Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Doing Panos with film shots.
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As David, I do advise to take portrait shots for a pano, this allows higher images. Sure, taking a second row would be better but that starts to be a lot of images...


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ylyad wrote:
As David, I do advise to take portrait shots for a pano, this allows higher images. Sure, taking a second row would be better but that starts to be a lot of images...


Some of the guys here are using expensive digital cameras for panos, but say:- for a SLR film camera and VG 50mm lens 10-25, roll of film 1, supermarket dev and scan to CD 3....so for a total of not more than 30 it's possible to start to produce simple VG panos on a computer screen....if credit cards or HP payments were banned, old film cameras and film might get more popular Wink


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey, looks good ! you're improving very fast.

Cheers
Tobias


PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tobbsman wrote:
hey, looks good ! you're improving very fast.

Cheers
Tobias


Coming from you is a big compliment Cool .......My next attempt is a four shot pano of cottages, distant scenery and a large tree and it's this shot that I could never get everything in...and the shots are in the camera now:-


erm wonder how Photoshop will handle this stitch.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The sun just wouldn't fully come out to give more sparkle to these panos, erm can't think of any more excuses why these panos shouldn't be perfect Wink

So a 5 shot pano with 35mm camera held vertically, 35mm Canon lens erm except for the crooked roof, Photoshop seems to have done a good job:-


A 3 shot pano with sigma 24mm lens and again a crooked roof, and again it seems Photoshop has done a good job:-


PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur wrote:
So a 5 shot pano with 35mm camera held vertically, 35mm Canon lens erm except for the crooked roof, Photoshop seems to have done a good job:-


The roof shape is just an artifact of the output projection. Wink A swing-lens panoramic film camera such as a Horizont, Widelux, Noblex, Kodak Panoram, etc. would show the same characteristics.


Here's an example with your first set of pictures.

Your original stitch (in what appears to be a cylindrical projection):



The original two images mapped into a rectilinear projection:
(note the difference in how straight lines are depicted, particularly the stone wall at the bottom)



... and the rectilinear pano cropped to a rectangle:




This sort of perspective is what we would associate with a fixed-lens panoramic camera, such as a Hasselblad Xpan, Fuji 617, Linhof Technorama, etc. It is effectively the same as a single shot taken on a normal camera with a fixed ultra-wide-angle (non-fisheye) lens, and cropped.


tobbsman is right that your lens shows some vignetting, and there are exposure differences between the two shots. As long as the two source images are matched, however, both of these can be corrected in the stitching. (In the interest of time, and since I'm on a really slow computer at the moment, I skipped this step on the above panoramas...)


PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for you input Scheimpflug (and of course others) I have now quite a few panos to play with and don't think I will try to equal the advance members panos with a film camera in that I will keep them simple. I just wished I did them years ago as many times could have used the techniques e.g inside a room. Anyway I hope this thread has encourage some people here or others using the google search engine, that panos are very important if you can't step back and can't get it all in.
My first pano was about 20 years ago matching and sticking prints together on a stiff board and was quite pleased with my self, but strange in doing these panos, I never felt the sense of achievement as all I did was swing the camera around taking shots...and the machines and programs did the rest.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well back from Ibiza and this is my attempt with a nine film shot pano, supermarket scanned.

Hexanon 50mm f1.7 OOD (3 years) Reala, supermarket dev and scan:-


3 shot pano Canon 28mm:-


I've done a few more, but they are just record shots and nothing exciting.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The bottom one turned out very nicely.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
The bottom one turned out very nicely.


Thanks, I thought so too....to get a good shot of the harbour it's going to take three layers of about 8 or 9 shots=27shots, and could be interesting joining them all up Shocked, other members have done it, but the 2 or 3 shot panos are going to be the norm for me.

I'm just amazed how Photoshop decides what to use and how it stitches e.g. this two shot pano..... if there is a mistake in this pano i can't see it.

1st shot Canon 28mm fdn Reala


2nd shot Canon 28mm fdn Reala


Pano


PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One more Wink

Ibiza Bossa beach


PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crowds are always difficult. Just ask the poor girl by the rubbish bin with half of a leg and no right arm! Shocked Laughing Moving subjects (people, vehicles, clouds, plants in the wind, etc) are one of the key reasons why people still pay huge sums for single-shot panoramic film cameras. I shot a huge sweeping pano at a baseball stadium once (digital, stitched), and absolutely loved the shot... but it looks terrible when printed because there are so many stitching artifacts in the crowds. Sad Some errors are OK, but when people are missing their heads, or part of a face, it can actually be quite disturbing! Shocked

But yes, you are doing very well with these! Cool



Excalibur wrote:
Thanks, I thought so too....to get a good shot of the harbour it's going to take three layers of about 8 or 9 shots=27shots, and could be interesting joining them all up Shocked, other members have done it, but the 2 or 3 shot panos are going to be the norm for me.

Once you start shooing a whole roll of 35mm "per shot", your film and processing costs would be so high that you might as well just shoot medium or large format and be done with it! Very Happy

But don't worry about joining them. I've shot panos with hundreds of frames. As long as you have a reasonable computer with lots of memory & disk space, and/or a lot of time, the modern stitching engines can piece them all together quite well.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

***Just ask the poor girl by the rubbish bin with half of a leg and no right arm!***

..and a lesson to us all complaining about something small like a boil on our nose, when a girl can enjoy herself and hop around with just half a body Laughing
But I thought you were going to criticise the sky in a few as this is difficult also.

***Once you start shooing a whole roll of 35mm "per shot", your film and processing costs would be so high that you might as well just shoot medium or large format and be done with it! Very Happy***

Well using the supermarket dev and scan is still cheap for showing shots on the computer, but home scanning a roll of film (24shots) to do a pano, for better quality, for a decent sized print would be so boring. Sad


PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haha, yes, I suppose on second thought she is doing quite well given her "ailments"! Laughing

I try not to be critical of other people's work, unless they request it. Wink What you're doing is difficult for sure, even with the best of setups. I hope I'm coming across as constructive - please let me know if this is not the case!

Do you know if Photoshop's stitcher does white-balance correction between the shots, and if it calculates or corrects for vignetting?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scheimpflug wrote:


Do you know if Photoshop's stitcher does white-balance correction between the shots, and if it calculates or corrects for vignetting?


No idea, but I've noticed it straightens leaning buildings.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Photoshop does NOT correct vignetting, nor does it correct white balance, as far as I know. I can answer that question definitively later when I stitch a photo where I accidentally had the WB on tungsten while outside. The sky is very pale and the grass is very warm. Oops.

Anyway, on vignetting, make sure you leave ample frame overlap, especially with vignetty lenses, because the ramification is shadow "slactites" in the sky and dark regions on the ground.


PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I'm now up to nine image panos, but it's back to the drawing board with the house in the two image pano as the house is in a straight line and not curved Rolling Eyes