Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: buzzski on November 08, 2008, 09:03:05 am
-
I've finally decided to purchase a pano head for interiors & exterior building photography. I've done tests using my 40mm distagon with Aptus 17 back on a standard head to compare Autopano and PTgui. (Autopano seems to work best for me) Anyway, it would seem that I am after a head that will allow me to shoot a bit over 90 degrees l-r and 3 rows top to tail. I've looked at various heads, I'm not bothered about 360 degree stuff or making quick time movies. I simply want as accurate a planar image as I can get without too much hassle on site. I was looking at the Manfrotto 303SPH - anyone have any thoughts on it? The camera will always be mounted flat on it with the back in upright position, and there's a fair weight in my set up, the 40mm alone weighs a ton! If anyone is doing any similar work please guide me. I'm not keen on spending money on something that isn't fit for purpose or is a pain in the neck to use. It would seem that most heads are more akin to 35mm cameras. Please help if you think you can!
-
I like the $158 USD Cullmann Magnesit 35 Nm Ballhead -
Load Capacity: 66 lbs (30 kg) @ http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...orToReadReviews (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=511750&is=REG&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews)
Also see this Tripod head recommendations thread for more info http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=28833&st=0 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28833&st=0)
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c213/poata/Cullman.jpg)
-
the cullman head is only a ballhead, not a pano head! the really right stuff bh-55 can be equipped with a rotating plate above the ball head, so you can use the ballhead for levelling, and the rotating plate for the pano-rotation. on the bh-55 you can also use a nodal point adapter (not shown in the picture). works like a charm.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2385/274317...e7c86a2b0_o.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2385/2743172181_ee7c86a2b0_o.jpg)
-
You obviously want to do multirow pano's in small environments. I use the RRS basic pano kit with a very nice ballhead. I find the RRS kit good value for money and sturdy enough to carry my H2 with all lenses. This kit can only do single row pano's which I find more than enough of a challenge now and than (when using wide-angles at close range).
For your setup you would want to have the omni package which has a second rotation thingy and an extra slide to be able to do multi-row. I found you have to be really meticulous when using things like the 35mm and stitching with closeby objects.
The 303SPH has been on my list as well but I took it off in favor of the RRS. I found the 303 much heavier and more akward. It will probably be fine if you get used to it but I chose a different thing.
I do have 1 thing I don't like about the RRS slider but that I already mentioned in the other threads about tripods & heads.
-
I found you have to be really meticulous when using things like the 35mm and stitching with closeby objects.
Thanks for that advice. I've taken a look at the RRS site and it does look like quality stuff (and expandable) whereas the manfrotto is more of a stand alone product. Your point about close up objects concerns me as well. My tests with a standard head showed this up but I was hoping that a dedicated pano head would go some way to sorting this out. Am I being a bit optimistic on this? Is there still paralax issues even with a pano head? Thanks, C
-
I have the Manfrotto 303SPH and absolutely hate it!!! I use it with only 1ds bodies and it just seems very shaky. This could very well be the nature of these pano heads, but if I was to do it again I wouldn't hesitate to spend more money if the unit was truly solid. It would be nice if Linholf would make one.
Recently I was shooting a simple cityscape with a 70-200 and had a bubble level on to check for camera movement with a little wind that bubble was bouncing all over the place. And yes it was on a very sturdy tripod base.
-
you might consider this head:
http://store.nodalninja.com/product_p/r-d3l-6-8-10.htm (http://store.nodalninja.com/product_p/r-d3l-6-8-10.htm)
it fairly compact and has a built in leveler (it lacks a bubble level, so put one on the camera). the rotations can be set to:
1. locked (no rotation)
2. continuous
3. fixed clicks at 38, 45, or 60 degrees
i mounted a RRS clamp on top and it is a very nice set up.
-robert
-
I found you have to be really meticulous when using things like the 35mm and stitching with closeby objects.
Thanks for that advice. I've taken a look at the RRS site and it does look like quality stuff (and expandable) whereas the manfrotto is more of a stand alone product. Your point about close up objects concerns me as well. My tests with a standard head showed this up but I was hoping that a dedicated pano head would go some way to sorting this out. Am I being a bit optimistic on this? Is there still paralax issues even with a pano head? Thanks, C
Theoretically you should not have a problem with paralax when rotating on the 'nodal point' but as I said it is easier said than done. This is mainly why I have chosen to perfect my skills with single row stitching first (and I rarely need multi-row anyway). Nice thing about the RRS system is you can easily add more if you need to.
A pano head (the nodal sliders) will definitely make your life easier stitching. That is for sure.
Good thing I passed on the Manfrotto I hear
-
I've used a few of them and would have to say first to avoid the Manfrotto or Nodal Ninja. IMO the best bang for similar buck is the RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot kit. Basic, easy to carry and assemble and pretty rigid, plus individual components are readily available. There are a couple of more refined units out there that are very nice, but they sell for 2-4 times the RRS Ultimate...
Cheers,
-
I've used a few of them and would have to say first to avoid the Manfrotto or Nodal Ninja. IMO the best bang for similar buck is the RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot kit. Basic, easy to carry and assemble and pretty rigid, plus individual components are readily available. There are a couple of more refined units out there that are very nice, but they sell for 2-4 times the RRS Ultimate...
Cheers,
Jack, yours is the first negative comment I hear about the Nodal Ninja. What did you not like about it, and which ones have you tried?
-
Jack, yours is the first negative comment I hear about the Nodal Ninja. What did you not like about it, and which ones have you tried?
I don't know which model it was, but it back a few years when stitching was gaining popularity. It was a review sample, was smallish and seemed a bit "flimsy" with my pro-sized DSLR at the time... (And since the OP posted this in the MF section, I assume he wants a fairly robust version.) It looked similar to this one: http://store.nodalninja.com/product_p/n3ii-sa.htm (http://store.nodalninja.com/product_p/n3ii-sa.htm)
-
I don't know which model it was, but it back a few years when stitching was gaining popularity. It was a review sample, was smallish and seemed a bit "flimsy" with my pro-sized DSLR at the time... It looked similar to this one: http://store.nodalninja.com/product_p/n3ii-sa.htm (http://store.nodalninja.com/product_p/n3ii-sa.htm)
Okay, so there is some hope that the beefier NN5 is still a good choice. I have heard this recommended often, and was quite taken aback that you have had a negative experience with it.
-
Okay, so there is some hope that the beefier NN5 is still a good choice. I have heard this recommended often, and was quite taken aback that you have had a negative experience with it.
Quite possibly Carsten, I have no firsthand experience with that one, and shame on me I didn't even realize they had a beefier version
I will add that for MF, I found even the RRS to be marginal, so personally would not want anything less rigid than it.
-
Your point about close up objects concerns me as well. My tests with a standard head showed this up but I was hoping that a dedicated pano head would go some way to sorting this out. Am I being a bit optimistic on this? Is there still paralax issues even with a pano head?
This is the question of accuracy: how accurately you measure the location of entrance pupil and how accurately you can adjust the camera position.
It is not easy to achieve high accuracy.
1. The location of the entrance pupil depends on the focusing distance as well, with many lenses. For example the Canon 50mm f/1.4 changes the location by focusing; not much, but enough to cause small errors. This fact makes fixed adjustments useless. RRS offers (or offered) some stuff dedicated to certain lenses; this is dubious, to say the least.
2. In order to verify the adjustment in the initial measurement, one has to shoot some close AND far objects in the same shot (and two shots are required for one comparison). However, where should be the focus? In order to judge the adjustment with single pixel accuracy, the focus has to be on the subject - but on which one? One of them will be OOF to some degree.
3. Zooming lenses change the entrance pupil with zooming.
4. A tiny error in mounting the camera, i.e. if the axis of the lens is not parallel to the rail when measuring or using the lens can cause much bigger error than a small error in the adjustment itself.
High accuracy in the adjustment and high pixel density for downresing (and hiding tiny errors) is required for good indoor architectural panos. I often laugh when seeing the proudly presented samples on forums - in a fraction of the real size.
Btw, if it is necessary to change the focusing between the frames, then only a decent stitcher can make a good pano, for changing the focusing means changing the focal length, i.e. changing the angle of view, which is a critical parameter of the stitching.
-
Panopeeper does raise issues that I've certainly considered. However I am aware that in stitching many images together there has to be a compromise made at some point, be it in focus or alignment of images. In order to use my existing equipment stitching is one of the less expensive options. I can justify the cost of a decent head and stitching program, alas, not on buying in to a new system perhaps with wider lenses. There has been some real decent advice posted here and I thank you all for your input so far. Real-life experience cannot be beaten. It would appear the RRS is a decent product and comes highly recommended. Does anyone know if it is distributed outside of the US, in Europe for example? a combination of high import tax and weak Sterling at the moment is a right pain in the neck. As regards stitching programs I was finding that Autopano was more accurate with verticals the PTGui - does anyone have any experience of this? And finally, I intend to shoot panos with a Blad V series in it's normal mode, ie looking down in to the WLF and turning my back in the upright position. Does anyone know if there is a RRS solution that allows the camera to sit this way but still allow a tilt up and down for multi row panos? Thanks again, C
-
I live in Europe and simply ordered RRS equipment from their website. No import duty just VAT which is no problem since I can deduct it.
I see no reason why you could not use the V with the pano equipment if there isn't a dedicated RRS bracket for the V (I thought there was BTW) You could use the generic. It might be akward to look down into the WLF especially when it is high up but that would have been the case anyway. Unless of course you want to turn the thing totally upside down there might be not enough clearance for the WLF but that appears somewhat ridiculous to me.
I use it with the H and basically don't look through the finder anymore after the first shot. The use of a finder is grossly exaggerated when doing panos especially when you combine it with focus blending and bracketing
-
I was finding that Autopano was more accurate with verticals the PTGui
I am afraid the explanation is rather in the understanding (or lack thereof) how to utilize Panorama Tools, the underlying software.
Principally, PT does not make any difference between vertical and horizontal panos in the stitching.
Errors may be caused by the selection of matching points (control points). Not only the accuracy but the placement, number and distribution of the control points is of utmost importance. I have not been using the auto control point selection for a long time, and I am cautious with letting the program correct my selections through the micro aligment feature.
-
I like the new Novoflex heads as well. Relatively compact and very sturdy. Beautifully made. Brochure here (only in German):
http://www.novoflex.de/pdf/Novoflex_Panorama_D.pdf (http://www.novoflex.de/pdf/Novoflex_Panorama_D.pdf)
Hmm, they look good, but they don't mention medium format in the specs, nor weight supported, just focal lengths, presumably 35mm lenses. I wonder how stable they would be with a 645 on them? Furthermore, the steps in the rotation seem to be fixed, an advantage to the NN5 system.
-
An important factor in stitching interiors is the stitching program you choose. I've found Autopano Pro to totally fall down in these situations, and there's no manual control point editor to fix things with. You'll want to stick with a program based on Panorama Tools: PT Assembler, PT Gui, PT Mac. (APP is great, however for distant subjects and natural/organic subjects, and has a brilliant automated workflow.)
Autopano Pro does have a manual-ish control point editor, I have been using it quite happily. You select small matching areas in each image, and then add points. Do you mean that you want to add points individually yourself? Does the area-addition not work for you?
I don't see why interiors would be different than anything else. As long as you rotate around the entrance pupil, it should stitch seamlessly, no?
-
I have used the Novoflex pano head, solely the rotational head together with the round Q=plate clamp. I still have it but I don't use it anymore since I have the RRS. The Novoflex is nice but is not of the same built quality as the RRS rotational head (PCL1 if I am not mistaken).
I have not used the Novoflex sliders.
-
I don't see why interiors would be different than anything else
1. Interior goes with short distances, except if you are thinking of the interior of a stadium.
2. Small errors in the stitching are much more evident on up-close window frames, wall edges, furniture, etc. than on less well-defined subjects, like landscapes.
As long as you rotate around the entrance pupil, it should stitch seamlessly, no?
LOL, that's good. Try it.
-
1. Interior goes with short distances, except if you are thinking of the interior of a stadium.
2. Small errors in the stitching are much more evident on up-close window frames, wall edges, furniture, etc. than on less well-defined subjects, like landscapes.
LOL, that's good. Try it.
I have done stitching at close distance before, and it seems to work okay. The first one is hand-held (I didn't correct the distortion because I liked it), the second one is tripod. The first one had about 20 images, the second one 100 exactly. It could be done with less though.
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/blog/photos/070616.jpg (http://throughthelensdarkly.com/blog/photos/070616.jpg)
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/blog/photos/070618.jpg (http://throughthelensdarkly.com/blog/photos/070618.jpg)
If you use a lens with little distortion, and correct the result, and then stitch, what is it that goes wrong? Do you mean very small errors, or major problems?
Once I get the rest of my kit together, I will try it out, but that could take a bit.
-
Foba has some offerings
the bollo head is lighter (http://www.image2output.com/Product.aspx?id=212&cat=32)
but the range can take very heavy units
There are some downloadable pdfs
regards
edwin
-
I have done stitching at close distance before, and it seems to work okay. The first one is hand-held
Is this a demonstration for how to eliminate stitching problems by bokeh?
Furthermore, I doubt that it would withstand any closer inspection. This is just what I meant by I often laugh when seeing the proudly presented samples on forums - in a fraction of the real size.
If you use a lens with little distortion, and correct the result, and then stitch, what is it that goes wrong?
Here is the good news: the curvilinear lens distortions (barrel, pincussion) do not pose any problem for a decent stitcher, as long as there is no reevant parallax error and the control points are really matching.
Thus you can use a lens with any degree of curvilinear distortion. In fact one can use a stitcher to correct the curvilinear AND/OR perspectivic distortion of a lens.
-
Is this a demonstration for how to eliminate stitching problems by bokeh?
No, it is the look I wanted for these two stitches. Besides, don't underestimate the effort required to stitch areas with no firm detail. It wasn't easy, but it worked in the end.
Furthermore, I doubt that it would withstand any closer inspection. This is just what I meant by I often laugh when seeing the proudly presented samples on forums - in a fraction of the real size.
Well, that is the nature of forums. I am clearly not going to post a 100MB file.
Here is the good news: the curvilinear lens distortions (barrel, pincussion) do not pose any problem for a decent stitcher, as long as there is no reevant parallax error and the control points are really matching.
So where is the problem then? Are you saying that the stitching programs make small errors on the pixel level?
When I get the rest of my equipment, I will try out a large indoor stitch with some close objects, to see what you mean.
-
Having read everyone's responses with great interest it would appear Panopeeper speaks with some experience and their comments are backed up by other forum members. So, going back to my original post what solution would you suggest for shooting interiors on a blad with a 40mm lens? I want to shoot in the conventional (looking down into a WLF) manner, capturing multi row panoramas and the stitching software must be Mac OSX compatible. Thanks, C
-
TWO issues come to mind, first, this kind of MF set up is quite heavy and will test the stability of any pano head that I know of, I have a bit of experience with the RRS multi row pano set up and it is beautifully designed and made. But I am not certain that it can handle the weight of your camera, a quick call/email to them will answer that question. Secondly, shooting architecture (interiors & exteriors) is very tricky with the pano head technique, even if you are perfect with your nodel point set up, you can spend a lot of time in postproduction getting everything sorted out.
I have abandoned this technique in favor of a rear standard rise, fall, shift panorama created with a 1ds mark III on the back of a cambo ultima 35, Then putting all the individual frames together with photomerge in CS3. This technique is working very well for me and has cut down on my post production time considerably.
good luck!
-
Having read everyone's responses with great interest it would appear Panopeeper speaks with some experience and their comments are backed up by other forum members. So, going back to my original post what solution would you suggest for shooting interiors on a blad with a 40mm lens? I want to shoot in the conventional (looking down into a WLF) manner, capturing multi row panoramas and the stitching software must be Mac OSX compatible. Thanks, C
1. You posted earlier:
a bit over 90 degrees l-r and 3 rows top to tail ... I simply want as accurate a planar image
How much will the vertical angle of view of the result be with the 40mm lens in three rows? Planar projection over 120° is questionable, depending on the scenery.
2. If you are shooting multirow anyway, then there is no point in doing that with the camera rotated, if that is a technical problem because of the bracket.
3. I guess the 40mm lens is not very long, the entrance pupil is not very far ahead of the mounting screw, thus the weight of the camera vs. the rigidity of the bracket is not a big issue. You can easily judge the entrance pupil location: mount the lens, set the aperture to something small, look into the lens and activate/deactivate the aperture. The location where you see the aperture is the entrance pupil (it is not, where the aperture is but its projected location).
Long lenses pose a much bigger (heavier) problem.
4. Verify if the entrance pupil location changes with focusing; look at the aperture (see above) and change the focus. If it changes, then you have to measure the location in that distance range.
5. If you describe the setting in more detail, perhaps something else will come up. Anyway, shoot with exposure bracketing, don't save on that; you will never be able to reshoot one frame alone.
4. When you are stitching it with PTGui (apparently you have purchased it already), describe the result of the optimizer. The average CP distance should be under one pixel to achieve a decent result.
-
I´m using RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Package on the RRS BH-40 Ballhead. Actually till now I only worked with 1DsMKII and 8mm Fisheye, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, but I guess it will work with MF-gear too. The built quality is very good and I’m really satisfied with it. It´s really the right stuff for doing panos.
Florian
-
Long time user of RRS multi-row Ultimate-Pro Omni pivot with BH-55, couldn't be happier. Yes, it is expensive,but after you bought, you won't ever regret it - never.
http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkiti...o%2DOPP&eq= (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkititems.asp?kc=Ult%2DPro%2DOPP&eq=)
-
I just posted a RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Package with canon 1ds L bracket for sale in the "for sale" forum let me know if you are interested...
-
I am using RRS pano set , but Nodal Ninja 5 is certainly very good
-
I use the >360 precision adjuste< now and like it a lot. Works with my H3D 39 with 28mm and with the Nikon D3 16mm FE and D300 8mm FE. Very precise and real good handling. I have 3 different software packages (Stitcher/PTGui/Autopano Pro) and with all of them the files are easy to stitch. Before i used the Seitz pano head (producer of the Alpa) but as it was not bad the 360 outperforms it easily.
http://www.360precision.com/360/360.cfm (http://www.360precision.com/360/360.cfm)