Panoramic photography on the cheap! - Photography Help Blog by Pixelpix

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by PixelPix, Jun 7, 2007.

  1. PixelPix

    PixelPix Guest

    PixelPix, Jun 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. PixelPix

    Scott W Guest

    Scott W, Jun 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. PixelPix

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yes, thanks, that's a good explanation & a clever device. I was just
    discussing this with fellow photographers and your page made it more
    clear to me.

    BTW, my discussion was with a film shooter who wanted to make multiple
    prints & simply lay them side by side. I think I was correct in saying
    this simply will not work. For accurate results, software is needed to
    undistort the geometry of each shot.
    Paul Furman, Jun 7, 2007
  4. PixelPix

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I have done many such film 'panos'. Yes, the geometry is better using a
    good digital and panorama software, but the pictures laid side by side,
    with careful overlapping can give a pretty good impression of a wide
    scene. Much more dramatic than a single picture at a time.
    Ron Hunter, Jun 7, 2007
  5. It would work if he would paste them to the inside of a sphere.

    If pasted to the outside of a sphere it might look like a
    'fish-eye panorama' where the undistorted center moves with
    the orientation of the sphere...

    Internet rule #1: The answer to the question "Am I the only one?"
    is always "No".
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jun 7, 2007
  6. PixelPix

    Colin_D Guest

    An interesting method you have there. For my purposes though, I need
    vertical as well as horizontal panning, and while your setup rotates
    around the nodal point in a lateral pan, it does not allow this in a
    vertical pan.

    Colin D.
    Colin_D, Jun 7, 2007
  7. PixelPix

    Matt Clara Guest

    What do you use, Colin?
    Matt Clara, Jun 8, 2007
  8. PixelPix

    PixelPix Guest

    A vertical pan is not a problem if using a tripod that allows the
    middle shaft to be removed and replaced in the horizontal position.
    One of the Manfrotto 055 tripods does this.... my 055 is the model
    under and does not, so I put a second tripod head on top of the other
    and this gives me vertical pans around the nodal.

    It also allows for severe off-level nodal rotation and with that some
    wacko effects can be created...


    PixelPix, Jun 8, 2007
  9. PixelPix

    Colin_D Guest

    Hi Matt,
    I manufactured a pano head from 12mm - about ½-inch - plywood, basically
    along the lines of the Panosaurus, with a bubble level fixed to the
    bottom piece of wood, a vertical piece fitted into a routered groove
    spaced from the point of rotation to position the lens over the rotate
    point of the tripod, and a plywood arm extending backwards from the
    vertical panel to carry the camera in portrait orientation. This arm is
    pivoted at the nodal point so the camera can swing vertically as well as
    horizontally about the nodal point. The camera mounting screw is in an
    adjustable slot so the camera can be moved forward or back a limited
    amount to set the NP depending on the zoom setting. Not that there's a
    lot of difference, since most of the time I am zoomed to about 60mm or
    so. But lately I have photographed the front foyer and the lounge of a
    large house, from ceiling to floor, three rows of six shots at 17mm,
    which is why I need the vertical swing.

    Imagine the Panosaurus made of plywood and you've got the idea. Cost of
    manufacture about $5 for a bubble level and suitable bolts and wing
    nuts, scrap plywood, $0. Time to make, about two to three hours.
    Painted matt black, looks ok.

    The first trap was not setting the tripod head level before leveling the
    pan-tilt head, so I have to fit another bubble level to the tripod.

    Colin D.

    Colin D.
    Colin_D, Jun 8, 2007
  10. PixelPix

    Alan K. Guest

    Good article Russell, thanks for that. Others like me who are starting
    to develop an interest in this might also be interested in an article
    on the subject that I stumbled upon last night on the Manfrotto site:

    Though I suspect that the equipment used in the latter article would
    be... rather more wallet-shattering.
    Alan K., Jun 9, 2007
  11. PixelPix

    Rob Guest

    I think that some of the stitching programs have now superseded what's
    been written - although that article is interesting.
    Rob, Jun 9, 2007
  12. PixelPix

    Annika1980 Guest

    Q. When you drilled your holes in the bracket from the hardware store
    what type of fasteners did you use to attach the camera to the bracket
    and the bracket to the rails?
    Annika1980, Jun 9, 2007
  13. PixelPix

    Paul Furman Guest

    It's just standard (3/8"?) threaded nuts & bolts. I've adapted an old
    tripod with a wingnut & a board for a digital projector stand from
    regular hardware store parts.
    Paul Furman, Jun 9, 2007
  14. PixelPix

    PixelPix Guest

    How so?
    PixelPix, Jun 9, 2007
  15. PixelPix

    Rob Guest

    Bits like this -- "When the software tries to stitch the two shots
    together, a blurring or ghosting will occur on the edges of the nearby
    object as the software blends the object's shifting positions with the

    Using Adobe Elements, setting the camera on manual, etc - old hat!
    Cameras and software have moved on.

    This may have happened with older software and was noticeable. I would
    at a guess in the last 8 mths two of the programs that I use don't show
    this effect or is it my technique? Using stuff like "panofactory" ??
    and another Arcsoft??, I think, supplied with Canon and Ricoh digital
    cameras, with I have used in the past.

    Even the new Photoshop CS3 Photomerge far out shines CS2 version. And I
    updated my other stitching program at end of last year, both updates are
    better and more accurate. You will find that as software develops, the
    number of points with which they use to align the images has increased
    significantly, 200 or more, where as the old ones were three.

    You don't even have to orientate images, from Horizontal to vertical. I
    took a series of 3x 18 vertical images in one 180 degrees shoot and the
    thumbs were horizontal un orientated, the images were also out of order
    and from all 3 series taken, selecting 54 images the the stitching
    program corrected all of these and made one stitched and blended image.
    Now thats not bad at all. BTW this was all hand held.

    Someone did put up an image last year or more ?? of Circular Quay with I
    think 60+ images stitched, horizontal and vertical coverage, this
    covered from the OH to the bridge.

    I have revisited some of my old panoramic images and they now just snap
    into place seamlessly.

    Its like I said interesting and but technically the software has moved
    on rapidly, stitching and blending, taking over from the politically
    correct technical aspects.

    Rob, Jun 9, 2007
  16. PixelPix

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Jun 9, 2007
  17. PixelPix

    PixelPix Guest

    In my case the Oly rail cam with a standard bolt that you can see in
    the pictures.... this would normally come from below and screw into
    the camera base. I simply removed this and screwed in from the top to
    hold the bracket. To attach the cam to the hardware's bracket, I
    removed the wing-nutty bolt from an old manfrotto base plate that I
    had laying around.
    PixelPix, Jun 9, 2007
  18. PixelPix

    PixelPix Guest

    ah!.... you are quoting the manfroggo page... I was confused there for
    a sec, as I thought you were quoting me.

    Having said that, I do agree with the "a blurring or ghosting will
    occur on the edges of the nearby object as the software blends the
    object's shifting positions with the background."

    New software like SmartBlend may be pretty good at looking for new
    "matching" areas of the image to make transitions, but if a lax
    technique is used at the time of capture, there may be no way of
    avoiding at least some of the areas where parallax is an issue.

    This won't be much of a problem with a more distant landscape and I am
    sure most software will now throw them together seamlessly, but add a
    few close foreground elements to the parallax equation and there is no
    software that I have seen, that can make the right assumptions and
    produce a seamless blend... IMO it is far better to produce perfectly
    aligned nodally rotated images to begin with, than it is to rely on
    some "code" to fix it later.
    PixelPix, Jun 9, 2007
  19. PixelPix

    Rob Guest

    Yes - I was referring to the Manfrotto page.

    Have a look at the video on Russell Browns site at an example what CS3
    is doing - its interesting. Very different to CS2, which didn't blend,
    using a 45 degree slice.

    This has close elements.

    Some software programmes do it differently and if I find one can't
    handle it, then I run it through the other.

    Technique is where you have an understanding of what's required so the
    stitching program will work, this is not necessarily a nodally rotated
    Rob, Jun 10, 2007
  20. PixelPix

    Rob Guest

    It tends to do that sometimes. So I try another program.

    I think the first result would have been the same even if you used the a
    nodal point. the program has lost track of what's going on.

    One image of the 'coast line' taken off a tripod setup on a focus rail,
    (see I have tried that) about 20 plus images ended up in a horseshoe
    shape. Ended up stitching about 5 at a time them, the resultant images
    were then stitched, that worked.
    Rob, Jun 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.