Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: davewolfs on May 04, 2009, 01:35:18 am
-
Hello everyone,
I'd like to start shooting some pano images and I am curious to know if there are advantages in using T/S lenses to shoot panos with today's advanced stitching software. Specifically, If I shoot around the nodal point with a regular lens vs shifting with a T/S lens and stiching together my photographs would I notice a significant difference?
Thanks in advance,
Dave
-
Hello everyone,
I'd like to start shooting some pano images and I am curious to know if there are advantages in using T/S lenses to shoot panos with today's advanced stitching software. Specifically, If I shoot around the nodal point with a regular lens vs shifting with a T/S lens and stiching together my photographs would I notice a significant difference?
Thanks in advance,
Dave
It depends. If you have a good spherical pano head, it will be much faster to move to the next frame and you won't be limited in FOV. Using the tilt plus shift of the T/S lens will give you more control over the DOF. I use Microsoft ICE, http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/red...groups/ivm/ICE/ (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ICE/), for stitching and it has no problems stitching images shot with either method.
p.s It's the entrance pupil that you need to rotate around, not the nodal point. They're not exactly in the same postion.
-
with a TSE lens without any pano ball-head you can do 3 photos horizontally or vertically , you will get a pano 2:1 at the end
-
As Eric pointed out above, with T/S you only extend your panoramic coverage by a small amount. It might be enough in some cases but it's very limiting. Now, with a T/S lens and a pano head, you could combine the advantages of T/S lenses along with stitching and get some amazing panos.
Also, consider that a pano head is cheaper than a T/S lens and you can use it with the lenses you already own. I don't think that you'll have major problems regarding "nodal point". You can purchase a rail to move your camera in the ideal position. Also, note that if you use a T/S and want to reach perfection, you'll also need to move your camera in the clamp when you shift to the left or right.
You can find good info on Outback Photo website: Using 35mm T/S lenses (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_42/essay.html) and Avoiding Parallax while Stitching with Shift Lenses (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_58/essay.html).
Although I own T/S lenses, if find that a pano head (FWIW, I use a RSS head) is faster and less limiting than T/S lenses.
-
Thanks for the replies everyone.
So by Pano head, would something like this be sufficient? Is there a better alternative.
http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkiti...lem-Pkg&eq= (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkititems.asp?kc=Pano-Elem-Pkg&eq=)
I've read about the Nodal Ninja but I'm not sure if this is applicable for single row panos.
-
Thanks for the replies everyone.
So by Pano head, would something like this be sufficient? Is there a better alternative.
http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkiti...lem-Pkg&eq= (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkititems.asp?kc=Pano-Elem-Pkg&eq=)
I've read about the Nodal Ninja but I'm not sure if this is applicable for single row panos.
I use the very same RRS pano head. It's more than sufficient for my needs. RRS also sells an ultimate package for multi-row panos.
I'm sorry but I don't know much about the Nodal Ninja head.
A long time ago, I used a Manfrotto QTVR pano head but I can't remember which model (probably discontinued). You might want to visit Panotools wiki: http://wiki.panotools.org/Heads (http://wiki.panotools.org/Heads)
-
Dave,
1. A T/S lens does not make pano creation easier, except that you may need less frames, depending what/how you are shooting.
2. The RRS stuff costs several times more than other pano brackets, which do the very same. Exception may be with very heavy gear, like an MFDB. Heavy lens is usually not an issue: when you need a long lens, you probably don't need any pano bracket at all.
-
with a TSE lens without any pano ball-head you can do 3 photos horizontally or vertically
What is a "pano ball-head"? If there is a gear unsuitable for pano shooting, then it is a ball-head, but I can imagine, that someone comes up with the idea of an inverted ball-head.
-
I call it pano ballhead because I have a RRS BH-55 + their Pano gear
-
I call it pano ballhead because I have a RRS BH-55 + their Pano gear
I guess it's easier to leave it on if you have it on the tripod, but its contribution to the pano is zero.
-
one of the problems using a TS lens is vignetting on the far edges of the shifted images
the RRS pano head is expensive and needlessly robust for a 35mm camera, but it works very well. i use it with their angle bracket and lightweight nodal slide. recently i've been mounting the pano head directly to the tripod and using their monopod head on top of the pano head. it doesn't take long to level the head adjusting the legs with a bit of practice and you need a bubble level on the camera, but this setup will also work for 2 or 3 row panos if there aren't really close elements in the image.
-
The ideal kit for stitching (especially for architecture) (for res or wide angle) is a sliding/stitching back on an MF (or LF) monorail, with specialist apo digital lenses with enough image circle for stitching.
When you shift-and-stitch (as opposed to pan-and-stitch) 2*2 = nearly 4, as you do not have to distort to correct the perspective, and you do have to crop to get back to a rectangular picture.
The cost of getting a system to do this digitally can be horrendous, but you can buy an old digiback or scan-back and a Sinar...
-
If you only shoot landscapes with no foreground subjects, you don't need a specialized pano head - you'll get great results with a regular ball head. But if you have foreground objects or shoot interiors, a proper pano head is a must.
-
If you only shoot landscapes with no foreground subjects, you don't need a specialized pano head - you'll get great results with a regular ball head. But if you have foreground objects or shoot interiors, a proper pano head is a must.
Can you define what a proper pano head is. As far as I can tell, the advantage of the RRS pano head vs my Markins Ballhead with RRS clamp is that I can level on the head and pan rather then level with my tripod legs and pan with my ballhead.
Also, with the RRS head I can adjust for my nodal point using the sliding rails. Aside from proper leveling and getting the nodal point correct, is there anything to it if I do have foreground subjects in my photos?
Thanks again for the replies.
Dave
-
Can you define what a proper pano head is. As far as I can tell, the advantage of the RRS pano head vs my Markins Ballhead with RRS clamp is that I can level on the head and pan rather then level with my tripod legs and pan with my ballhead
As I said before, a ballhead is worthless if not outright totally unsuitable for shooting pano frames.
The basic issue is, that the camera has to be swiweled/rotated on a level plane (beginners often believe that the camera has to be level; this is neither sufficient, nor necessary).
If the ballhead has a swiweling base, like Erick's RRS BH-55, then the tripod has to be levelled and the ball-head is a useless gadget, even making shooting with a pano bracket more difficult. I read it somewhere, that there are ball-heads with a swiweling platform on top of the ball-head; if so, these are useful.
-
Arca-Swiss makes an upside-down ballhead, and i'd love to hear from anyone using it. Don't understand why no one else does this. With a little effort,some ballheads can be mounted upside-down on the tripod.
-
One of the more useful capabilities of the T/S lens for panning is that it adds the ability to look/compose up or down via the shift, while the camera stays level. This avoids bending the horizon or leaning your vertical lines.
Left or right shifting for stitching also helps keep appropriate linear perspective. As others have mentioned, the extreme edges of the shift will show a little vignetting. That's your side coverage limit, though it is pretty wide.
-
One of the more useful capabilities of the T/S lens for panning is that it adds the ability to look/compose up or down via the shift, while the camera stays level. This avoids bending the horizon or leaning your vertical lines
This is the task of the stitcher. Actually, the stitcher can do this better than any T/S lens if there are objects with clear vertical lines (typically the side edges of buildings are sutiable).
-
If you have a panoramic head that is designed for single-row panos (that is can ensure rotation along the entrance pupil only along a single axis) and a regular lens, you'll need to have the horizon in the middle of the image unless you have a lens that has shift capabilities. You'd use the shift in the direction perpendicular to the rotation.
On the other hand, if you have a panoramic head for *multi-row* panos, there is no need to use a T/S lens, since you can point the lens up or down as needed.
-
Hi,
All above seem focused on the gear of panoramic head. There is some critical points missing;
1. Rotating camera -
a) Cheapest is to do so on the head you already have on your tripod. Many ballheads have a panoramic base, or even keep ballhead not quite tightened onto the tripod and rotate it between each shot.
b ) Handheld can work same way as a) but less accurate, perhaps not as sharp photos.
c) RRS Panoramic Clamp will make above easier; http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.a...amp;eq=&Tp= (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=PCL%2D1&eq=&Tp=) (read their website)
I have tried 1 a) and did not like it.
Problem 1 - The negative is that when you stitch the software calculates the images and perspective. Say if you take three photos to stitch, thus the one in center already has the perspective. The other two need to be stretched out from the far ends both horizontally and vertically. That makes you loose precious pixels and resolution!
Problem 2 - More so... above methods makes it impossible to exact compose an image. Take a look at images made in this way and compare to a classical book on panoramic photography using 617 or 612 etc. You will probably see what I mean... While you will be "free" from a set image size or format... you will have zip nil to compose your image within. Mentally imagining the composition does not result in same thing as in critically composing an image...
2) Flat stitching -
This takes care of Problem 1 above. Using a shift lens also partly takes care of problem 2.
Read here http://www.shutterbug.net/techniques/pro_t...806perspective/ (http://www.shutterbug.net/techniques/pro_techniques/0806perspective/) + http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_58/essay.html (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_58/essay.html)
3) Stitching adapter on LF -
All that are reasonably good are very $overpriced$ expensive. They also feature ridiculous too small groundglasses to aid in focusing in s small focus area and not to aid you in composing an image for panoramic. I already use a medium format digital back and am having custom make an adapter for me in China, which should be cheaper than other adapters (except cheapy one on ebay). I will use traditional large format lenses and not the $overpriced$ digitar large format lenses. The traditional have larger and large enough image circles for also 617 format stitching, the digitar do not! Albeit... I will have to see how well it will work in end, because diffraction can be issue, and for wides depth of focus and chromatic aberations. I keep fingers crossed... My adapter will have about 4" x 3" groundglass for proper composition and focusing for panoramics...
4) Film -
For panoramic it was easier
Regards
Anders
-
If you have a panoramic head that is designed for single-row panos (that is can ensure rotation along the entrance pupil only along a single axis) and a regular lens, you'll need to have the horizon in the middle of the image unless you have a lens that has shift capabilities
This is correct in principle. In practice, this is an issue only when shooting very close, like indoor, and maximum accuracy is required. Otherwise the camera can be tilted up or down and the longitudinal offset increased a bit. If it is important, one could even calculate the required adjustment and make the setup perfect.
-
Problem 1 - The negative is that when you stitch the software calculates the images and perspective. Say if you take three photos to stitch, thus the one in center already has the perspective. The other two need to be stretched out from the far ends both horizontally and vertically. That makes you loose precious pixels and resolution!
I guess your "perspective" means rectilinear projection. Many panos (the vast majority of them) are not rectilinear, though I guess architectural images are always or mostly rectilinear. In fact, the practical limit to rectilinear panos is around 120°.
Problem 2 - More so... above methods makes it impossible to exact compose an image. Take a look at images made in this way and compare to a classical book on panoramic photography using 617 or 612 etc. You will probably see what I mean... While you will be "free" from a set image size or format... you will have zip nil to compose your image within. Mentally imagining the composition does not result in same thing as in critically composing an image...
I don't see what you mean. Actually, I don't see any problem.
-
One of the more useful capabilities of the T/S lens for panning is that it adds the ability to look/compose up or down via the shift, while the camera stays level. This avoids bending the horizon or leaning your vertical lines.
Left or right shifting for stitching also helps keep appropriate linear perspective. As others have mentioned, the extreme edges of the shift will show a little vignetting. That's your side coverage limit, though it is pretty wide.
Is being able to keep linear perspective really an advantage, isn't the software capable of doing this? How much resolution is actually lost when the software must compensate by manipulating pixels in order to maintain the appropriate perspective as defined by say the middle frame?
-
Anders_HK I used the RRS Pano gear with MF , Hasselblad H1 & P45 , and autopano pro, it works perfectly, even for panoramic photographs of still life, which are much more difficult to realize than landscapes or architecture
-
Many panos (the vast majority of them) are not rectilinear, though I guess architectural images are always or mostly rectilinear.
Kindly do not shoot me because I come with something that not others had posted!
I bet you $ that most panoramas have been shot on 612 and 617 film... . One of my points was that it enabled you to compose accurate. Do look at some classical books on panoramic photography to see what I mean (or this guy is rather good www.peterlik.com ). Accurate composing was one advantage. Photography is first and most about seeing. Rotating a camera around a pivot point makes you loose that, at least to me. It feels a tad like photographing blindfolded. And yes, I refer to rectilinear which I do prefer for landscape.
Stretching pixels, no matter how good CS4 or other software do is similar to upsizing, is it not? If we precious care of pixels, then would we prefer to do so? Although... indeed it is less gear to carry!
Obvious it is healthy with difference in opinion, Michael did this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniqu...-panorama.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/antarctic-panorama.shtml). The OP asked of what are the advantages using a T/S... then I hope we should assist to compare the two. In end our preference is individual to what we prefer, but, and BUT it is healthy to think before we jump on something, is it not?? Thus... instead of running out to buy that RRS panoramic plate or a T/S lens I would advise to make some test shoots using the equipment we have to see what we like.
Regards
Anders
-
The PC-E lenses and the 85 PC-micro are sharper and have qualities lacking in lesser lenses. Utilizing the Scheimpflug principle is important, the tilt function allows me to rotate around the nodal point with a pano head keeping a level perspective, and with the tilt function I can quickly add a second vertical row to the pano.
-
I stitch in the 6X12 format using just a RRS PCL-1 and L bracket on a ballhead. The reason I need the PCL-1 is simply that for vertical pano's it's much easier to flop the ballhead over, attach the PCL-1 and then put the camera on horizontally using the side of the L bracket giving positioning for the maximum amount of resolution for a vertical.
My current stitching work is here www.studio-beni.net/jerusalem (http://www.studio-beni.net/jerusalem), I've never once seen parallex error and sold the nodal slide that came with the setup. I only use rectilinear stitching using Autopano Pro. I use the vanishing point tools to correct the verticals. I will readily accept that I am probably doing quite a bit more 'stretching of pixels' in software due to not using the nodal slide and not using rise on for example a t/s lens however with 35+ megapixels at a minimum I've got plenty resolution to spare to be honest. Prefer not to faff around when shooting. I'd quite happily shoot just using the pan base of the ballhead if shooting horizontals, I know the software is more than up to the job. Autopano seems to be much better for this than PTGUI. From what I've read PTGUI is far more particular about needing nodal point shooting.
Of course if your camera is not fully 'squared off' then you will get gaps at the edges due to the curvature of the panning movement. Simplest solution is just to shoot a row of frames at the sides where the curve will occur (top/bottom for horizontal, sides for vertical). Far better than having to sacrifice composition for a completely levelled setup. Again as I've never found Autopano not to automatically correct the lack of nodal slide I'm far happier shooting a multi layer (which is what the above is in effect) with just the ballhead and PCL-1. The RRS multi row setup looks unstable at best. I have little doubt that even stretching the pixels I get sharper results not using that ridiculous off centre setup dangling 8 inches above the ball head.
It is far easier to compose when you have a specific ratio you are shooting with. I compose with a 50mm using the grid lines of the (accessory) screen in my 5D then attach a 100mm and shoot the same FOV but using stitching. I specifically use a 50mm because that is the perspective I'm trying to achieve. Eventhough I use a 100mm to shoot with, as the FOV and distance is the same the actual final perspective is that of the 50mm I framed with originally.
What I would like is a better solution than the PCL-1. The pano tightening screw is tiny, interferes with the big knob for tightening the plate and in general is very hard to lock down when you have a heavy lens attached. Doing the below pano with a 70-200L and multi row was not fun in the slightest, I don't have strong fingers and trying to tighten that tiny knob with the big knob in the way and the huge lens pulling downwards (it was in vertical) was not fun. I know most of the time people are not stitching in vertical so it wouldn't be an issue but the RRS multi row setup specifically has the PCL-1 in vertical as I use it and it isn't user friendly.
(http://www.studio-beni.net/batei.jpg)
60 Megapixels, multi row, using ballhead pano base for horitzontal and PCL-1 for vertical, no nodal, no problems. I know all the theory but I'm out there shooting it in practise and it just ain't a problem. Alain Briot found exactly the same thing and he uses the unsophisticated PS stitching tool. He also doesn't bother with the nodal slide. Flame suit on...
-
…
I read it somewhere, that there are ball-heads with a swiweling platform on top of the ball-head; if so, these are useful.
The RRS pano clamp does just that. See the attached photo, the pano clamp is mounted on top of a BH-55 ballhead.
-
I stitch in the 6X12 format using just a RRS PCL-1 and L bracket on a ballhead.
60 Megapixels, multi row, using ballhead pano base for horitzontal and PCL-1 for vertical, no nodal, no problems.
Nice pictures... If you are a pro on a pro budget, and you want 60 Megapixels, I appreciate that a 60 Megapixel camera would not give you 60 Mpx in 617 format, but shifting and stitching two images on a Sinar P3 it would give you 110 Mpx without having to stretch pixels.
Or you can use a 612 or Canham 617 roll film back on e.g. a 5*7 Sinar - for very little money (on Ebay) compared to a DSLR.
The ideal pano camera will be the Seitz 617 160 Megapixel rapid scan back for the Sinar: I hope it will be on the market this year. This will be an expensive tool - but not too specialist, as you can use the expensive electronic bit on several cameras, including Roundshot panos.
-
The RRS pano clamp does just that. See the attached photo, the pano clamp is mounted on top of a BH-55 ballhead.
you could also probably use one of the foba components to adapt an existing head,
foba panorama plates (http://www.image2output.com/prodlist.aspx?cat=32)
Edwin
-
Deleted
-
I stitch in the 6X12 format using just a RRS PCL-1 and L bracket on a ballhead. The reason I need the PCL-1 is simply that for vertical pano's it's much easier to flop the ballhead over, attach the PCL-1 and then put the camera on horizontally using the side of the L bracket giving positioning for the maximum amount of resolution for a vertical.
My current stitching work is here www.studio-beni.net/jerusalem (http://www.studio-beni.net/jerusalem), I've never once seen parallex error and sold the nodal slide that came with the setup. I only use rectilinear stitching using Autopano Pro. I use the vanishing point tools to correct the verticals. I will readily accept that I am probably doing quite a bit more 'stretching of pixels' in software due to not using the nodal slide and not using rise on for example a t/s lens however with 35+ megapixels at a minimum I've got plenty resolution to spare to be honest. Prefer not to faff around when shooting. I'd quite happily shoot just using the pan base of the ballhead if shooting horizontals, I know the software is more than up to the job. Autopano seems to be much better for this than PTGUI. From what I've read PTGUI is far more particular about needing nodal point shooting.
Of course if your camera is not fully 'squared off' then you will get gaps at the edges due to the curvature of the panning movement. Simplest solution is just to shoot a row of frames at the sides where the curve will occur (top/bottom for horizontal, sides for vertical). Far better than having to sacrifice composition for a completely levelled setup. Again as I've never found Autopano not to automatically correct the lack of nodal slide I'm far happier shooting a multi layer (which is what the above is in effect) with just the ballhead and PCL-1. The RRS multi row setup looks unstable at best. I have little doubt that even stretching the pixels I get sharper results not using that ridiculous off centre setup dangling 8 inches above the ball head.
It is far easier to compose when you have a specific ratio you are shooting with. I compose with a 50mm using the grid lines of the (accessory) screen in my 5D then attach a 100mm and shoot the same FOV but using stitching. I specifically use a 50mm because that is the perspective I'm trying to achieve. Eventhough I use a 100mm to shoot with, as the FOV and distance is the same the actual final perspective is that of the 50mm I framed with originally.
What I would like is a better solution than the PCL-1. The pano tightening screw is tiny, interferes with the big knob for tightening the plate and in general is very hard to lock down when you have a heavy lens attached. Doing the below pano with a 70-200L and multi row was not fun in the slightest, I don't have strong fingers and trying to tighten that tiny knob with the big knob in the way and the huge lens pulling downwards (it was in vertical) was not fun. I know most of the time people are not stitching in vertical so it wouldn't be an issue but the RRS multi row setup specifically has the PCL-1 in vertical as I use it and it isn't user friendly.
(http://www.studio-beni.net/batei.jpg)
60 Megapixels, multi row, using ballhead pano base for horitzontal and PCL-1 for vertical, no nodal, no problems. I know all the theory but I'm out there shooting it in practise and it just ain't a problem. Alain Briot found exactly the same thing and he uses the unsophisticated PS stitching tool. He also doesn't bother with the nodal slide. Flame suit on...
Thanks for the post. Have you tried using an L Clamp, just a thought but perhaps this would not get in the way.
-
Was out shooting with it again, I more or less sorted out the problem by rotating the attachment knob 180 degrees from the panning knob. Now it's rather close to my face but useable.
It's just so easy to stitch with my 5D that I can't see the justification of buying a medium format back given all the other issues I would encounter. I did actually start this project with a large format camera and a camera fusion stitching adaptor for a DSLR. Lasted exactly one encounter into the field. It's so easy to stitch, you get so much resolution to play with, to be honest I'm giving up on the prime lenses and just using my 24-105L, it's more than enough and easier to work with of course as you can frame without ending up falling into potholes while walking backwards or like this afternoon when I had my back very flush against a wall which had a nail sticking out of it!
This is eventhough having played with a couple of P30+ files shot at iso 1600 I would have no qualms about using it even at that iso. Heck today I was using an iso 800 frame to stop movement in the frame I wanted people in, and iso 400 for the rest to stop the foliage movement. I rarely get to lower the iso more than that given the need for small apertures, polarisers, etc, etc. I love digital! There are two frames in that link above which I tried using a 6X12 Horseman back on my LF camera. 10 Second exposure with iso 100 film and the need for f64. Impossible to freeze foliage. No problem at all with stitching at f22 and iso 400.
The trick is to capture moving objects, specifically people, when stitching. Needs thought but isn't hard to do, you just have to choose the framing.
-
The RRS pano clamp does just that. See the attached photo, the pano clamp is mounted on top of a BH-55 ballhead.
This combination is, of course, excellent for panos. If the bubble level on top of the clamp is useful, then this is a good gear. I have a three-way head with a built-in bubble level, and I find it pretty useless, i.e. not accurate enough. I am using a tiny construction level on the column, that gives better adjustment - but adjusting the legs is no fun (but paying $575 for the gear is not fun either, particularly if the pano bracket is not included yet).
-
Was out shooting with it again, I more or less sorted out the problem by rotating the attachment knob 180 degrees from the panning knob. Now it's rather close to my face but useable.
It's just so easy to stitch with my 5D that I can't see the justification of buying a medium format back given all the other issues I would encounter. I did actually start this project with a large format camera and a camera fusion stitching adaptor for a DSLR. Lasted exactly one encounter into the field. It's so easy to stitch
There are two frames in that link above which I tried using a 6X12 Horseman back on my LF camera. 10 Second exposure with iso 100 film and the need for f64. Impossible to freeze foliage. No problem at all with stitching at f22 and iso 400.
The trick is to capture moving objects, specifically people, when stitching. Needs thought but isn't hard to do, you just have to choose the framing.
Thanks for your reply.
On my wish list I have a robotic LF shift system which lets me shift round a 10*10" image by using a joy stick, so you can capture moving subjects, and put them on a stitched background.
-
Kindly do not shoot me because I come with something that not others had posted!
What's the problem, we are writing here about shooting all day.
I bet you $ that most panoramas have been shot on 612 and 617 film...
I seriously doubt it.
Photography is first and most about seeing. Rotating a camera around a pivot point makes you loose that, at least to me. It feels a tad like photographing blindfolded
I don't get it. Rotating the camera is not composing, it's the technique to realize the composition, which precedes the capture.
And yes, I refer to rectilinear which I do prefer for landscape
Rectilinear seriously limits the sceneries one can capture. The majority of my panos is too wide for rectilinear. This is given simply by the location I live: the North Pacific coast with the mountain chain.
Stretching pixels, no matter how good CS4 or other software do is similar to upsizing, is it not? If we precious care of pixels, then would we prefer to do so?
1. It is a shame to do the sizing in Photoshop; that's the task of the stitcher.
2. If you want to have more pixels at the edges, shoot with a longer lens, so that not the edges have to be stretched but the center shrunk. You can even shoot with several lenses (the center with a shorter one and the edges with a longer lens).
Obvious it is healthy with difference in opinion
I don't tolerate any position, which does not allow for other opinion :-)
-
I don't get it. Rotating the camera is not composing, it's the technique to realize the composition, which precedes the capture.
Anders makes a good point. When using a panoramic camera, you have a viewfinding device to see the exact composition, including the edges of the frame. When you create an image by stitching, there is not such an immediate way to visualize the final image. Do you just use your eyes, and imagine the composition (as opposed to seeing it) ? Or do you use a separate viewfinder ? Or have crop lines in your viewfinder ? In any case, after you come home, you have a mess of overlapping frames, and a vision in your head of what the image should be once realized (which can be a distant memory if the shot was done months or years ago). That's quite different from having a transparency, negative, or digital file that contains exactly the framing that you envisioned. I too, never found this way of working entirely satisfying, although I know it can produce great images, and because of that I have not produced as many panoramas as I thought I would initially do. Remember that certain photographers (such as HCB) never cropped.
-
Anders makes a good point. When using a panoramic camera, you have a viewfinding device to see the exact composition, including the edges of the frame. When you create an image by stitching, there is not such an immediate way to visualize the final image. Do you just use your eyes, and imagine the composition (as opposed to seeing it) ? Or do you use a separate viewfinder ? Or have crop lines in your viewfinder ? In any case, after you come home, you have a mess of overlapping frames, and a vision in your head of what the image should be once realized (which can be a distant memory if the shot was done months or years ago). That's quite different from having a transparency, negative, or digital file that contains exactly the framing that you envisioned. I too, never found this way of working entirely satisfying, although I know it can produce great images, and because of that I have not produced as many panoramas as I thought I would initially do. Remember that certain photographers (such as HCB) never cropped.
@ luong, You get what I mean
@ pom, You told us of your nice trick for composing. That is very striking in your one posted image. Excellent composition is what makes a panoramic image striking.;
"I stitch in the 6X12 format" + "It is far easier to compose when you have a specific ratio you are shooting with. I compose with a 50mm using the grid lines of the (accessory) screen in my 5D then attach a 100mm and shoot the same FOV but using stitching. I specifically use a 50mm because that is the perspective I'm trying to achieve. Eventhough I use a 100mm to shoot with, as the FOV and distance is the same the actual final perspective is that of the 50mm I framed with originally."
(http://www.studio-beni.net/batei.jpg)
I can add something in a different direction regarding non rectilinear stitching. When I got the Mamiya 28mm (equal to 22mm on my sensor) I sold off my Mamiya 24mm fisheye. I can get similar effect to the fisheye by a three stitch rotation on ballhead (or even by hand) using my 28mm and then purposefully distorting it in CS4. Not that I have used it much... but I rarely use fisheye.
Regards
Anders
-
When using a panoramic camera, you have a viewfinding device to see the exact composition, including the edges of the frame. When you create an image by stitching, there is not such an immediate way to visualize the final image
This is upside down for me.
One of the advantages of stitching is, that the framing is not limited/determined by the viewfinder (in fact not even by the camera), but by the position of the camera. I envision the pano frame, find the best accessible position for that and make enough frames to cover that and more (sometimes I misjudge it). Not only that I don't need the viewfinder, but it is totally useless.
This is certainly in contrast to single shot photography; it is an advantage of pano-making.
after you come home, you have a mess of overlapping frames, and a vision in your head of what the image should be once realized (which can be a distant memory if the shot was done months or years ago
I made a photo trip to Utah and North-Arizona for over two years ago, shot many dozens of panos; at least two dozens of them are still not developed. Sometimes I pick one and develop it. There is one problem for sure, namely the color (sometimes despite a separate shot for WB), but that is equally a problem with single-shots as well.
Regarding what to do with the pano: I don't understand what you mean. A pano can not be stitched different ways; there is only one way of stitching, and a few ways of projecting the result. In landscapes the choice is usually cylindrical or rectilinear, but the latter is very limited by the angle of view.
Remember that certain photographers (such as HCB) never cropped.
I could not care less for that. Btw, cropping with stitching is an absolute must, the question is only where, how much. Or would you keep this one (the bottom is already cropped)?
-
As I said before, a ballhead is worthless if not outright totally unsuitable for shooting pano frames.
The basic issue is, that the camera has to be swiweled/rotated on a level plane (beginners often believe that the camera has to be level; this is neither sufficient, nor necessary).
If the ballhead has a swiweling base, like Erick's RRS BH-55, then the tripod has to be levelled and the ball-head is a useless gadget, even making shooting with a pano bracket more difficult. I read it somewhere, that there are ball-heads with a swiweling platform on top of the ball-head; if so, these are useful.
This is patently false. If we weren't on LL I'd say you're trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt without checking your posting history.
I shoot all my panos with a plain Manfrotto ballhead, eyeballing the level horizon. Some of the panos are in the hundreds of megapixels, and while one can criticize the photographic merit of them, I am comfortable in saying that the technical results are far from worthless. For cityscapes there are little or no stitching artifacts, and parallax is not an issue.
I've never even bothered figuring out the nodal point of my cameras, let alone rotating around it - hell, I have a handheld three-frame panorama shot from a moving, swaying and rickety cable-car (attached), and you'd have to pixel-peep to be able to tell there's stitching going on, and you'd have to know what to look for.
I stand by my prior assertion that a pano head is entirely unnecessary for panos without foregrounds objects. The only benefit one would get from using a pano head for such shots is wholly academic, and the hassle of using them, cost of acquiring and weight and bulk of such contraptions makes them unnecessary for many situations.
-
This is patently false
There is absolutely nothing false on that; your problem must be rather the understanding.
1. Ball-heads are totally useless for pano shooting; every three-way head is better. However, I wrote the exception in the very same post: if there is a swiweling platform on top of the ball-head. Your gear does include just this.
2. The fact that you shoot all your panos without a pano bracket means nothing. Perhaps the majority of my panos (several hundred) was shot hand held, and most of those shot on tripod was without my self-made pano bracket.
However, there are situations, when a bracket is necessary, and this discussion is just about that case.
I stand by my prior assertion that a pano head is entirely unnecessary for panos without foregrounds objects
No-one stated in this thread, that a pano head is always a required accessory; the issue is, what is better in situations, which require higher accuracy. You may never shoot indoor or architectural, but that does not make the discussion worthless.
-
There is absolutely nothing false on that; your problem must be rather the understanding.
1. Ball-heads are totally useless for pano shooting; every three-way head is better. However, I wrote the exception in the very same post: if there is a swiweling platform on top of the ball-head. Your gear does include just this.
2. The fact that you shoot all your panos without a pano bracket means nothing. Perhaps the majority of my panos (several hundred) was shot hand held, and most of those shot on tripod was without my self-made pano bracket.
However, there are situations, when a bracket is necessary, and this discussion is just about that case.
No-one stated in this thread, that a pano head is always a required accessory; the issue is, what is better in situations, which require higher accuracy. You may never shoot indoor or architectural, but that does not make the discussion worthless.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but all ball heads include a "swiveling platform" (although I'm not sure what you mean by that)?
I also didn't say someone claimed that pano head is a required accessory. I was merely pointing out that ball heads are perfectly adequate for many, if not most, pano shooting - but fully acknowledged there are plenty of situations where such a head is a must.
Finally, when I posted my original post, the OP had not specified whether there was foreground objects or if he was shooting interiors.
Anyway, back to regular programming.
-
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but all ball heads include a "swiveling platform" (although I'm not sure what you mean by that)?
Yesterday Stever mentioned Arca-Swiss, as a ball-head including a swiweling platform on the top. I went through the two-hundred some ball heads of B&W and found nothing else but that one.
Later Francois posted the picture of an RRS pano head WITH a pano clamp, i.e. the clamp is an addition, not part of the ball-head. If your ball-head does include a swiweling platform (name it as you prefer to), then you have one of the very few such ball-heads (is there any other but Arca-Swiss?).
Do you mind posting what gear you use for pano shooting? (In my former post I mistakenly thought you had the RRS ball-head and pano clamp combination.)
-
Yesterday Stever mentioned Arca-Swiss, as a ball-head including a swiweling platform on the top. I went through the two-hundred some ball heads of B&W and found nothing else but that one.
Later Francois posted the picture of an RRS pano head WITH a pano clamp, i.e. the clamp is an addition, not part of the ball-head. If your ball-head does include a swiweling platform (name it as you prefer to), then you have one of the very few such ball-heads (is there any other but Arca-Swiss?).
Do you mind posting what gear you use for pano shooting? (In my former post I mistakenly thought you had the RRS ball-head and pano clamp combination.)
Ok, then I have no idea what swiveling platform you're talking about.
My tripod is a very beat-up 11-year-old but fully functional Manfrotto 055C with 352RC ballhead with a quick-release plate, so nothing specifically designed for pano use.
-
Hello everyone,
I'd like to start shooting some pano images and I am curious to know if there are advantages in using T/S lenses to shoot panos with today's advanced stitching software. Specifically, If I shoot around the nodal point with a regular lens vs shifting with a T/S lens and stiching together my photographs would I notice a significant difference?
Thanks in advance,
Dave
coming back to where it all started,
Hello Dave,
I can do both and think there is no difference.
Using the shift lenses ( PCE Nikkor) I have to shift the nodal point back- left right or up down. and your total view is limited to the shift lens capabilities.
The good thing with the shift lenses is that when you work with them a lot - like i do- you can decide directly to make a "bigger picture'.( higher quality)
For 360 degrees pano's - There is no advantage only you could shift up and down ( but have to compensate) at each frame to get a higher quality and larger view.
Using non shift lenses - You have to have a precise nodal point. Only when the subject is close - say less than 10 meters - it has to be precise at ca 1mm.
I use Really Right stuff pano equipment - also because of the unique centered L-plate they make for each body and the very good PCL-1 panning plate you put on top of your ballhead. Then you can make very high quality pano's with 6 photo's made with the 14-24mm lens at 14mm. ( or 8) I used to make this equipment myself but now i have a more vesatile tool that i can use with each lens i have.
For landscape pano's starting from 10 m or so- you do not have to have any equipment but your finger that you hold upright and use to turn the lens - and your finger has to be at- about- your nodal point. Your pano's will be perfect.
PK
-
Ok, then I have no idea what swiveling platform you're talking about.
My tripod is a very beat-up 11-year-old but fully functional Manfrotto 055C with 352RC ballhead with a quick-release plate
Well, pls explain, how you rotate/swiwel/position the camera from one frame to the next? What makes sure, that the next shot lines up with the previous one on a horizontal line?
In cleartext: what is the difference between shooting with your gear and shooting hand-held, except for the longer shutter time on the tripod?
Pls take a look at the Arca-Swiss (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/469930-REG/Arca_Swiss_801203_Monoball_P1_S_Ballhead.html) ball-head with integrieted swiweling plate on the top of the ball-head.
-
I use the Canon 45 and find it very easy to use in the field. Simple to make a composition (look through the viewfinder and turn the dial), quick to make movements/exposures, nice tight results that require little stretching of pixels to my eye. I like the field of view of a stitched 45 on the full 35mm frame. I shoot single rows, typically in portrait orientation to achieve a landscape or landscape orientation to achieve a portrait (4x5 or 2x3), but also sometimes a 2:1 pano. It is a sharp lens and also nice to be able to dial in a bit of tilt.
-sean
oh... how 'bout a pic?
[attachment=13517:boundary_mtns.jpg]
-
In cleartext: what is the difference between shooting with your gear and shooting hand-held, except for the longer shutter time on the tripod?
None. I just eyeball the overlap and horizontal/vertical alignment. Pano software takes care of the rest.
Still don't see a point for the Arca-Swiss head you linked to for the kind of shooting I do.
-
The only point I can see to needing a pano head on top of the ballhead is to facilitate nodal stitching should you believe that it's needed. As the need for stitching in a straight line will only actually give a 'straight' pano if the panning head is completely untilted there would be no difference between that and making sure the ballhead and QR are completely straight and panning from the base. Admittedly it would be more hassle. However given that the vast majority of pano's do not want to be exactly straight, levelling the camera in two planes does not make for interesting photos usually (horizon in the middle, etc), whether you have the pan from the base or the top doesn't actually make a straighter picture, you've introduced curvature in the motion of the panning by definition of the fact that you don't have the camera level in two planes. You will still need to either crop loose or shoot frames to cover the parts of the image lost by the curvature on the panning motion.
-
None. I just eyeball the overlap and horizontal/vertical alignment
That's what I meant with the uselessness of the ball-head. You could do the same w/o tripod, except for the longer shutter time.
Pano software takes care of the rest
Pano software can not take care of missing parts due to "rugged" frames. If you are shooting a single-row pano and you are not rotating/panning/swiweling on a level plane, large cropping will be unavoidable.
Here is a demonstration (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=25815&view=findpost&p=200924) of this aspect.
Still don't see a point for the Arca-Swiss head you linked to for the kind of shooting I do
It allows for panning on a level platform. This is easier than with my three-way head; I have to level the entire tripod, because the panning base is under the head - just like with the ball-heads. Life is much easier with that Acra-Swiss ball-head (or with a panning platform on top of another ballhead), for the tripod's position is irrelevant, leveling occurs by the ball-head, and the camera (or pano bracket) can be panned on that level surface.
-
As the need for stitching in a straight line will only actually give a 'straight' pano if the panning head is completely untilted there would be no difference between that and making sure the ballhead and QR are completely straight and panning from the base
This is completely off-base. The orientation of the finished pano has nothing to do with the orientation of the camera.
The point is just that: rotating the camera on a level base, even though the camera itself may not be level. This is a must in many if not most situations; typical, when shooting from higher elevation downwards, like the following examples (some of those were shot hand-held, but the principle is the same, I try to do it hand-held as if I would do it from tripod):
Example downwards 1 (http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/EagleHarbour_17mm.jpg)
Example downwards 2 (http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/WestVanFromHwyBridge_50mm_polar.jpg)
Example downwards 3 (http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/Rockies_PeytoLake_20mm.jpg)
Example downwards 4 (http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/Ettenberg3.jpg)
or the opposite way, shooting upwards directed:
Example upwards 1 (http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/RedCanyon_8.jpg)
Example upwards 2 (http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/BryceCanyon_1.jpg)
-
Pano software can not take care of missing parts due to "rugged" frames. If you are shooting a single-row pano and you are not rotating/panning/swiweling on a level plane, large cropping will be unavoidable.
Yeah, I learned this the hard way...
BTW, your website is down.
-
your website is down
My pano website is crappy (very irregular); not down, but sometimes it takes a while to response (or it drops the request). However, it offers terrabytes of storage. I have another site, that is always up and fast, but I have only a few megabytes of storage, costing more than the pano site.
-
Following is a good book on classical panoramic photography:
Panoramic Photography
by Lee Frost
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5605..._Panoramic.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/560573-REG/F_W_Publications_978_0_7153_1969_7_Book_Lee_Frost_s_Panoramic.html)
Not much in it at all about digital stitching, but excellent examples of well composed images and cameras specifically for panoramic photography.
Regards
Anders
-
The point is just that: rotating the camera on a level base, even though the camera itself may not be level. This is a must in many if not most situations;
Why? The only reason I can see as mentioned above is so as not to miss parts of what will end up being the finished frame. As such the rotating base of a ballhead will be as problematic/useful as a pano head on top. If you rotate using a pano head on top while the camera is pointed up or down then you will be panning in an arc. That is why unless the camera is level in two planes - you will need to shoot and extra row to make up for those parts of the images lost to the arc.
-
Why? The only reason I can see as mentioned above is so as not to miss parts of what will end up being the finished frame
And is that not enough reason? Of course you don't have to shoot panos properly, you are allowed to create crap instead of panos, or to throw away the shots.
You could say you don't have to shoot even on tripod; you can simply discard those shots, which are blurry. Panning on a level plane guarantees, that this problem does not occur. That's all.
As such the rotating base of a ballhead will be as problematic/useful as a pano head on top. If you rotate using a pano head on top while the camera is pointed up or down then you will be panning in an arc
That's why I posted, that the rotating platform has to be on top of the ball-head. Look at this one (the only one I found with integrated panning on the top, but there are panning bases, which can be mounted on all or most normal ball-heads).
(http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images345x345/469930.jpg)
Its description says
The first noticeable difference is the "upside-down" design of this ballhead. Instead of having a ball that rests inside a ball-housing, the entire P1's ball-housing sits on top of the ball ... The panning system is unconventionally located above the ball, just below the camera mount. This allows the 360° panoramic rotation to be kept in line with the vertical axis
Unfortunately, this toy costs US$500 and weights 580gr. RRS's BH-55 PCL (a combination of a ball-head and a rotating clamp) comes at $575, a smaller one, the BH-40 PCL costs $515; I don't find the weight specs at RRS.
-
I have an acratech leveling base under my Kirk BH3. So you level that. The BH3 swivels at its base but that base is level and so long as the camera above it is also level everything should be golden.
-
I found the weight specs for RRS: the larger one weights 955gr, but that's far too strong (up to 23kg), the next size weights 660gr, load up to 8kg.
These come with built-in spirit level. I don't know how the Arca-Swiss is supposed to be levelled.
-
I have an acratech leveling base under my Kirk BH3. So you level that. The BH3 swivels at its base but that base is level and so long as the camera above it is also level everything should be golden.
The camera does no need to be level; in fact, in many cases it can not be level.
Anyway, that combination works, but the BH3 plays no role; shooting with a pano bracket is even easier without that.
-
Very nice thread, I'm still not settled on the best combo in pracicity/precision for my panos. I made a panohead that is good but not a joy to use, the ballhead is very much useless as panopeeper said except for leveling the panohead.
Of course my biggest problem is that living in Argentina I can't get and/or afford many of the gear mentioned here so what is the best from my limited options is still a mistery.
I have to keep thinking.
-
I made a panohead that is good but not a joy to use
It does not have to be expensive. Here is my pano bracket:
(http://www.panopeeper.com/pix/PanoBracket_Own_1.jpg)
It is very light, it allows for adjustment of the rotation point within 1mm, which is good enough for me, for multirow panos as well (but the camera has to be always in portrait orientation, which is not a serious restriction). This one requires machinery (I am a hobby mechanics), but I saw one from profiled aluminium tubes, it requires only a press drill. I saw one made out of wood, working excellently, though somewhat heavier.
-
It does not have to be expensive. Here is my pano bracket:
Here's my pano head : (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/etfrench/Spherical%20Pano%20Head/DSCN5406s.jpg)
And a few more shots of it: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v649/etf...mview=slideshow (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v649/etfrench/Spherical%20Pano%20Head/?albumview=slideshow)
-
OK, you made me do it Here's my pano head
This was the one I meant with the tubular aluminium (I remembered this from PTA). I think you further developed/expanded it; I don't remember to have seen the "leg" on the side, apparently for giving more strength because of the heavy gear. The base too appears more complex than what I remember (as much as I remember from having seen the picture). Is this setup for macros?
-
This was the one I meant with the tubular aluminium (I remembered this from PTA). I think you further developed/expanded it; I don't remember to have seen the "leg" on the side, apparently for giving more strength because of the heavy gear. The base too appears more complex than what I remember (as much as I remember from having seen the picture). Is this setup for macros?
Here's the original: http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=3508 (http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=3508). It used an inverted ballhead for slewing and only required simple tools to build.
The next iteration: http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=4731 (http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=4731). Added more precise controls for macro work.
Current iteration: Front and back movements added.
-
I am always interested in seeing what people have to say about the practicalities of shooting panoramics. This discussion seems to have fallen into a more purist, technique centric view (panopeeper and friends) and a more free-form dynamic method.
Both Work Well!!!
I use both handheld methods, and tripod mounted with a spherical head setup. I have gotten excellent results with both, but here are few observations from my field experience:
1) Handheld frequently drifts from level and ends up requiring more aggressive cropping than you might hope, as panopeeper demonstrated
2) Double-row using handheld methods is difficult to do with high-quality particularly with more than about 2x4 images
3) Well-done foreground in a panoramic makes a fantastic element of composition, so careful calibration is very useful
4) Using a tripod doesn't eliminate mistakes http://www.trailpixie.net/panoramics_go_b.htm (http://www.trailpixie.net/panoramics_go_b.htm)
5) Panoramic images that project well below or well above the horizon demand a spherical head setup to get reliable results.
I have never worked with tilt-shift lenses, though I have considered it. Related to this topic, one thing that hasn't been discussed is the focal length of the lens you choose for panoramic images. If you plan to do substantial corrections for parallel straight lines, in building perhaps, a longer lens allows you to take more images resulting in a higher resolution and less impact from the dreaded pixel-stretching.
I haven't met very many people who routinely shoot panoramics at 70mm, 100mm, or even 400mm. There are some pretty cool perspectives that can be achieved with these longer lenses, and the stretching and warping that you may end up doing doesn't have as deleterious an effect as it would if you shot fewer frames at a wide angle.
So, proper spherical tripod head technique, with longer focal lengths substantially reduces the necessity of tilt shift lenses, as long as you are willing to deal with the reduced spontaneity.
As for working quickly and spontaneously, I don't find that panoramic photography is highly compatible with that kind of work (though I have experienced notable exceptions http://www.trailpixie.net/general/sand_water_sky.htm (http://www.trailpixie.net/general/sand_water_sky.htm) ). this doesn't diminish it power as a creative technique. I see a great image and I know it can't be captured by a wide angle lens because the resolution won't be high enough. I shoot the image in panoramic form and then get back to my computer and am excited to see the image take form--I am only pleased when the image is printed 24"x48" on my viewing table. That is when the composition is realized. Like old-times, eh.
-
i like prime lenses in the range of 50-100mm for panoramas. not necessarily extra wide panos unless you've got a tripod and patience, but to acheive the field of view of a wide angle lens with much greater resolution, minimal distortion, and CA. you may have to shoot 2 vertical rows, but the Canon 100 macro delivers wonderful results. much longer than 100mm, depth of field and diffraction limits become a problem for many subjects.
-
I haven't met very many people who routinely shoot panoramics at 70mm, 100mm, or even 400mm. There are some pretty cool perspectives that can be achieved with these longer lenses, and the stretching and warping that you may end up doing doesn't have as deleterious an effect as it would if you shot fewer frames at a wide angle.
The lens I want for panoramics is the Schneider Fine art Gold 1100... I think that is 1 or 2 degrees on 36 * 48mm. ...and I would use a P3 shift Tilt/Shift camera... you do not need a rail to balance the camera, or to get the entrance pupil in the right place, you use the rail that is part of the camera (using two rail clamps). You compose vertically with rise and fall, so you do not move the entrance pupil by tilting the tripod head. I have a fully geared Manfrotto #400 tripod head - it would be nice to get a pano swivel to mount on it to save levelling the tripod. ( but the camera might weigh 10Kg!
-
This is completely off-base. The orientation of the finished pano has nothing to do with the orientation of the camera.
The point is just that: rotating the camera on a level base, even though the camera itself may not be level. This is a must in many if not most situations; typical, when shooting from higher elevation downwards, like the following examples (some of those were shot hand-held, but the principle is the same, I try to do it hand-held as if I would do it from tripod):
Did you mean even though the base itself may not be level ? That is you are rotating using a pano-head, but the rotation axis is not vertical ?
-
Did you mean even though the base itself may not be level ? That is you are rotating using a pano-head, but the rotation axis is not vertical ?
That sounds about right. It's nice (but not essential) to have the camera level left to right. It is not necessary and usually isn't possible to have the camera level front to back. In the end, the only thing that matters is that all of the elements in your composition have been captured in an image. One of my favorites is this handheld 67 image pano of a waterfall where I kept adding more images around the edges because it continued to get more interesting as I shot : (http://www.efrench.members.winisp.net/AlpineLakes/large/0003.jpg)
-
Did you mean even though the base itself may not be level ? That is you are rotating using a pano-head, but the rotation axis is not vertical ?
Think of the following experiment: you are on the top of a highrise and shooting a pano, which is supposed to include part of the area close to your own building, down below. Obviously the camera can not be horizontal. Start out at the left edge of the envisioned pano frame, shoot and rotate to the right. If the plane of rotation is level, then the frames cover a roughly horizontal strip of the sceenery. Otherwise, as it would be natural in this setting, the frames would cover an area along a segment of a circle, with the center much lower than the edges.
When stitching, you can cheat and request the pano be aligned in a line (a decent sticher will screem from pain); you can rape a landscape to almost any shape. However, if the scenery is a city, then it is expected that the buildings are straight. In order to get straight buildings, your pano will have to be like the bottom segment of a circle, i.e. large part of it has to be cropped.
I do realize that this is not a good description of the subject; I will make a demonstration of it as soon as I can; I need to find someone in a highrise letting me on top of the building in order to shoot a pano the wrong way.
-
I kept adding more images around the edges because it continued to get more interesting as I shot
Back to a previous post about framing: the "conventional" method is looking through the viewfinder and making a frame. In my world this is raping the framing. That's what I mean previously with
One of the advantages of stitching is, that the framing is not limited/determined by the viewfinder (in fact not even by the camera), but by the position of the camera. I envision the pano frame, find the best accessible position for that and make enough frames to cover that and more (sometimes I misjudge it). Not only that I don't need the viewfinder, but it is totally useless
In other words: envision the frame and shoot as much as you need to, as opposed to frame as you can with your current lens.
It may be due to having shot too many panos, but I feel almost physical pain when viewing an image and realizing, that (probably) important/interesting parts have been left out, due to the limited FoV of the lens.
-
A few thoughts:
If there are no foreground elements, then good stitch results can be obtained even with sloppy technique--shooting handheld, or using a tripod but not bothering to find the nodal point of the lens. But if you include nearby foreground objects, then some means of adjusting for the nodal point such as the Manfrotto 3419 macro plate is needed, and if you want to do multi-row panos, then a spherical pano head is needed.
A T/S can be useful if the horizon is not the center of your composition. Not so much the shift function, but the tilt function, to make sure foreground and background objects are in focus.
Cylindrical projection is much better for wide-angle panos than rectilinear; you avoid excessive distortion in the corners.
-
Think of the following experiment: you are on the top of a highrise and shooting a pano, which is supposed to include part of the area close to your own building, down below. Obviously the camera can not be horizontal.
This brings us back to the OP: the camera can be horizontal if you have a lens with shift.