Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Panorama / Stitching

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 28, 2006, 8:22 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Reanimator
You did a beautiful job on the adjustments and stitch. And that particular
shot probably ended up with a better result than my fixed parameter shooting
could have done. There is an extreme light difference across the scene, and
my standard technique would have blown the highlights on the left or made
such deep shadows on the right I would have gotten noise digging them out.
There are certainly uses for metering every shot differently, it is just a lot of
work to blend them. With less extreme light differences it is not only easier
but IMO better to use the same settings for all of the shots.


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2006, 10:35 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Very nice pano. But I wouldn't recomend either letting the w/b & exposure vary or using PhotoShop to do the stitching to a beginner. Though is is likely that your example would not stitchwell if shotfixing the w/b & exposure, the vast majority will do better that way.

Stitching with PS can be done, but it is more difficult than using purpose built software. PS stitching will be more difficult if there are architectural features included. See http://www.tawbaware.com/panprob.htm
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2006, 2:15 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 1,347
Default

Bill and slipe thanks for the nice comments

just followed that link bill, u can join pics like that in photoshop, using transform/ skew, this lets u squash one end of the picture like example on the link

i often have to do that :-)

yes photoshop isnt for begginers but i have used it for years and i did try joining with a panorama dedicated program but wasnt happy with results ie ghosting and some bad alignments.

i get more control using photoshop and its various tools, but as said u gotta know how to use it first :-) it isnt worth learning if u want just to stitch panos together

i dont think i could ever do that picture again, i had that many layers on the go it just arrived at looking 1/2 decent so i left it....u can go too far and make it worse


Reanimator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2006, 9:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

I agree that the automagical stitching programs sometimes leave ghosts, and can do
other strange things. The best of them do work in a fair number of cases though.


If you are going to do a lot of panoramas, you should look into Panorama Tools - with
one of the graphic front ends like PTAssembler or PTGui. One of the outputoptions is
PhotoShop layers which gives you all the stitch line control youhave now without
having to do the twiddly alignments and skew/perspective/warp adjustments.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2006, 2:22 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 57
Default

Bill is right. It is a complete and utter waste of time stitching in Photoshop alone. There are no advantages in doing it this way. Using PTGui + Panorama Tools, I can align the images accurately and easily to within a pixel or so, regardless of camera tilt and roll, with no giveaway kinks in lines crossing the seam boundaries or double images or ghosts, apart from those due to parallax and movement. In the case of the latter, by outputting a layered PSD file complete with layer masks, the individual images and masks can be simply edited to skirt the seams around trouble spots. But you know all about editing at this level. I would have though that the sheer precision of stitching with Panorama Tools would hold great appeal for somebody willing to spend so much time and care stitching completely manually. Without doubt, the results are of higher quality, which is what really matters.


panostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2006, 6:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
toshi43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vernon BC Canada
Posts: 1,618
Default

slipe wrote:
Quote:
Toshi43 I take a lot of water panos and never get banding with the
exposure and WB fixed. Are you sure the images weren't modified before
stitching and that the camera fixes everything with the first shot? I had an
Oly that fixed all of the shooting parameters with the first shot in pano
mode and never got any banding. But my Pentax had a pano mode that
didn't keep the same settings for every shot, and my results often looked
like yours with banding. I don't see how you can get that banding with the
same exposure and WB for all shots.

That pano was taken with a Canon A75 set to Panorama mode, which locks exposure settings with the first shot. None of the images were modified in any way before I stitched them together.I almost always got visible banding, either in the sky, or in water like this shot, when I used the Pano mode with this camera.

My present camera, a Fuji S5200, has no Pano mode, so each shotis metered individually. I have to post-process eachshot to even out exposure, but I get consistently better panos thanI did with the A75. Go figure.
toshi43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2006, 8:36 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

This might not look like a panorama, but I often take 3 shots with the camera
vertical to make my 38mm a wide angle of around 27mm with a 4:3 image
ratio. This was taken in continuous with my Z750 and there were no
modifications to the images before stitching and none after the stitch. I
usually run the individual images through PT Lens but didn't with this one.
I already had it online for a discussion of pseudo wide angle shots.

I did a simple stitch in Photoshop CS and there are no lines at the stitches.
Photoshop works fine for a simple stitch if the exposure and WB are the
same. I usually stitch in Photoshop anymore since I often want a little
shadow/highlight for a wide shot with one side lighter or darker. This wasn't wide enough to need it.






slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2006, 1:53 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 57
Default

Slipe, Photoshop can certainly workwell for landscape views provided the camera is kept level and the angle of view is not excessive. Your image looks ok except for the horizon, whichslopes upwards on the right. If you imagineanother camera positioned straight ahead on the opposite shore at the same height above the water, it would appear to be on a level with the horizon. (Thewater surface is level, more-or-less). The same goes forcameras similarly positioned anywhere along the coast to the the right. All would be level with the straight line of the horizon. As it is, the water level rises unnaturally on the right.

Having to keep the camera level is a bore. The horizon will naturally fall exactly half way down thepanorama image. From the composition point of view, this is not generally ideal.This image may have looked better with more of the interesting skyand less ofthe nondescript grass. But that would have caused bad problems stitching with Photoshop, which could be avoidedby usinga good stitcher that can handle camera tilt, like Autostitchor Panorama Tools.

How do I avoid these long lines? I need a line break (not new paragraph) facility.





panostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2006, 9:16 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

panostar wrote:
Quote:
Slipe, Photoshop can certainly workwell for landscape views provided the camera is kept level and the angle of view is not excessive. Your image looks ok except for the horizon, whichslopes upwards on the right. If you imagineanother camera positioned straight ahead on the opposite shore at the same height above the water, it would appear to be on a level with the horizon. (Thewater surface is level, more-or-less). The same goes forcameras similarly positioned anywhere along the coast to the the right. All would be level with the straight line of the horizon. As it is, the water level rises unnaturally on the right.

Having to keep the camera level is a bore. The horizon will naturally fall exactly half way down thepanorama image. From the composition point of view, this is not generally ideal.This image may have looked better with more of the interesting skyand less ofthe nondescript grass. But that would have caused bad problems stitching with Photoshop, which could be avoidedby usinga good stitcher that can handle camera tilt, like Autostitchor Panorama Tools.

How do I avoid these long lines? I need a line break (not new paragraph) facility.
shift-enter does a line break: enter does a new paragraph.

The curving/tilting horizon is the pitch problem easily dealt with by using
panormama tools: see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.houghton/horizons.htm
Another good example of what can can be done with PT is at
http://www.philohome.com/barrelpers/barrelpers.htm
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2006, 1:21 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I just went outside my computer room, put the camera on continuous and
snapped 5 shots with the camera held horizontally for a wide pano. I
stitched it in Photoshop, which evidently does some processing because the
tree limbs caused a blotch in the sky which wasn't really there. But there
aren't any stitch lines. Simpler software would have avoided the blotch, but I
could have removed it with the smudge tool.
The only pre-processing I did was to run them through PT lens. I've never
had stitch lines with the exposure and WB set the same.

When there are large waves or boat wakes you can see a stitch line where the
waves don't line up. I often have that problem out in the Gulf.

After the stitch I ran it through some Shadow/Highlight in Photoshop.

The birds are waiting for a handout. They usually get whatever cheap meat
Publix has on "buy one get one free".




The first image I posted was just for demonstrating how much extra you can
get with a pano with the camera held vertically compared to a regular 38mm
shot – it wasn't meant to be a work of art. Not only do you get the wide
angle, but also a lot more pixels for a large print. The horizon can be easily
corrected in Photoshop. With the camera in continuous it is almost as fast as
taking a single shot. And stitching is fast and painless with the parameters
fixed when shooting.

For more complex corrections PT Tools with a good GUI is better, but it is a
lot more work.

This is the horizon straightened with the skew control:


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:59 AM.