The landscape does not seem to suffer, if indeed you moved for the second
shot. With the engine, things don't look quite right. But then if it's
for-the-record shot, it doesn't matter.
Do you correct distortion before stitching? On my first attempts I did not,
but with the few I double-shot this past trip, I tried correcting the
distortion before stitching. _Seemed_ to work. The final product was closer
to a real rectangle than the stitches done without distortion correction.
Question for the exceptionally anal among us: If you stitch a pano, and
then use LR's distortion correction, and you spitting in the wind? It would
seem to me you are, as the stitch provides an image that would not fit any
existing lens's profile.
--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/28/2015 7:01 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>> ... I did make several wider shots than the camera allowed by stitching
>> two images, sometimes three, as I tended to shoot portrait mode when I
>> intended to stitch. Can't be sure at this point, but I _think_ this might
>> be preferred for wide angle shots,
>>
>
> I came to this conclusion empirically for myself long ago. Shoot a 17 mm
> or two and stitch vs. taking a series of longer FL shots and stitching
> them, and the latter always looks better. I've done exactly this, at the
> same time, of the same subject, with plenty of time to take care.
>
> I'm sure there are a bunch of reasons, anamorphic distortion, linear
> distortion, they things that software correction of linear distortion does
> to pixels and ever so subtly to make lines slightly wavy, more pixels, and
> others. But the proof is in the pudding.
>
> especially when time permits use of tripod.
>>
>
> I think a tripod is simply not necessary for scenics. Close-up, interiors,
> etc., sure. But for a panorama like the one I showed of this scene, makes
> no difference, especially if you shoot portrait, so vertical accuracy
> doesn't much matter.
>
> In fact, with some subjects, moving the camera between shots can actually
> help, where the subject is both very wide and very close.
>
> This is a case where I made two shots many feet apart and merged them. I
> made the mistake of using 17 mm and apparently not sufficiently correcting
> barrel distortion. Were I to do it again, I'd take more shots with a longer
> FL. You can see the slight visual bulges about 25-30% in from each end. <
> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=3547>
>
> This is another where I think I moved the camera several feet side to side
> because there was no way to get further back from an even wider subject. <
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous/Images&image=MossBraeP116laz.jpg
> >
>
> A very tricky merge, as I recall. Hmmm, looks like this one may all have
> been from the same spot. I took several different panorama sets.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
