With the right software the knowledge required is about zilch. I use
PTGUI these days because I'm familiar with it and have owned it for a
long time. I had abandoned it for a while in favor of Autostitch
<http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html> because
Autostitch seemed like magic in comparison and had the great advantage
of being absolutely free. Since then PTGUI seems to have absorbed some
of the magical qualities of Autostitch so I returned to using it as it
also had functions that Autostitch doesn't. But it is definitely not
free. It could be that PhotoShop does it just as well but I've never
even tried it.
Anyhow, I can highly recommend Autostitch. It generally works well if
given enough overlap between images and, as I said, seems to work like
magic. You just point it to a folder with a series of panoramic images
(and possibly even some other, unrelated junk). You don't have to tell
it which images are part of the pano or how they're supposed to be
aligned with each other. It will figure it out all by itself and
discard the images it thinks don't belong. It truly is like magic.
Download it and try it. All you've got to do is step outside with the
camera, set a good, constant aperture and shutter speed and take two,
three or more photos such that each overlaps the other by about 1/3.
More overlap if there's not much detail in the image. Drop them into a
folder and point Autostitch in the right direction.
When taking the individual pano shots try (as much as possible) to swing
the camera around an imaginary centerline somewhere near the middle of
the lens. Not technically correct but probably good enough if your
subjects aren't too close. Distant landscapes should work out fine even
if your center of rotation for the camera is way off. Close objects
require a tripod and careful rotation about the entrance pupil of the
lens in order to avoid parallax error between different shots. Just
ignore all this jargon as unnecessary if you're shooting images
moderately far away as is the case with landscape panoramas and rainbows.
Chuck Norcutt
Wayne Culberson wrote:
> Chuck,
> Too late I realized, in my excitement, that I had the CF card in, not the XD
> card. From the XD card I could likely make up a panorama; from the CF I
> don't have the knowledge or the software.
> Wayne
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:03 AM
> Subject: [OM] Re: rainbow
>
>
>> Perhaps you forgot about the possibility of combing many of your digital
>> shots into both vertical and horizontal panorama form to make up for the
>> narrow angle of view of the digi lenses? Multiple hand held shots for
>> panoramas often work out well for distant subjects since there is little
>> or no parallax error. But you do need enough manual control to hold a
>> constant exposure.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> Wayne Culberson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is my only rainbow shot.
>>>>
>>>> Initially seen throught the rear view mirror. OM4T / 35-80/2.8 grab shot
>>>> on
>>>> 160 ISO Portra late one afternoon. It was gone within 20 seconds.
>>>>
>>>> www.johnhudsonphoto.com/124.html
>>>>
>>>> jh
>>>>
>>> John,
>>> Normally they disappear so quickly, I don't even try to go for the
>>> camera.
>>> When I saw this one, I immediately called for my wife to come see it.
>>> After
>>> about a minute or two, I decided to rush for the cameras, believing I'd
>>> never get back in time. Anyways, I began with the 17mm on the OM1n, as I
>>> knew it is the only lens I have that would get the whole arc. My daughter
>>> was trying to back up enough to get it in with her digital 410 stylus,
>>> and I
>>> was trying to explain it wouldn't help. I took some shots with the arc
>>> completely circling our little white church building, our house, etc. Of
>>> course the 17mm was distorting the church building quite a bit, so I'll
>>> have
>>> to see how they look in the picture. Some of our people who saw the
>>> rainbow
>>> have already asked for prints of it with the church. I think that's a bit
>>> premature, but oh well.
>>>
>>> You've been here, so you know the place. Jean and I decided to walk up to
>>> the falls, so I just took along the MJU with 2.8, thinking it would
>>> surely
>>> be gone before we got there, as it is about 1/2 to 1 km walk. That was a
>>> mistake. Anyways, like the C5050, it is only a 35mm wide lens, but I took
>>> about another roll of 100vs, some with the arc ending over the falls,
>>> some
>>> with it ending over the bridge, some over the chalet style house across
>>> the
>>> falls, etc.
>>> In all, it must have lasted well over 45 minutes, now that I think about
>>> it.
>>> And it never really diminished in intensity. Very unusual in that way.
>>>
>>> But it is not as intense in colors as yours, for sure.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================================
>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> ==============================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|