I'm thinking of doing some panoramas at the Duck game tonight. If you covered the same area with 10 frames rather than with, say, 5, do you have more or less problems with seams and general distortion due to parallax error?
I'm curious what people's advice is. I'll be shooting with a 16-35mm lens and likely doing it in a portrait orientation.
I'm thinking of doing some panoramas at the Duck game tonight. If you covered the same area with 10 frames rather than with, say, 5, do you have more or less problems with seams and general distortion due to parallax error?
I'm curious what people's advice is. I'll be shooting with a 16-35mm lens and likely doing it in a portrait orientation.
I always use CS4 or CS5 for my panoramas and I never have issues with seams. Photoshop and their most recent versions does a pretty amazing job with that. Depending on the scene I usually try having Photoshop fix any distortion when it aligns, but always try a second version to see if there is any real advantage. I think it works great either way, but it depends on the lens and how it was shot. I've had huge success hand holding my camera in vertical position (always recommended for the greatest amount of coverage), and you'd never know it wasn't on a tripod. Anyway, I think more photos gives programs like photoshop a better advantage in finding the right area to seam and it probably does aid in the minimization of distortion.
As for the number of shots I use for any given scene that really depends on the area I need to cover. I ALWAYS overlap anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the frames to get the best results. So by default it's I tend to get 8 to 10 shots at a minimum to stitch.
Thanks Dave! I use CS5, but to tell you the truth, wasn't aware that it had a stitch feature. I don't do a ton of panorama's, but had been using Canon's software when I did.
Shoot with about 1/4 overlap per frame pair. That gives you a good balance between flexibility of where to put the seam and the number of images (and thus number of seams). I always try to minimize the number of seams, while maintaining some ability to tweak the position. That's especially important when shooting crowds... damn people won't hold still, LOL!
There will be some advantage, theoretically with more frames with regard to parallax, only because the change in angle is less, so the mismatch is less. But in no case will you get acceptable results close-up hand-held (that is, without proper rotation point). Keep your minimum subject distance beyond 20 feet or so, and your panos should be stitchable. Use the longest focal length you can use and still get the vertical coverage you need without multiple rows.
I recently shot some casual hand-held panos at a Green Bay game @ Lambeau. I tried stitches with both Ps and my tool of choice, PTGUI. My hope was that I could rely on Ps, and not have to use a separate tool anymore. Well, scratch that. Even when PTGUI generates all of its control points automatically (manual usually results in better stitches), it still does a far superior job to Ps.
Well, the good news is I'm shooting digital, so maybe I'll do a few and have some with double the frames of others and see what looks better. Really crossing my fingers for a good sunset as the game starts around then. Right now it's a little more cloudy that I want.
This is the vantage I'm hoping to shoot from. It's a very restricted area and I have to get special permission. This is 16mm and you can see it doesn't quite get the stadium. I'm also hoping to line the 50 yard line up better than I did in this shot.
It seems I usually get the best results (least distortion) when shooting somewhere in the middle of my lens' focal length, but I'm not sure if that's because of the absolute length or the fraction of the length used.
I think I'd also shoot portrait at the longest you can use while getting the full height in, but I'd then also shoot additional overlaping rows above and below that so you have a chance for a taller image and more sky.
I would shoot that at 24mm and shoot in portrait orientation. Maximizing focal length maximizes captured detail and reduces distortion. You're still only looking at perhaps 5 or 6 frames.
ETA: your nearest subject matter is quite a ways out, so there should not be huge issues with parallax
Oh, and remember:
- WB locked down (not on auto)
- Shoot in M, fixing both shutter speed and aperture
- Be conservative (high) on shutter speed. If one shot of six has blur, you're screwed.
Oh, and remember:
- WB locked down (not on auto)
- Shoot in M, fixing both shutter speed and aperture
- Be conservative (high) on shutter speed. If one shot of six has blur, you're screwed.
You're wise beyond your years (both posts). Only thing to add is to make sure you get at least 1/3 overlap on images. And set your ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed and Focus initially on the part of the scene you want to emphasize. It will be perfect in the panorama and if some other areas are a little off, you won't notice them so much.
Definitely choose the lens that suffers the least distortion to begin with. The reason I suggest this is not because you'll have issues with the combination of images, though. I say this because it makes your image horrible to crop and gives you weirdo parts that stick out, so you end up hacking off a LOT of real estate. For that very reason, the panoramas I do with my 28-70 are far and away SO MUCH better than with my 10-20.
Here's a notable example of what I mean- I'm pretty sure this was shot with my 18-200 @ 18, and as a result of the barrel distortion, lost the beach for cropping (I was only cropping to even the edges up), even though I was pretty conservative with it. When CS4 combined it, it made things look good but had to stretch them oddly to do so, and the lost beach is the result.
The less distortion you have, the less chance you'll have to fix things like morphed people and deformed trees, as well.
ETA: I've found the lens has more to do with things than the number of frames. Didn't quite specify that. My shots with a lens that has light distortion but tons of source images turn out weirder than fewer images with a less distorted lens.
Might have some stuff worth working up. Haven't looked yet. It's more of an ominous cloud look rather than a pretty sunset. Left the game early after being 15 yards away when LaMichael broke his arm. It was quite disturbing with bones coming out the back of his elbow. They showed it once on the big screen before I think they realized how graphic it was. There was a collective gasp from the crowd and then silence. It reminded me of Joe Namath.
Is it definitely broken? He looked so amazing I hope he will be back this year.
NO way no how he's back this year. If it wasn't broken it was hugely dislocated. His forearm bones were completely separated from the humerus. I really feel for the young man. Personally, if I suffered an injury like that I think I'd have psychological problems getting back on the field.
Perhaps you're thinking of Joe Theismann, whose leg was broken on national TV? Namath had bad (arthritic) knees, but I don't remember his ever suffering a major fracture like that ...
Perhaps you're thinking of Joe Theismann, whose leg was broken on national TV? Namath had bad (arthritic) knees, but I don't remember his ever suffering a major fracture like that ...
I believe it was Namath's Jets who pioneered the use of pantyhose under the football uniform during cold-weather games. He was pretty wacky -- think Jim McMahon with longer hair and a (acquired) Southern accent ...
I believe it was Namath's Jets who pioneered the use of pantyhose under the football uniform during cold-weather games. He was pretty wacky -- think Jim McMahon with longer hair and a (acquired) Southern accent ...
You know what made me think of him? I looked it up. He was one of the announcers during that play.
Here's one of the shots I came up with. Thanks for the help guys. It was cramped quarters having to squish between a guardhouse and a railing on the roof. There was literally 12" space, but the rest of the roof is obstructed by lights. Even this one has a massive light shift-F5'd out of existence on the left. I may try this vantage again next week as kickoff is just after sunset. Maybe we'll have some good sky.
This is a great panorama image and not an easy one to get a good result. Been stitching few panoramas before and the last on September. I'm still learning to get a good result from CS5 photomerge but so far fail to archive a good result. Thanks for sharing.
