Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Depth of (a) Field - (Brenizer Method)  (Read 4834 times)

biker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
  • powered by a pair of quadriceps
Depth of (a) Field - (Brenizer Method)
« on: July 16, 2016, 05:48:05 pm »

Just for an idea - the straw bale is about 2m / 6.5ft high.

Trying Brenizer Method for the first time. Shots have light issues, please ignore them. (The clouds were moving and light changing.)
You can't do much with a 200mm, f/5.6 lens on an APS-C 1.5x sensor.
But still - it looks different.

The first image has been stitched from 29 portrait (2:3) shots in two rows. The (original) target image resolution is 23,562 x 5,646, that's 133 Mpx.
The second image is 41 portrait shots in four rows. The (original) target image resolution is 11,612 x 7,768, that's 90.2 Mpx.
Panoramas have been shot handheld - Hugin knows its job.

Tried also a panorama with about first image field of view and second image depth of field but this stitching failed and the panorama was malformed.
Logged
Don't wait until the flock moves.
Be first to comment. (Unless you haven't got anything to say.)

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Depth of (a) Field - (Brenizer Method)
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2016, 09:45:43 am »

As I understand it, this technique is designed to simulate the large format "sensor" size allowing shallow DoF while giving a much wider angle of view than a typical DSLR.  I also understand that do to optics, it takes a significant larger number of shots than a typical panorama with parallax and perspective warping.

And you are correct, this would be much easier on a FF than APS-C.  Some afternoon, I will have to play with this. 

Thanks.
Logged

biker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
  • powered by a pair of quadriceps
Re: Depth of (a) Field - (Brenizer Method)
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2016, 09:47:22 am »

Yeah, I think you summarised it very well.
Logged
Don't wait until the flock moves.
Be first to comment. (Unless you haven't got anything to say.)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3690
Re: Depth of (a) Field - (Brenizer Method)
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2016, 03:39:21 pm »

This is something my friend Bruce & I played with back in the '90s, before it had a name and before (affordable) sensor-based cameras. Cool results in some cases, but stitching with the software and processing power of the time was a PITA. So was normalizing color balance amongst multiple scans.

-Dave-
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 12845
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Depth of (a) Field - (Brenizer Method)
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2016, 01:18:20 am »

Never quite understood either why someone got away with sticking his name on a method many of us have been using for 15 years... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: July 24, 2016, 08:55:50 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Depth of (a) Field - (Brenizer Method)
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2016, 09:56:17 am »

Never quite understood either why someone got away with sticking his name on a method many of us have been using for 15 years...

This is why:

Quote
Stigler's law of eponymy is a process proposed by University of Chicago statistics professor Stephen Stigler in his 1980 publication "Stiglerís law of eponymy". It states that no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer. Stigler named the sociologist Robert K. Merton as the discoverer of "Stigler's law" to show that it follows its own decree.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up