Shrugging Moose wrote:
> Sounds like a bit of overkill, but more than necessary is definitely better
> than too few.
Agreed. I shot myself in the foot a few times before I figured out
that severe overlap trumped efficiency nearly every time. By having a
severe overlap, it means that every pixel is covered by three images.
This is good when one of the pictures is blurred or otherwise
compromised. It also means that there is less distortion and
vignetting correction required as the combined image is of the sweet
spot of the lens for every portion.
> I was doing that, too, but somewhat to very dissatisfied with too many of
> them. With some landscapes, I had the choice of Dwayne Johnson shoulders,
> falling away rapidly at the sides, or Dick Nixon shrugs, with sides shooting
> up.
It helps to overshoot the ends and crop the resulting merged photo.
Obviously, there is not much you can do about subject distance
distortion, but my images don't scream "I'm not a crook" as much as
they used to.
> The Panini Projection in Hugin is an excellent middle ground.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Panorama/_B009385-392_comp.htm>
I haven't been able to suss out Hugin yet. For some reason, whoever
wrote the interface didn't think in terms of common workflow logic.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|