Thanks. Yes, I also prefer the 60x20 because it comes closest to what
you'd see visually when standing where I took the shots. These trees
are humongous. Capturing the tops of the trees required tilting the
camera about 45 degrees up. The greater image height versions make the
scene appear as though there is a large empty space between the camera
and trees and such is not the case. After the 60x20 I'd choose one of
the 60x24s. Rolf chose #2 probably because it clears away some of the
less attractive foreground grass. But it also displays more sky than
you'd see without looking up. #1 cuts the excess sky away but at the
cost of showing more foreground. I think that's why the 60x20 works
best since it discards both the excess foreground and excess sky... once
again, the closest to what you'd actually see with the eye.
This was actually my third try at this pano. I had various problems
with the other two from too much wind, tripod not level enough and focal
length too short. I had tried 28mm and 30mm and finally ended up at
37mm (74mm equiv). The day this one was shot it was still pretty breezy
and I was concerned about the ability of the stitching software to put
it together with Spanish moss never in the same place twice.
Whether necessary or not I don't know but, since the image consisted
mostly of leaves and Spanish moss moving in the wind, I chose very small
movement increments and lots of images. There are 39 images taken in 3
rows of 13 with the camera in portrait orientation. The horizontal
movement is only about 1/3 of a frame between shots. The vertical
overlap between rows is about 1/2 a frame. Final image size is 12512 x
7356 after a little cropping to compensate for imperfect tripod
leveling. A 5 foot wide print will only have resolution of 208 dpi. I
think that's adequate for a print to be viewed from about 5 feet away
but still need to make some small section test prints. A 4 foot wide
print will have resolution of 260 dpi which I know is good for anyone
except Moose. I used the Manfrotto geared head on the tripod. I'm not
sure I could do this without it.
Since the top row is taken with the camera tilted up about 45 degrees I
was very concerned about vertical perspective distortion and what
problems that might cause for stitching. I thought about trying to
correct it before stitching but then realized that with no reference
points I had no way to do so. Trying to stitch it was a total failure
for Photoshop. I tried all the options only to discover that each
option produced a different failure. After having invested so much time
and effort I was distraught that I might not be able to make a
successful final image. Then I remembered Hugin. I downloaded the
latest version and Hugin *automatically* produced the final image as
though it was child's play.
Other stuff: Camera in Av mode with exposure compensation set for each
row to produce a "shoot to the right" exposure for the brightest part of
each row. That was a guess and it seemed to work well to account for
the large brightness differences from blue sky at the top to shadows at
the bottom. Hugin seemed to get along fine with that and made smooth
color/brightness transitions everywhere. Photoshop sometimes botched
the color/brightness smoothing as well as the stitching and distortion.
Before stitching I did exposure adjustments on the raw files in ACR on
a row-by-row basis. I used the brightest image in the row as the basis
for the adjustments and then applied that to all the other images in the
row. I then converted all the images to 16 bit TIFFs and fed that to
Hugin. I then used the final Hugin 16 bit TIFF image for other
adjustments in ACR. It came out OK but I don't know if it was necessary
to pre-adjust all the individual images.
Oh, dear! What to do next. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/19/2016 12:32 AM, Moose wrote:
On 4/18/2016 6:09 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
<http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=19899>
These images are an assortment of different crops of my Live Oak Allee
image. I was going to ask for preferences. But that was before my
wife discovered what the aspect ratio looks like of a 2x5 foot print.
She it totally aspect ratio challenged. Doesn't understand it, can't
visualize it.
. . .
She's agreed that the 48x30 is OK... looks more like a normal photo to
her because it *not* a pano. I don't much care for the 48x30 since it
has too much sky. But that may be where I have to go if I'm going to
hang it in the dining room. Thoughts?
I vote for the 60x20; it best captures the entryway quality. In fact, I
really like it. But I suspect my vote doesn't count. :-(
Don't worry, I won't tell her what *you* said. :-)
I'm not likely as tough as Peg, but I'm a lot bigger - and far, far
away, so I'm good. :-)
Moose D'Opinion
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|