carstenw Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share #101 Posted January 1, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Howard, stunning shots! Why don't you post more of your photos? I never realised you were so good David, that is a really nice panorama. The second shot clearly has more resolution. Do you mean "Autopano Pro" when you say "Autostitch"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 1, 2008 Posted January 1, 2008 Hi carstenw, Take a look here 36 shot portrait panorama. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
DaveB Posted January 1, 2008 Share #102 Posted January 1, 2008 David, that is a really nice panorama. The second shot clearly has more resolution. Do you mean "Autopano Pro" when you say "Autostitch"? No, that's not Autopano Pro, but the free Autostitch version that I downloaded yesterday afternoon. I can't explain the resolution difference. I stitched them both from the same out of camera JPEG's yesterday. I made them both full-size and all I did in Photoshop was size them for the web. It could be that the Canon Photostitch 3.1 software, which is some years old now, may choke when fed so many pixels. This simple, free Autostitch program truly looks to be the solution to many of the problems I've had constructing panoramas. I can't wait to try the Pro version so as to yield TIFF's. What impresses me most about Autostitch is how it almost always gets the geometry right. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/26898-36-shot-portrait-panorama/?do=findComment&comment=439937'>More sharing options...
KevinA Posted January 1, 2008 Share #103 Posted January 1, 2008 Well, I was ill all weekend, so apart from sleeping, blowing my nose and drinking tea, I did a lot of work on these panoramas. Today I redid the problematic rose, and here is the final result. I still want to darken that spot in the top-left corner. Can anyone suggest the best way of doing that in Photoshop Elements 3 on the Mac? 100 images went into this one. The exact procedure is written in my photo blog below. I cropped it square as a nod to my old Hasselblad 500C, which I kinda miss using. I love this medium/large format look, and I am so pleased that it is possible to get this with the M8, even with restrictions. I'm missing something here, this is creating a problem just to solve it. Why not shoot it in MF or better LF in the first place. LF will give you depth of field where you need it and blur where you don't. I can't see it's worth a weekends work to achieve what could be done better and much much easier with a 5x4. Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted January 1, 2008 Share #104 Posted January 1, 2008 What impresses me most about Autostitch is how it almost always gets the geometry right. Interesting! Thanks Dave! About geometry: I include two examples, where the geometry, supposing it is what you refer to, and being what is is, looks good in the first and funny in the second. In the first example, with some rices terraces in Bali, the far end of the valley was in fact in the middle just as far away as to the sides. Sort of looking to a lying oval shape from the middels of the long end. It looks quite natural as the perspective handling of most pano programs tend to bring the middle closer than the sides. The second example, a street in Cesky Krumlow in the Tsjech Republic, shows what happens when you make a pano of a straight subject in front of you. The objects on the sides bow away to the distance. Where they are they are of course. The question here is: what looks natural? In Dave's last example my eyes accept the running away of the sides, but I really wonder if the front of the church is in reality horizontally curved in as it looks to me. Many pano programs ( I uses PTGUI) give a choice of cylindrical and perspective and other options. The fact that you cannot tell beforehand which option gives the best result makes this work so fascinating Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/26898-36-shot-portrait-panorama/?do=findComment&comment=440104'>More sharing options...
DaveB Posted January 1, 2008 Share #105 Posted January 1, 2008 Interesting! Thanks Dave! About geometry: The question here is: what looks natural? In Dave's last example my eyes accept the running away of the sides, but I really wonder if the front of the church is in reality horizontally curved in as it looks to me. Well, the nature of trying to project the curved space captured in a panorama or by a wide-angle lens onto a two dimensional surface has always been a problem. Painters didn't begin to learn the tricks until the 14th century. The issue is carried to an extreme by ultra-wide lenses and by panoramas that capture a FOV of 180 degrees or so. It is as if there is a common presumption shared among viewers of photographs, at least in Western societies, that the center will be rendered most accurately and that the distortions at the margins can be accepted or discounted. I'm sure this is something we've learned from our photography, television and golden ratio culture. Painters started moving beyond those conventions 100 years ago. I haven't seen quite as much experimenting in photography that way though. Yet, your two examples show how the artistic decision you made as to what form of panorama to produce makes for a profound difference. Concave vs. cylindrical projections make for completely different results. The street scene makes for a particularly striking image just as a result of the distortion that is introduced. I'd be disappointed to see it rendered more naturally! It's fun and startling to see something presented in a way the eye wasn't really ready for. The ability to create in two dimensions an image that couldn't be so perceived in situ is what fascinates me about panoramas, infrareds, time lapse, etc. Funny you should pick up on the church in the Piazza at Vigevano as an example of a panorama artifact. When I inspect a panorama I expect, like you, to see distortions, curves at the margins of a photo, not dead center. However, the facade of the basilica at Vigevano, Italy is really very concave, markedly so. That is the structure's claim to fame. To my eye that part of photo is rendered very accurately. But we expect to be fooled by these confection photos like panoramas and so we look for the distortions. My 14 y.o. son was watching me follow this thread last night and he noticed one picture where the same person appeared several times in the scene. That sent him on a mission to examine every single image looking for "mistakes." All sorts of interesting issues: technical, cultural, artistic... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted January 1, 2008 Share #106 Posted January 1, 2008 Funny you should pick up on the church in the Piazza at Vigevano as an example of a panorama artifact. When I inspect a panorama I expect, like you, to see distortions, curves at the margins of a photo, not dead center. However, the facade of the basilica at Vigevano, Italy is really very concave, markedly so. That is the structure's claim to fame.... Wow I was fooled by expecting the expected, not, as in this case, by the unexpected! Great, and thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 1, 2008 Share #107 Posted January 1, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... The question here is: what looks natural? ... ... your two examples show how the artistic decision you made as to what form of panorama to produce makes for a profound difference. ... Sander-- One of the charms of panorama technique is that it lets us see the world differently from what we expect. In some cases, like the rice fields, we may be less aware of the effect; while in others, like the street, it reminds us that our day-to-day perceptions are very superficial. Dave's formulation is excellent. "What looks natural/better/artistic/interesting/etc?" are all different aspects of the same interesting question. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 1, 2008 Share #108 Posted January 1, 2008 Howard, stunning shots! Why don't you post more of your photos? Thanks, Carsten. You started an exciting and long-running thread here, and I finally decided I had to join in! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share #109 Posted January 1, 2008 I'm missing something here, this is creating a problem just to solve it. Why not shoot it in MF or better LF in the first place. LF will give you depth of field where you need it and blur where you don't. I can't see it's worth a weekends work to achieve what could be done better and much much easier with a 5x4. I don't want to do extra work day to day, but during an experimental phase, I am perfectly willing to do more. LF is a huge pain and you almost have to be religious to want to go through all that hassle, or you have to have a need to do the kind of work which can't be done with the M8 or some easier-to-handle camera, like very high resolution motion fashion shots or something. I sold my LF stuff a while back and never regretted it for a second. I am happy with my kit at the moment, but I am always looking for ways to get it to do more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted January 1, 2008 Share #110 Posted January 1, 2008 I think I like this Autostitch thingy. I just downloaded it and gave it a whirl for the first time. Really it couldn't be easier to use. I haven't experimented much with panoramas or stitching, but have used the Canon Photostitch program some and experimented with PTassembler and Photoshop for making panoramas or composites. Right out of the box the freebie Autostich does a much nicer job than the Canon software on this 5 shot panorama of Guanajuato in Mexico. It blends the sky and deals with the lens vignetting of the Canon G1 Powershot so much better. Can't wait to play with it and the M8. My wife wants to reproduce architectural details of church interiors and this might be the way. The labor intensity of stitching is what's always killed my enthusiasm in the past. I'm a lazy photographer and when I see the need to establish a thousand control points for assembling an image my ardor tends to abate. Nice comparison shot(s) Dave, thanks. I use PS CS3 for autostitching with good results. I would be more interested in an Autostitch/PS comparison rather than a Canon/Autostitch comparison. Anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveB Posted January 2, 2008 Share #111 Posted January 2, 2008 I would be more interested in an Autostitch/PS comparison rather than a Canon/Autostitch comparison. Anyone? Interesting that you post this just now. My wife snagged Adobe CS3 via her educational discount and gave it to me for Christmas. I never would have bought it for myself because I'm too cheap and prudent. (this from a guy who just picked up a Noctilux at a local auction, not a word to wife please...) I just installed it and the computer is telling me to reboot before launching. I've been using PS6 for years. Yes, the stitching function is going to be one of the first things I play with along with DNG conversions. If my past experience with PS is any guide, I'll be frustrated, angry and spitting nails in a few hours. Oh well, the learning curve is steep, but worth it . I guess... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 2, 2008 Share #112 Posted January 2, 2008 David-- The step from PS6 to PSCS2 is gigantic. I don't have CS3 yet (gotta get an educator into the family.) I think the strongest selling tool Adobe has with Photoshop is that each new version adds so many new bells & whistles that one really does need to keep more-or-less able to understand it. ... I'll be frustrated, angry and spitting nails in a few hours. ... Or sooner, considering the difference between PS6 and CS3. Good luck! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted January 2, 2008 Share #113 Posted January 2, 2008 ...I just installed it and the computer is telling me to reboot before launching. I've been using PS6 for years. Yes, the stitching function is going to be one of the first things I play with along with DNG conversions. If my past experience with PS is any guide, I'll be frustrated, angry and spitting nails in a few hours. Oh well, the learning curve is steep, but worth it . I guess... David, I think you will find the incremental features of CS3 well worth the learning curve problems. Your wife really did you a favor by gifting you with this especially since you would not have got it yourself. One of the things that might be hardest to get used to (I warn you in advance) is the role of Adobe Bridge (it came in the package) in post production. In a sense, that is what is most different about CS3 from earlier versions of PS like your 6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share #114 Posted April 13, 2009 (Linking this thread to the HDR panorama thread, for those who haven't seen this. The HDR panorama thread is here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/83265-hdr-panorama-thread.html) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparobertsan Posted April 14, 2009 Share #115 Posted April 14, 2009 I love your work! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share #116 Posted April 14, 2009 Erm, are you talking to me, or to someone else in this thread? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mboerma Posted April 14, 2009 Share #117 Posted April 14, 2009 Erm, are you talking to me, or to someone else in this thread? Don't be so modest ! Of course he is talking to you. I still very much like you picture in the OP. Really creative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share #118 Posted April 14, 2009 Well, thanks! Yeah, that was my one good idea in 2007 I should do more again, especially now that I have the panorama head. Panoramas playing with DoF are really neat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpets Posted April 14, 2009 Share #119 Posted April 14, 2009 autopano pro and autostich, which one is better??? if i purchase autopano, will i get the serial number right away for it to work? thx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted April 14, 2009 Share #120 Posted April 14, 2009 Carsten, That original portrait shot just rocks. its creative and well done. you used the technology for something totally unexpected and did it so very well. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.