 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / July 2007This is a pano....
http://www.photo.net.au/members/peted/Greens-Pool-Pano.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1 Seven shots joined with AutoStitch. Greens Pool, South West Western Australia, Southern Ocean side. > http://www.photo.net.au/members/peted/Greens-Pool-Pano.jpg.html?g2_im... > > Seven shots joined with AutoStitch. > > Greens Pool, South West Western Australia, Southern Ocean side. Nice location and nice shot.... just a pity that it's not a level horizon. Cheers Rusty http://www.pixelpix.com.au http://blog.pixelpix.com.au PixelPix <mail@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in news:1185483530.497846.166270 @l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com: >> http://www.photo.net.au/members/peted/Greens-Pool-Pano.jpg.html?g2_im... >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.pixelpix.com.au > http://blog.pixelpix.com.au Looks pretty level to me, I think it might be the curvature of the earth that you can see. Or maybe some distortion from a wide angle. What lens did you use Pete? Mick > PixelPix <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in news:1185483530.497846.166270 > @l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Mick It's a mix off-level and curvature from an off-level rotation IMHO. Cheers Rusty http://www.pixelpix.com.au http://blog.pixelpix.com.au >>PixelPix <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in news:1185483530.497846.166270 >>@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > http://www.pixelpix.com.au > http://blog.pixelpix.com.au Yep and stitching programs will do just that. >>>PixelPix <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in news:1185483530.497846.166270 >>>@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Yep and stitching programs will do just that. That Greens Pool pano would have been Pentax 16-45mm F4, given the gear I have now I would go for my FA50mm F1.4, very flat and would give an excellent result. I know that shot is a bit wonky but it is also very wide and if you could see the actual place you would actually see some curvature. The actual place is just amazing, the water was simply delicious to swim in. Perhaps you prefer this one from my Sony V1? http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/images/upload/Hilarys-Boat-Harbour.jpg Or this one, 13 shots from Sony V1 joined with AutoStitch. This one is a real Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaano!! ;-) http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/images/upload/Pano-1--smaller.jpg AutoStitch will also do this. http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/images/upload/slidersmall.jpg > > PixelPix <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in news:1185483530.497846.166270 > > @l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Rustyhttp://www.pixelpix.com.auhttp://blog.pixelpix.com.au I go along with that Russ. Plenty of free (even expensive) Pano stitching software does this. The really good panos are made from cameras using "flat field" lenses. You've got one in the Olympus lens you use on your Canon DSLRs. Of course no Panorama created from a camera stuck to one spot, is ever going to look anything but unreal like this one because the human eye compensates for the distortion of objects at varying distances in real life but not for the picture created as the camera revolves around an axis. If you get really serious about panoramas without distortion, you'll learn up on simple surveyor's techniques and peg out a set of points then move the camera from one to the other, avoiding the classic distortions very clear in this picture. I use a simple "laser level" bought from "Super Cheap" with an assistant using a surveyor's "staff" to establish the vertically identical points I use to position the camera over. It's surprising how little distance you need to move to get a distortion free panorama. The location is great but the picture lets it down. It doesn't look to me as if the rotation mechanism used was rotating on the nodal point of the camera/lens either. but that's just nit picking on such a small example as the one offered. Yes, I agree with the others - lovely work, but a levelled/ straightened horizon would make it great! This problem, and the fact if chokes (often inexplicably) on larger images, is why I dropped Autotstitch. But I can't recommend an alternative, as I haven't moved on to anything else, yet! Probably PTGUI, but we'll see... > If you get really serious about panoramas without distortion, you'll > learn up on simple surveyor's techniques and peg out a set of points > then move the camera from one to the other, avoiding the classic > distortions very clear in this picture. This, er... 'interesting' approach, was posted by Douglas MacDonald under one of his latest sockpuppets, which possibly explains why I haven't heard of this technique before. (O; Of course, if you relocate the camera between images - as his method seems to imply - you will encounter major parallax problems. One of the main reasons for keeping the camera in a fixed location and rotating it about a nodal point is to avoid exactly that. So I am fascinated to see some examples of Douglas' radical approach, and a more in-depth explanation, with special reference to any panorama stitching software or technique that handles parallax issues. If he has software that will do this, I'll even buy it! So back to you ".." (AKA Douglas MacDonald) - Any examples, links or references on this one, Douglas? Or will you, as usual, vanish when challenged? One more thing, while browsing over panorama technique websites, I found this one. http://www.rosaurophotography.com/html/technical.html Worth a peek or two, imho. > One more thing, while browsing over panorama technique websites, I > found this one. > > http://www.rosaurophotography.com/html/technical.html > > Worth a peek or two, imho. Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too wide an angle using a lens that distorts a little at 16mm and did not overlap enough, the shots also cover an area that has some perspective change and so the problems. Anyway those were taken about 18 months ago and I have a nice 50mm F1.4 that would give a far better result now I think. I am umming and arhing on what lens for this sort of landscape shooting and it is a toss up between a 14mm or a 21mm and the 21mm is winning at the moment. Cheers. Pete > <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Pete What do you mean by "perspective change" Pete? >> <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > What do you mean by "perspective change" Pete? I mean the view looking to sea and then on the right looking in to the shore. > >> <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I mean the view looking to sea and then on the right looking in to the > shore. Ah OK, but I don't see how that would effect the image and make for problems? >> >> <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Ah OK, but I don't see how that would effect the image and make for > problems? I was not using a tripod and it can make you tilt a bit I think, also the left half looks ok by itself so I did something. Any it is great fun doing these and I need to get out more and do some others. Cheers. Pete > Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too wide an angle > using a lens that distorts a little at 16mm and did not overlap enough, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on what lens for this sort of landscape shooting and it is a toss up between > a 14mm or a 21mm and the 21mm is winning at the moment. I don't get what you are suggesting? 14mm, 21mm, 50mm? Surely you should use whatever focal length lens the subject requires. The whole purpose IMO for stitching photo's is that you can get a panorama in any suitable manner, NOT just from an ultra wide angle lens. MrT. >> Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too wide an > angle [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > MrT. No, a really wide lens is not good to use here as it will give some distortion, better to do small bites with a good overlap then join, keeps everything as flat as possible. mind you sometimes it is good to distort the view. Like this. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1228/925886955_ee767d6c70_b.jpg > >> Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too wide an > > angle [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > between > >> a 14mm or a 21mm and the 21mm is winning at the moment. > > I don't get what you are suggesting? 14mm, 21mm, 50mm? Surely you should > > use > > whatever focal length lens the subject requires. The whole purpose IMO for > > stitching photo's is that you can get a panorama in any suitable manner, > > NOT > > just from an ultra wide angle lens. > No, a really wide lens is not good to use here as it will give some > distortion, better to do small bites with a good overlap then join, keeps > everything as flat as possible. And yet you deliberate over 14mm, 16mm and 21mm? Seems to be a contradiction to me. > mind you sometimes it is good to distort the > view. It's just as I said, use whatever focal length suits the subject or your creative concept at the time. MrT. >> >> Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too wide an >> > angle [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > And yet you deliberate over 14mm, 16mm and 21mm? > Seems to be a contradiction to me. Of course it isn't, I will use it for shooting other than do huge panos and the 21 or 14 will do it in one go. >> mind you sometimes it is good to distort the >> view. > > It's just as I said, use whatever focal length suits the subject or your > creative concept at the time. I will use whatever I happen to have on the camera or in the bag at the time. > MrT. Mr R(ight) > >> >> Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too wide an > >> > angle [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Of course it isn't, I will use it for shooting other than do huge panos and > the 21 or 14 will do it in one go. OK, my mistake, pity you didn't make that obvious in the first place though. > I will use whatever I happen to have on the camera or in the bag at the > time. So no need for your "umming and arhing" after all! MrT. >> >> >> Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too wide > an [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > So no need for your "umming and arhing" after all! Still going to buy one of the lenses, so ummm, aaah. Expecting a 90mm Tamron macro to arrive tomorrow, tracking tells me it got to the local postocffice on Friday afternoon, one less to worry about. Cheers. Pete > >> >> >> Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too wide > > an [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > macro to arrive tomorrow, tracking tells me it got to the local postocffice > on Friday afternoon, one less to worry about. But NO mention of that one in your original post. I'm just not sure if you're as confused as you are trying to make us :-) I can't say I've ever seen any stitched macro pano's yet either. Sounds like an interesting idea. Good luck with the new lens anyway. MrT. >> >> >> >> Thanks. I really loved those shots but sadly took them at too > wide [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > MrT. Bored now, don't care. Bye. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.