Single Row Panos - Are there advantages of using a T/S Lens?

[Panopeeper]

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.

[Panopeeper]

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.

[davewolfs]

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?

[erick.boileau]

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

[Anders_HK]

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. 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

[Tony Beach]

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.

[Ben Rubinstein]

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,  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.



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...

[francois]

…
 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.

[Dick Roadnight]

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.

[edwinb]

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  

Edwin

[MarkL]

Deleted

[davewolfs]

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,  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.



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.

[Ben Rubinstein]

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.

[Panopeeper]

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).

[Dick Roadnight]

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.

[Panopeeper]

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 :-)

[luong]

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_HK]

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."

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

[Panopeeper]

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)?

[feppe]

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.