Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: jnaneshwars on January 21, 2007, 08:29:52 pm
-
I tried to stitch four different images on photoshop 7.0. I followed the instructions given on the this site but the result shows the dividing line between images(attached). I must have gone wrong somewhere. Could anyone point out where it could be?
Thanks.[attachment=1589:attachment]
-
I tried to stitch four different images on photoshop 7.0. I followed the instructions given on the this site but the result shows the dividing line between images(attached). I must have gone wrong somewhere. Could anyone point out where it could be?
Thanks.[attachment=1589:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First of all, is there overlap between the shots? You need 20% or so overlap for the program to be able to look for similarities in the shots.
Second, PS's own stitching is crap (I heard CS3's is pretty good, haven't tried it though). Dedicated programs do a much better job, to the point of being practically impossible to tell after-the-fact that it's a stitched shot.
I've used Autopano which isn't free, but it's very good and easy to use. There are numerous other options, even free ones.
-
Your images show a very strong light fall off in the corners.
This is probably the result of a poor lens used at a less than optimum aprture and of some post processing. One first thing is that you should avoid to apply too much post-processing before doing the stitching.
A dedicated pano software like PTgui will automatically try to get rid of this light fall of to a certain extend.
If you prefer to stick to PS then you might want to try to reduce the light fall off (darken the center while lightening up the corners),
The best is course to re-shoot with your lens stopped down to the f stop that minimizes the light fall off.
Regards,
Bernard
-
CS3 (just beta now) is really a lot better in making panoramas dan CS2. In the few stitching I have been doing recently, it is as good or better than PTgui.
But even then, vignetting lenses can do a lot of harm.
-
CS3 (just beta now) is really a lot better in making panoramas dan CS2. In the few stitching I have been doing recently, it is as good or better than PTgui.
But even then, vignetting lenses can do a lot of harm.
I agree completely. The new CS3 is as good as anything out there. Having said that no program will make up for poorly shot segments. Quality stitching involves generous overlap, good non vignetting lenses (many of the tips mentioned above) and preferably a tripod mounted camera which pans around the nodal point and or a shift lens. Incredible images are possible if you are a careful worker.
-
Quality stitching involves generous overlap......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96949\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not always necessary to have a generous overlap with stitching programs like Panavue's Image assembler, Kirk. In fact too much overlap can be a bad thing, particularly if the shots are of a fairly close subject. Even using the TS-E lenses where parallax errors are small, sometimes a perfect stitch can only be achieved by cropping the images, prior to stitching, to a bare minimum overlap... in my experience .
-
Thanks Ray, That is actually part of my point. I just forgot to elaborate.
A generous overlap gives you many options to overcome possible issues in the final stitch.
For instance, my primary usage of stitching is to get a wider view than a 24mm (with DSLR, 47mm with 6x9 on film) when shooting interiors on commercial assignments. Usually all I do is a left then right shift with no pan at all. The overlap is huge (like 50%) and 95% of the time CS3 handles it perfectly, but about 5% of the time gets a bit confused with some funny things going on in the graded tones of the ceilings. Then I simply pre-crop the images with a smaller overlap at various locations to get a smother transition in the ceiling and it works out fine.
-
I tried to stitch four different images on photoshop 7.0. I followed the instructions given on the this site but the result shows the dividing line between images(attached). I must have gone wrong somewhere. Could anyone point out where it could be?
Thanks.[attachment=1589:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=96903\")
I use a freeware photo stitcher called Autostitch from the University of British Columbia.
It is truly amazing software. I suggest you give this a try.
[a href=\"http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html]http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html[/url]
-
I use a freeware photo stitcher called Autostitch from the University of British Columbia.
It is truly amazing software. I suggest you give this a try.
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html (http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for all the various suggestions. I shot the image on an overcast day with a sigma 10-20mm wide angle lens. With a wide angle lens one could expect the image to be a bit dark at the edges than at the centre. Probably I may have gone wrong on masking in Photoshop.
I shall try AUTOSTITCH and check the results.
-
I use a freeware photo stitcher called Autostitch from the University of British Columbia.
It is truly amazing software. I suggest you give this a try.
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html (http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Autostitch was the coolest thing when it was released thanks to its completely auto-stitching ability.
In the meantime commercial packages like Stitcher and PTgui have caught up and now also offer similar capabilities, but with a lot more manual control and better image quality (really seemless stitches, 16 bit support,...).
Regards,
Bernard
-
At this point in time, I don't find any of these stand alones to be any better than the new stitcher in Photoshop CS3. If you use PS and are going to upgrade anyway................
-
At this point in time, I don't find any of these stand alones to be any better than the new stitcher in Photoshop CS3. If you use PS and are going to upgrade anyway................
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I tried stitching on AUTOSTITCH, which seems quite simple. Although my image has a cloudy background I have to try with images with more color contrast. Thanks for the numerous opinions which is appreciated.
Attached is the stitched image.
-
Hi!
I think that a larger overlap would help. Two suggestions I would make is to use a longer focal lenght and vertical camera position. I usually have something like 1/3 overlap.
The suggestions above should reduce the vignetting problem.
I mostly used "hugin" with "enblend" which is "opensource". Enblend handles small differences in densities between frames well.
Erik
I tried to stitch four different images on photoshop 7.0. I followed the instructions given on the this site but the result shows the dividing line between images(attached). I must have gone wrong somewhere. Could anyone point out where it could be?
Thanks.[attachment=1589:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I've always had better luck stitching if I did the following to balance the images
1. DXO optics to correct lens distortion and vignetting
2. auto exposure ON
3. color match in PS prior to stitching
I hope this helps
Marc
[attachment=1615:attachment]
-
2. auto exposure ON
Auto exposure is a bad idea; your sample image still has some vertical luminance inconsistencies. You have some rectangular areas of sky noticeably darker than others just to the right of center of your image, although the edges are fairly fuzzy. It's better to shoot completely in manual mode, process the RAWs with identical settings, and correct vignetting as much as possible before attempting to stitch. Set your stitching program to output the final image in layers, so that you can manually control the final blend in PS with layer masking.
Here is a 3000x1000 pixel stitched image. (http://visual-vacations.com/images/2005-01-28-0027-0033.jpg) See if you can find any seams, or guess how many frames went into the stitch.
-
FWIW, I coluldn't get a set of 9 images to stitch correctly with PS2, vbut the low end Stitcher program did it perfectly. Not sure how to attach a file but I clicked the link below so hopefully it is there. A view from the Aburi Hills of reh plains behind Acrra, Ghana, an image from a book of Ghana photos I am publishing.[attachment=1621:attachment]
-
Sorry about the bad typing on the previous post. It is not my strong point! BTW, that pan was made from hand held imges on Canon 5D with the Canon 24-105.
Peter
-
On the Mac I've been using Calico (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/calico.html). I still need to see how CS3 handles panos in comparison.
-
Auto exposure is a bad idea; your sample image still has some vertical luminance inconsistencies. You have some rectangular areas of sky noticeably darker than others just to the right of center of your image, although the edges are fairly fuzzy. It's better to shoot completely in manual mode, process the RAWs with identical settings, and correct vignetting as much as possible before attempting to stitch. Set your stitching program to output the final image in layers, so that you can manually control the final blend in PS with layer masking.
Here is a 3000x1000 pixel stitched image. (http://visual-vacations.com/images/2005-01-28-0027-0033.jpg) See if you can find any seams, or guess how many frames went into the stitch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice job, no I can't tell you stitched it. I'll try your technique next time
Marc
-
I've been using Hugins, which works pretty nicely for a free, as in free beer, program. Here's one that Hugins did on its own with very little help from me.
-
If you're not using a proper stiching program, you're working with one arm tied behind your back. The difference in utility and output between PS CS3 beta and proper stitchers like PTAssembler, hugin, PTgui, etc. is enormous.
check out: http://tawbaware.com/maxlyons (http://tawbaware.com/maxlyons)
and http://tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel/htm (http://tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel/htm)
...here's a pic of mine, 200 megpixel with a 350D
(http://www.pbase.com/image/73703444/large.jpg)
-
Stitches are an important part of how I make a living, and I charge a premium to do them. So they have to be done right. I tested PTGui (and many others) a little while back against CS3 and could find no advantage in the results. What is the basis of your statement?
-
If you're not using a proper stiching program, you're working with one arm tied behind your back.
Then call me the one armed stitcher.
Rich
-
Kirk, Rich,
I appologize for the tone of my post, I ment no disrespect.
The basis of my statement is that Pano Tools type stitchers allow complete control of the transformations of each compnoent image in to the output projection, PS doesn't. And choise of output projections more than cylindrical and sort-of rectilinar. PS works very fast and well with a few images but chokes on large numbers of images.I wish PS would do better.
four handheld point and shoot images, about 11mm equiv
(http://www.pbase.com/image/73830836/original.jpg)
Photomerge
(http://www.pbase.com/image/73831128/original.jpg)
PTAssembler
(http://www.pbase.com/image/73830602/original.jpg)
-
Thanks for providing some examples. I see you point. For my purposes, I am usually just merging two side by side captures to extend the wide angle capabilities of my T/S lenses. Shot correctly I can get a distortion free 16 bit merge in PS3 that is flawless and is all I need.
-
jadazu,
No apology needed, I just found your remark humorous is all.
I am retired and I have plenty of time to create my photos. In other words, I am not in any kind of a rush to produce a finished product. If one picture takes me a week, I don't care. This way also tends to stimulate the gray matter, figuring ways to overcome problems manually rather than relying on the computer and software.
I am not saying there is anything at all wrong with your methods or workflow. If it works for you, then it is correct for you and I will not knock it in any way.
However it is done.......Stitch on! I enjoy the results when done well.
Rich
-
Kirk, I see your point, too. Using PS is the best thing for your work. (Crossed with Rich's post)
Thanks, Rich, indeed, stich on.
PS, the layer blending option for blending stitches in the PS3 beta is a very good stitch blender!
-
Kirk: In CS3, at what point do you correct the 24TS barrel distortion, before or after stitching?
-
Hi Coot,
Not to answer for Kirk, but yes you would need to remove any distortion before trying to stitch the individual images. I run each one through PTlens before I stitch them.
Rich
-
I've used Panorama Factory for almost 5 years and have stitched almost 10,000 panos. Some have well over 30 individual shots conjoined. For me, it's about a tripod and 20-30% overlap in manual mode.
-
I've used Panorama Factory for almost 5 years
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=101325\")
I don't know Panorama Factory. With apologies beforehand, I wouldn't use it, based on your posted picture. The picture has large 'stitching' errors and large 'blending' errors!! (An explination those terms is; 'stitching' is the transformation and positioning of the component rectiliniar images into the chosen output projection, and 'blending' is the joining together of the images, 're-moving the seams.') The stitching errors are that the horizontal lines of the crane aren't smooth and vertical things don't 'match' and line-up, and the blending errors are that there are double images of the things that didn't stitch properly, that show up as funny 'shadows' in the final image. And the two moons...Sorry...
With a Pano Tools type of program you won't have these problems, and you can have enormous, almost total, control over the process. Check these tutorials for PTAssembler by Georges Legarde:
[a href=\"http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/MODES-PROJECTION/en_prefecture_rectiligne.htm]http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/MODES-PROJECTI..._rectiligne.htm[/url]
http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/mastering-pers...ective-rev4.htm (http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/mastering-perspective/Mastering-Perspective-rev4.htm)
http://www.panorama-numerique.com/squeeze/squeeze.htm (http://www.panorama-numerique.com/squeeze/squeeze.htm)
Or ses examples at;
http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewforum.php?f=2 (http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewforum.php?f=2)
With apologies, again, if you're not using a proper Pano Tools type stitching program, your working with a handicap...
Re the posted picture: If you can stitch 16 bit/per/channel Tiffs, the 'banding' in the sky would go away...
And: The bumps on the horizontal lines would go away too, PTAssembler gives you the choise of the best interpolation algorithims...
Again, I don't mean to be a jerk, it's just that you can do it right... like this, for example...
http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=4182 (http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=4182)
PS: to Rich Owens (and others), If you're using PTLens, you're already using Pano Tools, but with a fraction of its' potentional
-
I've used Panorama Factory for almost 5 years and have stitched almost 10,000 panos. Some have well over 30 individual shots conjoined. For me, it's about a tripod and 20-30% overlap in manual mode.
Given the sample image, it's quite obvious the program makes no attempt whatsoever to correct for lens distortion before stitching, and there is significant ghosting where images are misaligned along the edges. The top of the tower on the left exhibits this, as well as the railing on the larger structure just left of center-frame. The railing also undulates significantly due to the uncorrected barrel distortion, making it easy to tell where the seams are even when they are lined up properly. Overall, it's an OK job for family snapshots and such, but if you are delivering this poor-quality work to paying clients, you are doing them and yourself a disservice.
-
if you're using PTLens, to correct distortion before stitching, you're already using Helmut Dersch's Pano Tools, but you're using only a small fraction of it's utility. A Pano Tools type of stitching application corrects lens distortion and transforms images into the correct output projection, in one transformation.
-
I've used Panorama Factory for almost 5 years and have stitched almost 10,000 panos. Some have well over 30 individual shots conjoined. For me, it's about a tripod and 20-30% overlap in manual mode.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to agree with the others on this one, such a panorama could be done much better using a different piece of software.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Kirk, Rich,
I appologize for the tone of my post, I ment no disrespect.
The basis of my statement is that Pano Tools type stitchers allow complete control of the transformations of each compnoent image in to the output projection, PS doesn't. And choise of output projections more than cylindrical and sort-of rectilinar. PS works very fast and well with a few images but chokes on large numbers of images.I wish PS would do better.
four handheld point and shoot images, about 11mm equiv
(http://www.pbase.com/image/73830836/original.jpg)
Photomerge
(http://www.pbase.com/image/73831128/original.jpg)
PTAssembler
(http://www.pbase.com/image/73830602/original.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I must admit, I like the way [span style=\'font-size:11pt;line-height:100%\']jadazu[/span] processed the files using PTAssembler better.
Regards
Danijela
-
The point I was trying ot make is about how you get to the result. You could probably get the same final, correct rectilnear result using PS Photomerge, but you'd have to; correct lens distortion> merge> correct perspective, or correct lens distortion and perspective> merge. That is, you would have to make cut-and-try attempts at a good result, correcting lens distortion and perspective by way of small proxy images with grids overlayed, re-trying being the only way to refine the results. And do two or three transformations. PT stitchers let you, for rectileaner output for example, lets you pick what should be horizontal, vertical, or straight, and then optimizes lens distortion correction, output projection, and perspective, for correct output, for all imput images all at the same time.That is; the PTAssembler result is from one step (albeit, a longer step.) And it alows you to optimize any creative perspective changes that yould like, in that same one step. For stitching 36 images into one rectilnear pic, the image I posted at the top of the page, that's a really big deal... I mostly do landscapes, and now having mercator output, for tall mosaics, would be a deal maker to me... multi-plane rectilnear I've used or a couple of architecturals too... And morph-to-fit controled morphing for the paralax problems. And to optimize different FOVs for input images, any one or more individually, for different focus settings or different zoom settings images into the same stitched image.
-
Photomerge
No offense, but that looks suspiciously like a photomerge result from CS2 -- Are you saying that stitch was from CS3? If so, which rendering intent did you use? If you use "perspective correct" in CS3 you will get straighter lines, not as significantly bowed as you got in your photomerge example above.
I am not saying it will outperform PTAssembler, but it should do a far better job than your example shows.
You can see my post on stitching in the digital section -- I posted larger single jpeg frames if you want to run them in PTAssembler to compare:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=14827 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14827)
Cheers,
-
No offense, but that looks suspiciously like a photomerge result from CS2 -- Are you saying that stitch was from CS3? If so, which rendering intent did you use? If you use "perspective correct" in CS3 you will get straighter lines, not as significantly bowed as you got in your photomerge example above.
....
Jack,
I just tried to stitch the 4 little photos with Photoshop CS 3 and here's what the auto mode does (on the left). On the right, it's the version made using Photoshop CS 2.
Edit: the weird colors on the PSCS3 version are my mistake, sorry.
-
Jack,
I just tried to stitch the 4 little photos with Photoshop CS 3 and here's what the auto mode does (on the left). On the right, it's the version made using Photoshop CS 2.
Edit: the weird colors on the PSCS3 version are my mistake, sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now try it with "interactive" mode and check "perspective" when the assembly dialog comes up. Should be lots straighter lines and image will "pinch" like in jadsu's example. Also, will of course work better on the larger images.
Cheers,
-
Here's a 35-image pano. Only 7 across though, stitched with autopano. That software works very well.
Hdr Panorama (http://www.hdrjapan.com/sitemap/)
-
No offense, but that looks suspiciously like a photomerge result from CS2 -- Are you saying that stitch was from CS3? If so, which rendering intent did you use? If you use "perspective correct" in CS3 you will get straighter lines, not as significantly bowed as you got in your photomerge example above.
I am not saying it will outperform PTAssembler, but it should do a far better job than your example shows.
You can see my post on stitching in the digital section -- I posted larger single jpeg frames if you want to run them in PTAssembler to compare:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=14827 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14827)
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
Thank you.
Yes, it's CS3 beta, but Interactive didn't do anything! And Reposition Only doesn't work either! I would love it if Photomerge would work perfectly (or good enough!) The blender is excellent!
If you'd like, I'll do the pics you posted, rectilnear with PTAssembler, but it'll be the same, except that all of the verticals will be vertical.
Most of what I do isn't rectilinear output, so perfect output perspective isn't a big deal. To me there are two things that do matter: I just stitched 3x9 16bpcc images. PTA and smartblend took 25 min, to Smart Sharpen the result took 30 min, and to do Photomerge, I quit after 120 min! And Photomerge doesn't do mercator output, that I can tell, and that is a really big deal, for tall, vertcal landscape mosaics! And being able to exactly define a horizontal, exactly straight line, the horizon of a lake or an ocean is also a really big deal. Bumpy horizons look dumb.
I may have overstated the issue of having imput images with different FOVs, Photomerge may recoginize that perfectly, but I don't see any way to tell if that's so, you can only wait for the output and look for problems...
I'd like to know if you can get better results with Photomerge, I'd llike to know what gives the best output, that's the only important thing!
PS: Can I post you a few pics, to see whta results you can get?
-
PS: Can I post you a few pics, to see whta results you can get?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure. Post slightly larger versions of the four you used for the example here -- say 600 pixels wide and I'll run them through PM3 with perspective correct rendering. We can compare.
-
I like that stuff that you did.
______________________
Armstrong Industrial Hand Tools Catalogs (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/armstrong-industrial-hand-tools-1316/) - Get The New Armstrong Industrial Hand Tools Catalogs
-
I tried to stitch four different images on photoshop 7.0. I followed the instructions given on the this site but the result shows the dividing line between images(attached). I must have gone wrong somewhere. Could anyone point out where it could be?
Thanks.[attachment=1589:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi,
I always do my stitched pics ' free hand '
Open a new layer - drag and drop in pics -
line them up[ can reduce opacity to assist ]
Use soft eraizer to blend - Crop - Flatten.
Takes more time but you get perfect results.
Give it a go...........
Steve
[ England ]
-
I recently started experimenting with stiching. Here is an image done with Panorama Factory, the same program that created a previous image on this thread that you all had problems with the results. It was done with a Bogen pano head. The rotation should have been correct as I have figured out the nodal point, leveling etc. If anyone has an opinion on the quality of this pano please let me know. Same errors as previous image? Should this be looking better?
Thanks!
-
I have been using Photoshop CS3 lately and it is amazing.
Below is a shot I took in the Gorge a few weeks ago with my 12-24 Lens at 12MM
I took 4-Portait style shots with a 1/3 overlap. I just let Phothosp join this in circular mode.
No issues with lense curvature...no seam lines.....no problems whatsever....I am now becoming a pano junkie. I want Medium Format Digital...but cant justify the cost just yet. I have a print of this 50"x63" off a light jet printer. It is aboslutly amazing.
(http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/image/75796378/original.jpg)
If you have photoshop 7.0...just bite the bullet and get the upgrade...the stiching aone is worth is....but a lot has changed since v. 7.0.....and you might be amazed.
Roman