Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice

"Tony Belding" <zobeid DeleteThis @techie.com> wrote in message
news:2006120820182316807-zobeid@techiecom...
> I'm finding some of the inexpensive stitching software available now is
> pretty good -- even astonishingly good, from where I sit. And it made me
> wonder. . . Would this affect one's choice of lens for shooting
> landscapes? It seems to me that one would previously need a wide-angle
> lens to capture a landscape, but now a normal lens or even a short tele
> lens could give results at least as good, maybe better.
>
> Has this led any of you to change your shooting habits in the great
> outdoors?
>
> --
> Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas
>

I use a tripod with a modest pano head. Lock the exposure and color balance.
I use about a 28mm setting.

I prefer PTGui, I also use Autopano. I never use Photoshop Photomerge for
panos.

Look for Panosaurus. There is some good tutorial advice there.

Great fun.
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Tony Belding <zobeid.DeleteThis@techie.com> wrote:

> I'm finding some of the inexpensive stitching software available now is
> pretty good -- even astonishingly good, from where I sit. And it made me
> wonder. . . Would this affect one's choice of lens for shooting
> landscapes? It seems to me that one would previously need a wide-angle
> lens to capture a landscape, but now a normal lens or even a short tele
> lens could give results at least as good, maybe better.
>
> Has this led any of you to change your shooting habits in the great
> outdoors?

Change from what?

The choice of focal length depends on the subject. I took a stitched
pano of the Rockies at sunset using a 135mm prime, because it was what
was needed compositionally. A pano of Mt. St. Helens needed 6 shots at
80mm.

These figures can be misleading, though, because typically (and
ironically) I'll shoot in 'portrait' orientation, rather than
'landscape' for a single-row pano.

You have to develop a technique for visualizing the result. I tend to
guess, mount the lens, and swing the rig back and forth to get an idea.

Some results here:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/mile23/sets/72157594411909356/>
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Tony Belding <zobeid RemoveThis @techie.com> wrote:
: I'm finding some of the inexpensive stitching software available now is
: pretty good -- even astonishingly good, from where I sit. And it made
: me wonder. . . Would this affect one's choice of lens for shooting
: landscapes? It seems to me that one would previously need a wide-angle
: lens to capture a landscape, but now a normal lens or even a short tele
: lens could give results at least as good, maybe better.

: Has this led any of you to change your shooting habits in the great
: outdoors?

Yes kinda.

I frequently was frustrated that impressive scenes or massive structures
(buildings, mountains, waterfalls, etc) either were too large for any sane
use of a wide angle lens (even a huge building looks like a miniature if
you use too wide a lens), or I would have to shoot a whole roll of film
and hope that a week later when I got the photos back I could piece the
image back together without any gaps.

But now that I have digital and a couple different stitching programs I
can get huge images that look just as impressive as the original. Using
digital I am not upset if I take 50 or 60 images with huge amounts of
overlap to ensure that every inch is captured. And I agree that the
current stitching software is amazingly good at geting it all together. My
current favorite is still Autostitch, but I do have a few other programs
incase of the rare problem.

So yes I am much more likely to see an impressive piece of scenery and
begin snapping off as many images as it takes.

Now if I could afford the ink to print these massive images at a size that
they deserve without taking out a bank loan.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 20:18:23 -0600, Tony Belding <zobeid DeleteThis @techie.com>
wrote:

>I'm finding some of the inexpensive stitching software available now is
>pretty good -- even astonishingly good, from where I sit. And it made
>me wonder. . . Would this affect one's choice of lens for shooting
>landscapes? It seems to me that one would previously need a wide-angle
>lens to capture a landscape, but now a normal lens or even a short tele
>lens could give results at least as good, maybe better.
>
>Has this led any of you to change your shooting habits in the great outdoors?

It depends.
On a (D)SLR, almost any but the widest lenses are pretty rectilinear.
No real problem with distortion. My 17-40L is a good example; for
landscapes, it does very well )it does have problems if there are,
say, utility poles close in; they get bent some).
On a P&S, though, this is different; the lenses aren't as good. Then,
I find shooting at 45mm (equivalent) to about 80mm (equilavent) works
best.
YMMV, as always.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Bill Funk <BigBill DeleteThis @there.com> wrote:

[..]
> It depends.
> On a (D)SLR, almost any but the widest lenses are pretty rectilinear.
> No real problem with distortion. My 17-40L is a good example; for
> landscapes, it does very well )it does have problems if there are,
> say, utility poles close in; they get bent some).
> On a P&S, though, this is different; the lenses aren't as good. Then,
> I find shooting at 45mm (equivalent) to about 80mm (equilavent) works
> best.
> YMMV, as always.

Good software will allow you to correct for the distortion, or do the
correction automatically. In the case of Hugin, you can define standard
distortions per-lens, and also do things like perspective correction.

<http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/index.shtml>
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Hi Tony,

> Has this led any of you to change your shooting habits in the great
> outdoors?

I've only shot a few panoramas with stitching (I used the software that came
with my Canon RebelXT for it). They came out very nicely. I am _far_ from
being an expert, but from what I have read, experienced and seen, there are
a few things you need to be aware of when shooting images for panorama
stitching.

Polarizing filters can mess things up if you are moving across the sky at
around the 90 degrees from the sun. I'd advise not to use polarizing
filters at all when doing panoramas or you will get color problems -
fixable, but best not to get them in the first place:)

Make sure that white balance, exposure and aperture are fixed, i.e. use
manual mode. Otherwise the camera may change any or all of these settings
making it more difficult to match the colors, brightness etc. of each of the
images. Depending on the software you use, the brightness and colors may be
less of an issue than with other software, so experiment with it and see
what you can do and can't do.

I would suggest small aperture (high f stop) and manual focus (not
autofocus) particularly if there are objects close to you in the foreground.
The photo at http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html would
be a good example as it might develop focus problems with big aperture and
autofocus when the images of the foreground are taken. If the brightness of
your individual images varies a lot (see that example photo, where the parts
of the image would be darker than others and one very bright - the sun
photo;) I would change the shutter speed and leave the aperture alone.

Hope this helps:)

--
Arnor Baldvinsson
San Antonio, Texas
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Arnor Baldvinsson wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
>> Has this led any of you to change your shooting habits in the great
>> outdoors?
>
> I've only shot a few panoramas with stitching (I used the software that came
> with my Canon RebelXT for it). They came out very nicely. I am _far_ from
> being an expert, but from what I have read, experienced and seen, there are
> a few things you need to be aware of when shooting images for panorama
> stitching.
>
> Polarizing filters can mess things up if you are moving across the sky at
> around the 90 degrees from the sun. I'd advise not to use polarizing
> filters at all when doing panoramas or you will get color problems -
> fixable, but best not to get them in the first place:)
>
> Make sure that white balance, exposure and aperture are fixed, i.e. use
> manual mode. Otherwise the camera may change any or all of these settings
> making it more difficult to match the colors, brightness etc. of each of the
> images. Depending on the software you use, the brightness and colors may be
> less of an issue than with other software, so experiment with it and see
> what you can do and can't do.
>
> I would suggest small aperture (high f stop) and manual focus (not
> autofocus) particularly if there are objects close to you in the foreground.
> The photo at http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html would
> be a good example as it might develop focus problems with big aperture and
> autofocus when the images of the foreground are taken. If the brightness of
> your individual images varies a lot (see that example photo, where the parts
> of the image would be darker than others and one very bright - the sun
> photo;) I would change the shutter speed and leave the aperture alone.

Also: Keep the sun at your back, and a tripod if you can, and you're
good to go!

I am a bit suspect of the UBC software, if only because their careful
demo isn't honest. In the panel that shows the 57 images aligned but not
blended, there's a man standing sideways in the foreground. In the
"final" he is kneeling away from the camera. So, the final wasn't
derived strictly from the composite. It could easily be a single frame.

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

John McWilliams wrote:
> Arnor Baldvinsson wrote:
>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>>> Has this led any of you to change your shooting habits in the great
>>> outdoors?
>>
>>
>> I've only shot a few panoramas with stitching (I used the software
>> that came with my Canon RebelXT for it). They came out very nicely.
>> I am _far_ from being an expert, but from what I have read,
>> experienced and seen, there are a few things you need to be aware of
>> when shooting images for panorama stitching.
>>
>> Polarizing filters can mess things up if you are moving across the sky
>> at around the 90 degrees from the sun. I'd advise not to use
>> polarizing filters at all when doing panoramas or you will get color
>> problems - fixable, but best not to get them in the first place:)
>>
>> Make sure that white balance, exposure and aperture are fixed, i.e.
>> use manual mode. Otherwise the camera may change any or all of these
>> settings making it more difficult to match the colors, brightness etc.
>> of each of the images. Depending on the software you use, the
>> brightness and colors may be less of an issue than with other
>> software, so experiment with it and see what you can do and can't do.
>>
>> I would suggest small aperture (high f stop) and manual focus (not
>> autofocus) particularly if there are objects close to you in the
>> foreground. The photo at
>> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html would be a
>> good example as it might develop focus problems with big aperture and
>> autofocus when the images of the foreground are taken. If the
>> brightness of your individual images varies a lot (see that example
>> photo, where the parts of the image would be darker than others and
>> one very bright - the sun photo;) I would change the shutter speed and
>> leave the aperture alone.
>
>
> Also: Keep the sun at your back, and a tripod if you can, and you're
> good to go!
>
> I am a bit suspect of the UBC software, if only because their careful
> demo isn't honest. In the panel that shows the 57 images aligned but not
> blended, there's a man standing sideways in the foreground. In the
> "final" he is kneeling away from the camera. So, the final wasn't
> derived strictly from the composite. It could easily be a single frame.
>
This image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

was done with a polarizer and autofocus, varying the focus from
frame to frame. I disagree with the idea keep the sun at your back.
The scene, and it's lighting, along with your composition
are what is important. With the camera on manual and constant
aperture and exposure, doing a mosaic is no different than
doing a wider angle image with a single lens in terms of the
overall effect.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Hi Roger,

> The scene, and it's lighting, along with your composition
> are what is important.

That 59 frame image is just beautiful! I was under the impression that
constant focus was required so that the stitching software could find the
edges easier, but I guess I've been reading old stuff and that the stitching
software works just fine even if the focus changes<g> Thanks for posting
the link, I've leared a lot from your page already:)
--
Arnor Baldvinsson
San Antonio, Texas
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Arnor Baldvinsson <photong RemoveThis @icetips.com> wrote:

> Hi Roger,
>
> > The scene, and it's lighting, along with your composition are what is
> > important.
>
> That 59 frame image is just beautiful! I was under the impression that
> constant focus was required so that the stitching software could find the
> edges easier, but I guess I've been reading old stuff and that the stitching
> software works just fine even if the focus changes<g> Thanks for posting
> the link, I've leared a lot from your page already:)

The issue isn't 'focus changes,' but sharpness. If you set your camera
to autofocus and take 59 images of a vast landscape to stitch together,
then each image will likely be similar in sharpness to its neighbors.

But if there's a foreground object in one tile image that's not in its
neighbors, the camera might autofocus on the foreground object, leaving
the background less sharp. This means it probably won't match the
neighbors in sharpness. Auto-stitching software won't find it as easy to
figure out what to do.

Whether or not to autofocus depends on what you're trying to do. You
could mix and match, too. Manual focus if there's a foreground object,
autofocus for the rest, for instance.
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

In article <ATFeh.800$yC5.285@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, Arnor
Baldvinsson <photong.RemoveThis@icetips.com> wrote:

> Hi Roger,
>
> > The scene, and it's lighting, along with your composition
> > are what is important.
>
> That 59 frame image is just beautiful! I was under the impression that
> constant focus was required so that the stitching software could find the
> edges easier, but I guess I've been reading old stuff and that the stitching
> software works just fine even if the focus changes<g> Thanks for posting
> the link, I've leared a lot from your page already:)

There's a lot of good info on all the other pages on his site, as well.
Well worth the time to peruse.

Here's a couple of pictures I've stitched together using PTGui. These
are of Smith Rocks (Central Oregon) a couple of weeks ago (It was 8
degrees F that morning. I was hoping for more snow on the rocks
themselves, but was disappointed). Note that I have done nothing to
them other than stitch them - I haven't had time to do any fine tuning
on them to make them saleable yet (i.e., no WB, no exposure,
saturation, sharpening, etc).

<http://www.nwconcessions.com/page7-1000-full.jpg>

<http://www.nwconcessions.com/page7-1001-full.jpg>

The first is from 28 10.2 megapixel images from a Canon 400D, using a
24-105L Ÿ4 lens at approximately 50mm. After overlap and stitch, this
came out to 140 megapixels, and after cropping, to approximately 100
megapixels. Except for the blank sky in the uppeer left, this one was
a virtual automatic stitch in PTGui. I only had to do a little manual
blending in PS. The final image was aproximately 230 inches wide at
native 72dpi, I've changed the resolution to 350dpi for printing (no
resampling,of course), and it come out just about right at 57" x 13",
which prints fine with three borderless 13" x 19" prints for a
triptych.

The second is from 18 images using 24mm on the same camera/lens combo.
After stitching and cropping, it comes out to about 70 megapixels.
This one was a lot more challenging in PTGui, as the foreground on the
left (the railing) just didn't want to match. It took over 40 control
points just in the area of that railing alone to get it to line up
properly.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Paul Mitchum wrote:

> Arnor Baldvinsson <photong.TakeThisOut@icetips.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Roger,
>>
>>
>>>The scene, and it's lighting, along with your composition are what is
>>>important.
>>
>>That 59 frame image is just beautiful! I was under the impression that
>>constant focus was required so that the stitching software could find the
>>edges easier, but I guess I've been reading old stuff and that the stitching
>>software works just fine even if the focus changes<g> Thanks for posting
>>the link, I've leared a lot from your page already:)
>
>
> The issue isn't 'focus changes,' but sharpness. If you set your camera
> to autofocus and take 59 images of a vast landscape to stitch together,
> then each image will likely be similar in sharpness to its neighbors.
>
> But if there's a foreground object in one tile image that's not in its
> neighbors, the camera might autofocus on the foreground object, leaving
> the background less sharp. This means it probably won't match the
> neighbors in sharpness. Auto-stitching software won't find it as easy to
> figure out what to do.
>
> Whether or not to autofocus depends on what you're trying to do. You
> could mix and match, too. Manual focus if there's a foreground object,
> autofocus for the rest, for instance.

I would say the main issue is depth of field. For any set
of overlapping frames, the depth of field must be large enough
that the circle of confusion produces similar sharpness
so the frames match up. I've been doing my mosaics that have
close foreground objects at f/16 to f/22. Also, I built my
own pano head to hold my camera in landscape orientation
so the focus from bottom to the top of the frame has less
depth of field to deal with than would a portrait orientation.
A pano head is critical to eliminate parallax issues if
you include close foreground objects.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice 

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 15:58:08 -0800, usenet DeleteThis @mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
> wrote:
>
> >Bill Funk <BigBill DeleteThis @there.com> wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >> It depends.
> >> On a (D)SLR, almost any but the widest lenses are pretty rectilinear.
> >> No real problem with distortion. My 17-40L is a good example; for
> >> landscapes, it does very well )it does have problems if there are,
> >> say, utility poles close in; they get bent some).
> >> On a P&S, though, this is different; the lenses aren't as good. Then,
> >> I find shooting at 45mm (equivalent) to about 80mm (equilavent) works
> >> best.
> >> YMMV, as always.
> >
> >Good software will allow you to correct for the distortion, or do the
> >correction automatically. In the case of Hugin, you can define standard
> >distortions per-lens, and also do things like perspective correction.
> >
> ><http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/index.shtml>
>
> Yes, but I find it easier to get it right the first time.
It is not really a matter of getting it right the first time as much as
dealing with a lens that is not perfectly rectilinear. A program like
PTGui (and many others) will automatically find the parameters of the
lens and deal with lenses that have some barrel or pincushion to them.
The end result is a photo that can if you wish be mapped as a
rectilinear image with no distortion.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Landscape Stitching & Lens Choice