Alain Briot's stitching technique articles

[BAB]

From what I remember reading the article it was well written and informative. Having more depth than articles on petapixel and other similar site. I suppose when the choice of making an article is made then there must also at some point be a decision as to when the writer has fully explained and cover all points ans also to what amount of detail is enough? That amount depending on the readers ability and/or experience with the subject might not be enough to satin them which is the case for most of theses kinds of articles. However that being said that's why reading the comment from poster discussing the article can be rewarding if you look at it with eyes wide open, just when you think you know everything you find out you don't!
Some articles and mostly reviews that I read, for fun and for knowledge are good most leave you with wanting more that's why many silly posters argue in Vienna as to who said it correctly or who's dumb!

It good reading to pass the time thought kinda like all good news is boring, HA HA!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Rotating lens panorama camera…

Perhaps...in the last century

[Petrus]

Perhaps...in the last century

You ask, I answer...

[Petrus]

That's just stitching by a different name, with all the limitations of film and much less adaptability in terms of focal length, shutter speed, focal plane, etc.

It exposes the image in sections, using a moving slit like a scanning back, rather than all at once like a standard camera. This is much more similar to stitching multiple frames,

Sounds like every focal plane camera at faster than flash sync speeds… Never knew I was actually stitching when shooting soccer or birds in flight with D4, or a snow scene with D800e… 

[shadowblade]

Sounds like every focal plane camera at faster than flash sync speeds… Never knew I was actually stitching when shooting soccer or birds in flight with D4, or a snow scene with D800e… 

You pretty much are - just that it's being done automatically. The whole image isn't exposed at once, and you run into problems with moving subjects. For a landscape, that often means swaying tree branches not being in the same place. At speeds faster than flash sync speeds, you see it when photographing spinning helicopter blades or propellors - they look warped and bent.

[AreBee]

Nelsonretreat,

I'd have brought appropriate equipment for a landscape shoot. Would have saved countless hours in post stitching everything together.

Countless hours? It would have taken seconds for software to determine the stitch and no more than a minute or two to render the final image.

[Nelsonretreat]

Yes.

Re: saturation - viewing it on a wide-gamut monitor, the image looks oversaturated in the browser (Firefox, supposedly with colour correction turned on...) but appears correct in Photoshop. I think it's just a colour control/gamut space issue - viewed on a monitor which doesn't extend past the boundaries of sRGB, it probably looks correct.

I was fascinated by your explanation because it was counter to my experience where images on browsers have generally less saturation than on a photoshop window. I decided to test your theory and the screen grab below shows a browser (safari) image on top of the photoshop image. As you can see there is an appreciable difference but not the difference you postulate.  It is the opposite. ( I appreciate that you will have to view the difference in a browser and not in the original photoshop version but I think you get the point.)
In any case, even if you were right I am surprised an "artist" of M. Briot's standing would not take account of these browser issues in writing an article destined to be read on browsers! I'm sure he would be horrified at the pinkness which saturated his image when displayed on my monitor (iMac)

[shadowblade]

I was fascinated by your explanation because it was counter to my experience where images on browsers have generally less saturation than on a photoshop window. I decided to test your theory and the screen grab below shows a browser (safari) image on top of the photoshop image. As you can see there is an appreciable difference but not the difference you postulate.  It is the opposite. ( I appreciate that you will have to view the difference in a browser and not in the original photoshop version but I think you get the point.)
In any case, even if you were right I am surprised an "artist" of M. Briot's standing would not take account of these browser issues in writing an article destined to be read on browsers! I'm sure he would be horrified at the pinkness which saturated his image when displayed on my monitor (iMac)

That shouldn't be the case.

Photoshop is a fully colour-aware program. On a wide-gamut monitor, it will still render sRGB, aRGB and any other colour space correctly if it is properly calibrated and set up correctly, because it knows what the monitor's colour space is and what the file's colour space is, and will compensate based on that.

On the other hand, most browsers (at least on PC) are not colour-aware. They will stretch the RGB colour values of the file to fill whatever colour space the monitor has, without regard to the colour space of either the file or the monitor. Firefox is supposed to be fully colour-aware when you turn one particular setting on (which I have), but recent versions no longer seem to be. Therefore, since most good monitors have greater than sRGB colour space (particularly wide-gamut monitors) and most files intended for web are in sRGB colour space, these values will be 'stretched' out and result in an image that is more saturated than intended. Conversely, since most monitors do not cover the full gamut of Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB, values for files saved in these formats will be compressed to fit the monitor and result in a desaturated image when viewed in browser.

[Nelsonretreat]

That shouldn't be the case.

I'm sure you are right about the theory but, like so many theories, practice tells us something different!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  the screen grab below shows a browser (safari) image on top of the photoshop image. As you can see there is an appreciable difference...

What was the color space for the Photoshop image? What are we looking at as the "Safari" image... jpeg?... what color space?

[Nelsonretreat]

What was the color space for the Photoshop image? What are we looking at as the "Safari" image... jpeg?... what color space?

If you read the thread you will see why these questions are irrelevant. However you do get the prize for beginning to understand why a browser will show decreased rather than increased saturation given the exact same photo as was the case here.
I suspect a bright member of the forum will give the explanation very shortly!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... why a browser will show decreased rather than increased saturation given the exact same photo as was the case here...

You keep claiming it, but unless you tell us what color space is used for PS and web photos, the claim doesn't have much, if any, validity.

One example when an image is going to be significantly different, duller, less saturated (in color-managed browsers) is if you do not convert to sRGB and do not embed a profile. The image on the left is how it looks like in LR, PS, and the web (after conversion to sRGB), while the one on the right is export to web without converting it from ProPhoto RGB, nor embedding ProPhoto profile.

[Nelsonretreat]

You keep claiming it, but unless you tell us what color space is used for PS and web photos, the claim doesn't have much, if any, validity.

One example when an image is going to be significantly different, duller, less saturated (in color-managed browsers) is if you do not convert to sRGB and do not embed a profile. The image on the left is how it looks like in LR, PS, and the web (after conversion to sRGB), while the one on the right is export to web without converting it from ProPhoto RGB, nor embedding ProPhoto profile.

Thanks for the lecture! I really appreciate it. I had no idera about this stuff so it's really helpful to have it explained.