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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rowan194, Jun 30, 2006.

  1. rowan194

    rowan194 Guest

    I was playing with a 3x3 stitched image today and for fun did a
    comparison with a standard single shot:

    http://satin.sensation.net.au/rowan/widecompare.jpg

    I found it interesting that although the stitched image has a
    noticeably wider FOV, there's a lot less perspective distortion.

    Unfortunately, it's a lot of work (and CPU time) to stitch 9 images
    into one!
    rowan194, Jun 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. rowan194 wrote:
    > I was playing with a 3x3 stitched image today and for fun did a
    > comparison with a standard single shot:
    >
    > http://satin.sensation.net.au/rowan/widecompare.jpg
    >
    > I found it interesting that although the stitched image has a
    > noticeably wider FOV, there's a lot less perspective distortion.
    >
    > Unfortunately, it's a lot of work (and CPU time) to stitch 9 images
    > into one!


    Since the software has to do a little stretching when it does the
    stitching, I suggest that it is correcting some of the distortion, just as
    you might have done to the single image.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Jun 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. rowan194

    Alf92 Guest

    rowan194 () a ├ęcrit
    dans news: :

    > I was playing with a 3x3 stitched image today and for fun did a
    > comparison with a standard single shot:
    >
    > http://satin.sensation.net.au/rowan/widecompare.jpg
    >
    > I found it interesting that although the stitched image has a
    > noticeably wider FOV, there's a lot less perspective distortion.
    >
    > Unfortunately, it's a lot of work (and CPU time) to stitch 9 images
    > into one!



    yes.
    however, some software (even freeware) exit to correct te lens distortion.
    like this one : http://www.photo-freeware.net/ptlens.php

    --
    Cordialement,
    Alf92
    ======> http://petition.la-bas.org/
    Alf92, Jun 30, 2006
    #3
  4. rowan194

    Pete D Guest

    "rowan194" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I was playing with a 3x3 stitched image today and for fun did a
    > comparison with a standard single shot:
    >
    > http://satin.sensation.net.au/rowan/widecompare.jpg
    >
    > I found it interesting that although the stitched image has a
    > noticeably wider FOV, there's a lot less perspective distortion.
    >
    > Unfortunately, it's a lot of work (and CPU time) to stitch 9 images
    > into one!
    >


    I have done some good 7 shot wides and one 13 that was far more than one
    lens could do.
    Pete D, Jun 30, 2006
    #4
  5. rowan194

    bugbear Guest

    bugbear, Jun 30, 2006
    #5
  6. rowan194

    kosh Guest

    rowan194 wrote:
    > I was playing with a 3x3 stitched image today and for fun did a
    > comparison with a standard single shot:
    >
    > http://satin.sensation.net.au/rowan/widecompare.jpg
    >
    > I found it interesting that although the stitched image has a
    > noticeably wider FOV, there's a lot less perspective distortion.
    >
    > Unfortunately, it's a lot of work (and CPU time) to stitch 9 images
    > into one!
    >


    as you would expect shooting at a more standadard focal length for the
    stiched shot.

    to avoid prbelms with distortion when making long panoramas I generally
    get best result around the 40mm equivilant. When I do this the stitches
    are often seemless.

    kosh
    kosh, Jul 1, 2006
    #6
  7. rowan194

    Nige Guest

    kosh wrote:
    > rowan194 wrote:
    >
    >> I was playing with a 3x3 stitched image today and for fun did a
    >> comparison with a standard single shot:
    >>
    >> http://satin.sensation.net.au/rowan/widecompare.jpg
    >>
    >> I found it interesting that although the stitched image has a
    >> noticeably wider FOV, there's a lot less perspective distortion.
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, it's a lot of work (and CPU time) to stitch 9 images
    >> into one!
    >>

    >
    > as you would expect shooting at a more standadard focal length for the
    > stiched shot.
    >
    > to avoid prbelms with distortion when making long panoramas I generally
    > get best result around the 40mm equivilant. When I do this the stitches
    > are often seemless.
    >
    > kosh


    yes, most books on the matter suggest using normalish (50mm) focal
    lengths. They also suggest turning the camera into 'portrait' mode to
    get more vertical coverage and take more frames to cover the horizontal.

    Nige
    Nige, Jul 1, 2006
    #7
  8. rowan194

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:33:59 +1000, Nige <> wrote:

    >yes, most books on the matter suggest using normalish (50mm) focal
    >lengths. They also suggest turning the camera into 'portrait' mode to
    >get more vertical coverage 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. And in the portrait orientation
    you'll get more of the scene below the horizon.

    Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Jul 1, 2006
    #8
  9. On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:45:33 GMT, kosh <> wrote:
    > to avoid prbelms with distortion when making long panoramas I generally
    > get best result around the 40mm equivilant. When I do this the stitches
    > are often seemless.


    For those of us stuck in the Point&Shoot world, this is easy advice to
    follow. 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.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Jul 1, 2006
    #9
  10. Stitching is great fun...but the reason it doesn't distort is 1) software
    correction and 2) you are not using an extreme wide angle....so you start
    with less distortion.

    --
    Thanks,
    Gene Palmiter
    (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
    freebridge design group

    "Pete D" <> wrote in message
    news:44a51ce0$0$12221$...
    >
    > "rowan194" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I was playing with a 3x3 stitched image today and for fun did a
    >> comparison with a standard single shot:
    >>
    >> http://satin.sensation.net.au/rowan/widecompare.jpg
    >>
    >> I found it interesting that although the stitched image has a
    >> noticeably wider FOV, there's a lot less perspective distortion.
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, it's a lot of work (and CPU time) to stitch 9 images
    >> into one!
    >>

    >
    > I have done some good 7 shot wides and one 13 that was far more than one
    > lens could do.
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Jul 1, 2006
    #10
  11. rowan194

    kosh Guest

    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.
    kosh, Jul 1, 2006
    #11
  12. rowan194

    MMnospam Guest

    "kosh" <> wrote in message
    news:Dclpg.19154$...
    > 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.
    MMnospam, Jul 1, 2006
    #12
  13. 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
    John McWilliams, Jul 1, 2006
    #13
  14. 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
    Randy Berbaum, Jul 1, 2006
    #14
  15. rowan194

    Don Wiss Guest

    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).
    Don Wiss, Jul 1, 2006
    #15
  16. 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
    Paul Saunders, Jul 1, 2006
    #16
  17. "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
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 1, 2006
    #17
  18. rowan194

    Mr.T Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:e85nh0$qj4$...
    > 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.
    Mr.T, Jul 1, 2006
    #18
  19. On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:34:57 -0400, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> 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
    Daniel Silevitch, Jul 1, 2006
    #19
  20. 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!
    John McWilliams, Jul 1, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike Graham

    Wide-angle distortion on a digital

    Mike Graham, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    391
    Don Stauffer
    Oct 1, 2003
  2. Jen
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    351
    Ed Kirstein
    Feb 20, 2004
  3. peter
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    518
    Confused
    Apr 12, 2005
  4. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    720
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  5. bacra

    distortion free wide angle lens

    bacra, Dec 3, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    724
    David Ruether
    Dec 15, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page