Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > "Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion

Reply
Thread Tools

"Virtual" wide angle via stitching seems to have less distortion

 
 
kosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MMnospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006

"kosh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsclpg.19154$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006
In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006, Daniel Silevitch <(E-Mail Removed)> 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).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Saunders
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006
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


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006

"Paul Saunders" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr.T
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:e85nh0$qj4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:34:57 -0400, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006, Daniel Silevitch <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2006
On 7/1/06 2:07 AM, Randy Berbaum posted the following:
> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> 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!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
distortion free wide angle lens bacra Digital Photography 14 12-15-2006 05:41 PM
Not many "wide-angle" compacts but, heck, many are wide-angle anyway! JeffOYB@hotmail.com Digital Photography 10 01-09-2006 08:30 AM
wide angle lense distortion (objects appear larger at the edge)? peter Digital Photography 10 04-12-2005 06:39 AM
anyone notice barrel distortion with dimage XT when lens is setted at wide angle? TIA Jen Digital Photography 2 02-20-2004 10:53 PM
Wide-angle distortion on a digital Mike Graham Digital Photography 4 10-01-2003 05:30 PM



Advertisments