Stitching with view cameras - general question ...

[PaulSchneider]

Hi guys,

I just have a little theoretical question about stitching with a view camera ... Can one easily combine normal stitching by shifting and nodal point stitching with a nodal point adapter in order to get really gigantic panoramas? Or are there any caveats?

One main advantage of using view cameras is to my understanding the capability of easy, seamless stitching by way of shifting the digital back.  Coming from 35mm though, I read a lot about panoramic heads - such as the one from manfrotto - as another viable way of creating huge panoramas.

My thought now is to combine these two methods. I.e. by combining multiple 2 x 2 shifted images that were sequentially created side by side with the help of the panoramic head.

Is there anywhere a list where I can see the nodal points of the Rodenstock/Schneider lenses?

Kind regards

Paul

[JonathanBenoit]

My understanding is that there is far greater lens distortion from nodal point panos. So if you are looking for ultimate image quality, I wouldn't use that method.

[Dick Roadnight]

Hi guys,

I just have a little theoretical question about stitching with a view camera ... Can one easily combine normal stitching by shifting and nodal point stitching with a nodal point adapter in order to get really gigantic panoramas? Or are there any caveats?

One main advantage of using view cameras is to my understanding the capability of easy, seamless stitching by way of shifting the digital back.
Paul

What exactly are you contemplating doing?

You can easily stitch pairs of exposures vertically using rear rise/fall, and then pan and cylinder stitch the pairs...

What camera are you using?

I had thought that, with a Sinar, I could use the rail to put the nodal point above the tripod pivot, but the standard would probably be in the wrong place, but then I have a base plate for use with two rail clamps.

Most pano heads, I would have thought, would not take the weight of a view camera.

[buzzski]

FWIW I used Blad / Leaf combo for shooting large panos on an RRS pano head and the results were pretty good. Now, shooting 5dmk2 and using the same head, the results are in my opinion stunning. I can shoot higher ISO and get less mirror movement. I shoot on average 7gig landscapes with 400mm lenses  and at the other end stitch interiors with a 24mm. I rarely encounter stitching errors and am presented with huge, clean images. I know this doesn't really answer your large format question but I couldn't imagine creating these images with my P2 which unfortunately hasn't been out of the case in a long time... You can see downsampled versions here

[Dick Roadnight]

I couldn't imagine creating these images with my P2 which unfortunately hasn't been out of the case in a long time...

What could be unimaginable about pano-stitching with a P2?

[buzzski]

What could be unimaginable about pano-stitching with a P2?

When I said "I couldn't imagine creating these images with my P2" I was referring to the panos I linked the OP to - if you care to take a look I would imagine you would come to the same conclusion.

[Anders_HK]

Hi guys,

I just have a little theoretical question about stitching with a view camera ... Can one easily combine normal stitching by shifting and nodal point stitching with a nodal point adapter in order to get really gigantic panoramas? Or are there any caveats?

One main advantage of using view cameras is to my understanding the capability of easy, seamless stitching by way of shifting the digital back.  Coming from 35mm though, I read a lot about panoramic heads - such as the one from manfrotto - as another viable way of creating huge panoramas.

My thought now is to combine these two methods. I.e. by combining multiple 2 x 2 shifted images that were sequentially created side by side with the help of the panoramic head.

Is there anywhere a list where I can see the nodal points of the Rodenstock/Schneider lenses?

Kind regards

Paul

Paul,

Having explored stitching with MFDB on a viewcamera with sliding back, the fact is that it is much work. A viewcamera also have tilt and swing. Combining this with the tolerances you need to maintain focus is a tricky thing in my book. Simpler seem to be to use a technical camera with only shift or shift and rise/fall --- and with sensor plane and lens plane perfect adjusted. This is something I was told by Schneider, and I believe they are right. For digital thus it seems the viewcamera belongs in studio for product shots and thethered shooting, for ultimate lens movement shots.

Picture this; the view camera image plane is what size? The sensor is what size? Now, the tolerances you adjust a view camera film image should be replicated in the small reduced scale of the sensor.

Granted, doing what you ask on a technical camera would be a whole lot simpler. If same time lens movements are required, the Sinar arTec might be the ticket. Or, simply use a tilt/shift lens on a Canon or Nikon.

Regards
Anders

[Dick Roadnight]

When I said "I couldn't imagine creating these images with my P2" I was referring to the panos I linked the OP to - if you care to take a look I would imagine you would come to the same conclusion.

I have had a look, and I have not come to the same conclusion.

I can appreciate that with a cheap view cameras, aligning the standards accurately might be difficult, but not with a P2... and you can check the focus with live view, what is unimaginable? (we are in the Digital backs and Large sensor photography forum).

[Murray Fredericks]

Hi guys,

I just have a little theoretical question about stitching with a view camera ... Can one easily combine normal stitching by shifting and nodal point stitching with a nodal point adapter in order to get really gigantic panoramas? Or are there any caveats?

Something tells me the limitation is geometric not the method used or combined methods used...
You should join and post this question on the APP forum or the PTGui forum.

My thought now is to combine these two methods. I.e. by combining multiple 2 x 2 shifted images that were sequentially created side by side with the help of the panoramic head.

Is there anywhere a list where I can see the nodal points of the Rodenstock/Schneider lenses?

Do you mean rotating the nodal point head  and then stitching by shift after rotating? In theory it should work or be no different to just rotating further with the head. Where you will find limitations will be in the 'type' of stitch that the maths behind the stitch (related to the field of view (FOV)) allows you to do.

Smaller distances (FOVs) covered will permit planar or perspective stitching, larger FOV's will require cylindrical or spherical stitching. Lens distortion is another matter all together and will be introduced and multiplied the more frames that are stitched. It can also be controlled with various bits of software  - some of which can be used as plug-ins in the more advanced stitching programs...

Murray

[jonstewart]

I'll throw in here, and say that I wouldn't be inclined to create stitched panos with my 679cs, but it's a joy to do on the Silvestri Bicam in direct mode (ie no bellows, and the lens mounted directly to the camera).

The 679 doesn't have enough direct shift, and I suspect that this may be similar with other view cameras, pending the image circle of the lens and the sensor size (ie you may not need a lot of movement if the image circle only just covers the sensor in the first place); the Bicam goes 17mm in every direction on the rear standard (when using the sliding backs), so also useful would be stuff like Alpas, which probably allow even more movement. (My technique is 3 across at rise 17 and 3 across at fall 17 (or just 3 across with no rise / fall)).

My small experience with doing nodal point panos with the Manfrotto a (long) while back was not anywhere as good (but there are probably others who have struggled and perfected that technique)

Hope this helps

[Dick Roadnight]

Do you mean rotating the nodal point head  and then stitching by shift after rotating? In theory it should work or be no different to just rotating further with the head. Where you will find limitations will be in the 'type' of stitch that the maths behind the stitch (related to the field of view (FOV)) allows you to do.
Murray

Stitching software can deal with horizontal shifting or horizontal panning, but not both in the same picture/area, but you can use rise and fall (vertically) to create pairs or sets of images for stitching vertically, and pan (horizontally) to create other sets for cylinder stitching.

For Port Isaac and similar harbours I intent to use cylinder stitching for the "amphitheater" inland end of the harbour, and shift-and-stitch and move-and-stitch for the estuary, so that the harbour would then end up looking like an Island, but this is an order of magnitude (or two) more complicated.

[buzzski]

I have had a look, and I have not come to the same conclusion.

I can appreciate that with a cheap view cameras, aligning the standards accurately might be difficult, but not with a P2... and you can check the focus with live view, what is unimaginable? (we are in the Digital backs and Large sensor photography forum).

Really?  I'm shooting either 300 or 400mm and averaging 400 shots per stitch. How would that work out on LF? Do you have examples you can show me, I'd be very interested in the comparison. Sorry I dont follow "we are in the Digital backs and Large sensor photography forum"

[Dick Roadnight]

Really?  I'm shooting either 300 or 400mm and averaging 400 shots per stitch. How would that work out on LF? Do you have examples you can show me, I'd be very interested in the comparison. Sorry I dont follow "we are in the Digital backs and Large sensor photography forum"

I have not used the technique yet, but, using a MFB with double the resolution, it should be easy to get similar or better results with half as many shots...

For the same field of view, use the same focal length, regardless of format... the lens I would like to get for stitching is the Schneider Fine art Gold 1100, but I have a selection of lenses up to 900mm, including a Novoflex/Leica 400mm which I think would be fully up to making the most of 6 micron pixels...

So many people think that panoramic and landscape photography is all about wide-angles, so it is nice to hear than some one else appreciates long focus lenses.

[cunim]

Jon, Dick, anyone else exprienced with the "stitching with view cameras" topic.  Does anyone have images of moved stitches they would care to share?  

I am about to try it (e.g. 3 across shift with front tilt and rear fall).  In a 2 across, I want to try opposite rear swings on either side of a close perspective symmetrical subject.  I can't find material in the usual sources to provide starting points.  I have the feeling I will spend a month fooling with the view camera only to find myself boggled.

[Dick Roadnight]

Jon, Dick, anyone else exprienced with the "stitching with view cameras" topic.  Does anyone have images of moved stitches they would care to share?  

I am about to try it (e.g. 3 across shift with front tilt and rear fall).  In a 2 across, I want to try opposite rear swings on either side of a close perspective symmetrical subject.  I can't find material in the usual sources to provide starting points.  I have the feeling I will spend a month fooling with the view camera only to find myself boggled.

I think you are talking about camera movements, rather than moving the camera?

Someone did post a picture involving moving the camera - the photo was of the building along a river or estuary in Scandinavia somewhere.

...are you contemplating rectilinear stitching? ... you are looking at a rectangular building, and you want it to look rectangular on the print?

...or are you wanting perspective in the print of a rectangular object?

... either way you would use front tilt up (for a building from ground level) and rear fall

use front yaw (sideways tilt) for control over the position of the plane of sharpest focus, and rear yaw for perspective in the horizontal.

Different people and books use different terms for the different movements of a view camera, and it can be very confusing... but , if you do not already have it, I suggest you download Harold Merklinger's "Focusing the view camera"

¿clear as mud?

If you shift-and-stitch, you move the back in a plane (as the focused image stays in the same plane), and, apart from that it is just the same as using the view camera for single shot.

you set the front rise/fall in one setting and leave it there,

If you want verticals parallel, keep the sensor plane vertical.

I would love to set this up with you, but I expect you are on a different continent?

[BernardLanguillier]

My understanding is that there is far greater lens distortion from nodal point panos. So if you are looking for ultimate image quality, I wouldn't use that method.

Jonathan,

Your understanding is not correct.

There are different ways to project a facetted cylinder on a plane, and when using planar projection you get the exact same result you would have gotten with a wide lens, with the same limitations in terms of area that can be covered.

The difference being that you can use a longer lens to reach a much higher resolution.

Regards,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Paul,

Having explored stitching with MFDB on a viewcamera with sliding back, the fact is that it is much work. A viewcamera also have tilt and swing. Combining this with the tolerances you need to maintain focus is a tricky thing in my book. Simpler seem to be to use a technical camera with only shift or shift and rise/fall --- and with sensor plane and lens plane perfect adjusted. This is something I was told by Schneider, and I believe they are right. For digital thus it seems the viewcamera belongs in studio for product shots and thethered shooting, for ultimate lens movement shots.

Anders,

Thanks for sharing your results on this. I am almost tempted to write "I told you".

One more step and you will recognize the superiority of spherical stitching.  

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi guys,

I just have a little theoretical question about stitching with a view camera ... Can one easily combine normal stitching by shifting and nodal point stitching with a nodal point adapter in order to get really gigantic panoramas? Or are there any caveats?

Paul,

I would stick to spherical stitching alone, it will cover all your needs really easily and fast. These software make some assumptions about the sensor location relative to the rotation point, and combining shifting with rotation will confuse them.

These is also no value in my book.

I have been very happy about RRS pano kit, but there are many alternatives.

Now the next question is what sensor to use to do such stitching. As I have written in the past, I am firmly convinced that high end DSLR are a much better platform to do these things. The only problem is that not all of them deliver the DR you can find in MFDB, but some do get extremely close if not ahead.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Anders_HK]

Anders,

Thanks for sharing your results on this. I am almost tempted to write "I told you".

One more step and you will recognize the superiority of spherical stitching.  

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

Well... but I did not state that I prefer stitching on nodal point.  

For ultimate image quality, thus also correct perspective one need to do flat stitching. This applies primarily to wide lenses. Yes, it is correct that CS4 and other programs are very good to recalculate perspective to "near equal" flat, and no they are physically unable to do it perfectly. With long lenses one will see little difference, because of the distance used to the subject versus the movement of sensor around nodal point. For wide field of view, whether of architecture or landscapes, flat stitching is required for the ultimate perspective.

What appear tempting would be a technical camera that could flat stitch from 2-3 shots, and of similar proportion and lens perspective to classical 617 with 90mm lens or 612 with 58mm lens. That would equal focal length of 57mm and 42mm respectively using a 48x36mm sensor, and 39mm and 28mm lens on full frame DSLR (when relating to the short side of both formats/sensors).

Now someone in above mentioned using 300-400mm lens. That is complete different obvious. Stitching around a nodal point seem simplest!

For wide it is different. This is why top end architectural photographers buy the likes of Sinar arTec. For architecture they go wider than the classical focals I mentioned. Are 90mm on 617 and 65 on 612 classical? Well... at least those are ones that appeal to my eye   . Some like 72mm on 617 etc   . For architecture a Schneider Digitar 35mm XL and 48x36mm sensor would yield the equal view of a 54mm lens on a 617. That is pretty wide! If 3:1 proportion that would equal a 12mm lens on width of the 617 format. And... made with just 2-3 shots.

MFDB? The sensors at low ISO deliver higher image quality.

To OP, why combine stitching around a nodal point and flat stitching? If already accept the "near flat" calculation of CS4 or similar, then why not only do stitching around nodal point? If on other hand the point is to stitch very wide perspective, as I mentioned above a technical camera may tbe simplest and preferred for image quality.

A side note: The important is not only the image, but how one see it. A groundglass on a technical camera is one way. Or a panoramic viewfinder. The last can also be used on a DSLR. Seeing many stitched panoramas, frankly most do not have very good composition, because the photographer attempts to see the view in their mind. A viewfinder can help. Or... simply a zoom lens set on wide first and interpreting the scenes as split in half around horizontal, and thereafter zooming in to twice the focal for image capture, frame by frame around nodal. This is last technique was used by Ben Rubenstein on Getdpi. His stitched around nodal panos are very well composed.

Regards
Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,

Well... but I did not state that I prefer stitching on nodal point.  

For ultimate image quality, thus also correct perspective one need to do flat stitching. This applies primarily to wide lenses. Yes, it is correct that CS4 and other programs are very good to recalculate perspective to "near equal" flat, and no they are physically unable to do it perfectly. With long lenses one will see little difference, because of the distance used to the subject versus the movement of sensor around nodal point. For wide field of view, whether of architecture or landscapes, flat stitching is required for the ultimate perspective.

Anders,

I have published in the past several examples of flat stitch (9 images shot with a 100mm lens) vs wide shot (one image shot with a 24mm), and the only reason why they are not totally identical is that the 24mm lens has 2.5 points of barrel distorsion. The stitch is more faithful to the actual scene.

I would definitely not use CS4 as a reference for these applications, PTgui and Autopano pro are much better.

Could you please point at evidences supporting your statement above? They are not backed up by either experience or mathematical theory.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Bernard