LR 10 panorama much improved but still buggy...

[dpirazzi]

Did you rotate about the nodal point? This becomes more important when you have close foreground objects as with the boulders.

Beautiful spot!

[dreed]

+1
  Vignetting is huge , overlap too small, colours not equal-
Bad start

The color shift in blue is not vignetting but CPL filter in action. When you've got a large field of view you will almost never get uniform color in the sky when using a polariser.

Did you rotate about the nodal point? This becomes more important when you have close foreground objects as with the boulders.

when using multiple cameras to do simultaneous capture to prevent issues with waves, rotating around a nodal point is not possible.

That set of 3 was at 22mm (*1.6). From another set of pictures, taken at 14mm (*1.6), I generated the attached image. As you can see, when merging raw images, the CPL issue becomes less of a bother.

If there's anything wrong, it might be that LR's algorithms don't work on narrower fields of view but that needs more testing. And by narrower, I mean anything narrow than ~24mm (FF). But that doesn't explain the "works for preview but not full images."

[David Eichler]

Compared to earlier releases of LR that I'd tried, the LR panorama merge is a much better proposition.

In some instances I now prefer it to PTgui because it gets colours better.

However...

All too often I see "tears" or "seams" in LR panorama merge output that PTgui does not have. Some examples of an obvious merge tear attached where it is failing to align the horizon and map the merge correctly.

I use this feature pretty regularly and I have not seen this problem in Lightroom since the early days of this feature.

[Paul2660]

Trying to merge images with solid blue skies can be very difficult. You can try to get the sky even across the frame but it always seems that the next image is slightly darker or lighter and this you see the dark band in sky between the images.

Make sure you have the latest version of ptgui as I find it does better on solid skies now. It’s not a free upgrade.

Also the curve in the bottom of top image is also a common issue and very simple to fix with photoshop and the manual warp feature. You will lose a bit of the image but you won’t have the curve. Usually  works with little or no detail loss.

Another reason for problem is a polarized sky. You will always have issue trying to blend a solid blue sky across multiple frames if you have polarized them as the polarization effect will change as you move across the image. Even if you try to rotate the polarizer during capture.

Paul

[David Eichler]

Trying to merge images with solid blue skies can be very difficult. You can try to get the sky even across the frame but it always seems that the next image is slightly darker or lighter and this you see the dark band in sky between the images.

Make sure you have the latest version of ptgui as I find it does better on solid skies now. It’s not a free upgrade.

Also the curve in the bottom of top image is also a common issue and very simple to fix with photoshop and the manual warp feature. You will lose a bit of the image but you won’t have the curve. Usually  works with little or no detail loss.

Another reason for problem is a polarized sky. You will always have issue trying to blend a solid blue sky across multiple frames if you have polarized them as the polarization effect will change as you move across the image. Even if you try to rotate the polarizer during capture.

Paul

Recently did a wide panorama of a cityscape with a clear sky, with maybe five or six images. Zero abrupt unevenness between images. Across the entire image? Yes, because the sky itself was uneven.

[dreed]

Thought I'd dust off an old favourite, Microsoft ICE. Order attached:

PTgui 12 (demo) - weakness: has dips in the horizon rather than a flat line/contiguous curve
ICE  1.4 - weakness: doesn't do the background as "1 picture" leaving "seams" in the blue sky; has dips in the horizon at the seam points
Lightroom 11.3 - weakness: tears in the horizon (horizon is not level) where there's a step up/down from two flat sea meets sky sections

[dreed]

In a private message, someone asked where to get Microsoft's ICE. Due to a reorganisation of Microsoft's website, you have to visit the wayback machine as mentioned here:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/252274/how-to-download-image-composite-editor-20.html

- the 64bit link therein delivers the goods.

I will say this, both ICE & PTgui are making Adobe's panorama stitching look very 3rd rate in terms of stitching flexibility.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

[...]
PTgui 12 (demo) - weakness: has dips in the horizon rather than a flat line/contiguous curve
[...]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, adjusting the Pitch values will correct this. You can also add "Horizontal Line" control-points, and then PTGUI will usually fix it automatically (assuming there are horizontal lines to place them on).

[dreed]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, adjusting the Pitch values will correct this. You can also add "Horizontal Line" control-points, and then PTGUI will usually fix it automatically (assuming there are horizontal lines to place them on).

I've tried adjusting the pitch in Ptgui and didn't get anywhere. Couldn't find the horizontal line control point tool so put the demo version aside for now and will give it another try in the future.

I did however try Panorama Studio 3.6.2 to see if that was any better. It got the horizon correct but didn't equalize the white balance correctly nor get the sky blue correct (seams.)

[kers]

I've tried adjusting the pitch in Ptgui and didn't get anywhere. Couldn't find the horizontal line control point tool so put the demo version aside for now and will give it another try in the future.

I did however try Panorama Studio 3.6.2 to see if that was any better. It got the horizon correct but didn't equalize the white balance correctly nor get the sky blue correct (seams.)

just adjust the pitch manually and you are fine in ptGui...
best made program i use

[dreed]

For what it is worth, landscape merging might be a little better in 12, but on images that I know I have previously flagged as "failed merge", it still fails. There also seems to be more use of the GPU, but need to test that out some.

[Rand47]

Here's 3 source files... reduced down to 1920x1200 fit for posting purposes... 22mm setting on Canon M6.

Turn the camera to vertical format, overlap by 30%.  I use the rule of thirds grid on my LCD to get a precise, consistent overlap, manually.  I can shoot, move, shoot very quickly this way when necessary.  You'll shoot more frames for the same “sweep” but you’ll get much better results.  In this example the vignetting is causing a real problem.  The difference in exposure between the right edge of the center frame and the left edge of the third frame is too great.   One thing you could do to help is to put the histogram in LrC to show “Lab” values.  Then use a linear gradient on the third frame and get the luminance of the blue sky on the left of the frame to match the luminance of the sky on the right edge of the second frame.   Then stitch them.  I actually helped a friend who had turned his camera vertical w/o reorienting his grad ND, and shot a whole series of pan shots.  I managed to balance all the fames and make a good stitch.

Rand

[dreed]

Turn the camera to vertical format, overlap by 30%.

Thanks for the thoughts, but that style of shooting is not well suited for trying to do panorama shooting of beaches. Waves are a real problem.

And to top it off, just had my first LR crash (using v12) from trying to stich a big (20+ images) panorama (RAM was only at 69% used!)

[Rand47]

Thanks for the thoughts, but that style of shooting is not well suited for trying to do panorama shooting of beaches. Waves are a real problem.

And to top it off, just had my first LR crash (using v12) from trying to stich a big (20+ images) panorama (RAM was only at 69% used!)

For that kind of work, I’ve put my GFX at 3 frames per second, then just “sweep the scene.”  In post, choose a set of frames that “work.”  Very rarely have wave mismatches.  When I do, a little content aware fill in those sections can often fix it perfectly.  Also since the GFX jpegs are “sizable” on their own I’ve once in while just stitched jpegs with excellent results.

Rand

[dreed]

For that kind of work, I’ve put my GFX at 3 frames per second, then just “sweep the scene.”  In post, choose a set of frames that “work.”  Very rarely have wave mismatches.  When I do, a little content aware fill in those sections can often fix it perfectly.  Also since the GFX jpegs are “sizable” on their own I’ve once in while just stitched jpegs with excellent results.

Thanks for sharing your method of taking photos and stitching to work around bugs in Adobe's software.

[dreed]

Just updated to Lightroom 13, there is still no improvement on this issue.