and odd line lengths. Each program will have a default line length (and some may be user adjustable). But each program will likely be a different length. So if one person quotes a line that is 75 characters long, and I reply with a 70 character line length, wrapping will occur. So until all of us are using the exact same software and the exact same settings there will be occasional mismatches. Now some of us (like me) try to edit the mismatched line lengths in the quoted material so it looks good, at least on a system using the same or longer line length than me. Of course the best way to deal with this is for all of us to just ignore the mismatches that do crop up from time to time (and try to trim the amount of quoted material to the minimum possible while making it clear what we are responding to). JMHO Randy ========== Randy Berbaum Champaign, IL |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006, Daniel Silevitch wrote:
My latest attempt at stitching, 3 frames with an FZ5 (widest focal length 36mm): http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/tibetan_concert.jpg It stitched pretty well, except for a few inconsiderate people in the foreground who moved around a bit between frames. That can be fixed. If you stitch with PTGui you can output as TIFF files and then mask out the people in the layers where you don't want them. I have seen web pages explaining this, but I haven't bothered to do it myself, yet. Don www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
Don Wiss wrote:
The reason you do that is you have the best stitch results if the middle of your picture lines up with the horizon. kosh wrote: asssuming you plan on ignoring the rule of 1/3's that is. MMnospam wrote: Interesting comments on photographic "rules" at http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/ including the following advice from contributor Ken Tanaka -- "... But don't, don't, do not start confining your creative ambitions with "RULES." John McWilliams wrote: Pretty spot on, but taken solely at face value, is misleading. Rules of thumb do exist, and for tried and true reasons. But in this case, the rule of thumb to level your panorama with the horizon over-rules the rule of thirds rule of thumb. The reason is simple. I have a true panoramic camera (swing lens) and if the horizon isn't perfectly level it will come out curved. Sometimes this can create an interesting, if gimmicky effect, but for a normal looking photo it simply has to be level with the horizon. The same thing happens with stitching software. If you tilt the camera up or down, depending on which software you use, the result will either be a curved horizon, strange distortions or it won't stitch properly. There are ways of correcting for tilt with some software, but it's much simpler to use a spirit level and keep the camera level when you take the photos in the first place. If you want a rule of thirds horizon after you've stitched your pano, it's a simple matter to crop afterwards, much easier than taking the shots tilted and making it harder to stitch. In fact, it can often be difficult to visualise what a stitched pano will eventually look like so it's worth covering a larger area than you think you'll need in order to give yourself some leeway for a nice crop afterwards. It's really annoying to cut the edges too fine then find that you have bits missing in the final image, since some cropping is unavoidable. Paul |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
"Paul Saunders" wrote: But in this case, the rule of thumb to level your panorama with the horizon over-rules the rule of thirds rule of thumb. The reason is simple. I have a true panoramic camera (swing lens) and if the horizon isn't perfectly level it will come out curved. Sometimes this can create an interesting, if gimmicky effect, but for a normal looking photo it simply has to be level with the horizon. So use a different tool. Use a shift lens. On a 1.6x camera the +/- 11 mm of shift provided by the Canon TSE lenses means that with the camera mounted perfectly level, you can place the horizon anywhere from 3 mm above the frame to 3 mm below the frame (landscape orientation of the camera) or anywhere from 1 mm from the top of the frame to 1 mm from the bottom of the frame with the camera mounted vertically. The same thing happens with stitching software. If you tilt the camera up or down, depending on which software you use, the result will either be a curved horizon, strange distortions or it won't stitch properly. There are ways of correcting for tilt with some software, but it's much simpler to use a spirit level and keep the camera level when you take the photos in the first place. So use a shift lens to get the composition you want... In fact, it can often be difficult to visualise what a stitched pano will eventually look like so it's worth covering a larger area than you think you'll need in order to give yourself some leeway for a nice crop afterwards. It's really annoying to cut the edges too fine then find that you have bits missing in the final image, since some cropping is unavoidable. But the above is _really really really_ good advice. I shot the following one at 13mm (300D + 10-22mm) and should have used 12, or even 11 (the building at the left got clipped). Oops. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/43504169/large David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... So use a different tool. Use a shift lens. On a 1.6x camera the +/- 11 mm of shift provided by the Canon TSE lenses means that with the camera mounted perfectly level, you can place the horizon anywhere from 3 mm above the frame to 3 mm below the frame (landscape orientation of the camera) or anywhere from 1 mm from the top of the frame to 1 mm from the bottom of the frame with the camera mounted vertically. Good advice for those who can justify it's cost. (or a proper view camera even.) For those who can't, more shots and more work in photoshop is required. MrT. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:34:57 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006, Daniel Silevitch wrote: My latest attempt at stitching, 3 frames with an FZ5 (widest focal length 36mm): http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/tibetan_concert.jpg It stitched pretty well, except for a few inconsiderate people in the foreground who moved around a bit between frames. That can be fixed. If you stitch with PTGui you can output as TIFF files and then mask out the people in the layers where you don't want them. I have seen web pages explaining this, but I haven't bothered to do it myself, yet. I thought about doing that, but haven't had the time to play around with it yet. I could make my life easier by just cropping out the whole foreground, but I think the crowd of people adds enough to the picture that I'd prefer to keep them in. -dms |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion
On 7/1/06 2:07 AM, Randy Berbaum posted the following:
In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote: : BTW, if you do not hit Return as your text approaches the edge of your : compose window, you won't get odd wrapping as above. Not neccissarily. Not all usenet software works the same. Yes, quite right but the original post by anyone should appear fine unless their line wrap (soft) is unusually large or unusually small, no? -- john mcwilliams Go Illini! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for a wide angle lens | Eric Miller | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 14th 05 12:19 AM |
Wide Angle Lens vs Slim Camera | Steve Almond | Digital Photography | 2 | June 24th 04 09:47 AM |
Wide Angle Lens HELP! | John | In The Darkroom | 3 | May 30th 04 01:20 PM |
Wide Angle Lens HELP! | John | Large Format Photography Equipment | 1 | May 28th 04 11:57 PM |
FS: 159mm Wollensak Wide Angle Series III F9.5 lens | BCE | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 3rd 03 11:53 PM |