I'm guessing, but I think the theory is simple.
Pixels.
Since you're going to be overlapping anyway, you might as well make the
'non-overlap' dimension be as large as possible. Makes for more overlaps,
but an awful lot of pixels.
I've had surprisingly good luck with handheld panoramas. As long as I brace
my elbows and turn with the right pivot, they do pretty well. Not perfect,
but often pretty darn good.
Takes a lot of horsepower to stitch, as I use a lot of overlap (I think it
makes a big difference) and am starting with 12mp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Jay Drew
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:57 AM
> To: Zuikoholic
> Subject: [OM] OT Panorama: Landscape vs. Portrait
>
>
> I had this urge to look into pano work and one of the first things I
> discovered
> (and I can feel you people beginning to smirk at my ignorance) was the
> NODAL
> point of a lens and how it would affect splicing the shots together.
> In
> attempts to finding ideas for making my own offset plate for pushing
> the camera
> back from the tripod pivot point I found commercial (and home grown)
> stuff that
> puts the camera in portrait mode rather than landscape. Is there a
> rhyme or
> reason to this?
>
> Jay
>
> Hand me my costume
> Please won't you pass me my mask
> I have appointments I must keep with my past.
>
> Bill Nelson - Beauty Secrets
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|