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.
Rotational Moose
