Stitching with view cameras - general question ...

[Dick Roadnight]

For ultimate image quality, thus also correct perspective one need to do flat stitching.

Anders,

Could you please point at evidences supporting your statement above? They are not backed up by either experience or mathematical theory.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard...

Much data is lost in rectilinear stitching, as the distorted images have to be cropped back to rectangles, but you can compensate for this by using more images.

(In pano-cylinder-stitching using long lenses, there may be little or no distortion or loss of data.)

No DSLR or other camera with an anti-aliasing filter approaches the "per pixel" quality of any medium format digital back, let alone the best modern ones, but, you could use your technique with a top quality camera.

I know your technique works, and you have photos to prove it, but for ultimate image quality, and correct perspective, one needs to flat stitch with a MFDB and a quality lens.

This is because the stitching software has to distort and re-sample the image, and this can only degrade the image, causing loss of resolution.

I am aware that the better stitching programs do a good job, and the loss of resolution is minimal, and would be difficult to see or quantify in a high-res image.

I think that even the best £5,000 ultra-wide angles are not distortion-free, and if you have to correct distortion in post-production, then you are re-sampling the image, and this would result in the same type of loss of resolution that you get with pano software, so, in extreme circumstances, a rectilinear pano can produce results comparable with what can be achieved with a less than ideal ultra-wide angle lens. (and I have to admit that i do not think they ever have produced an ideal ultra-wide, and never will.)

One problem is that there are AFAIK, there are no digital long lenses for Medium format digital view cameras, but the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses might be useful as they have enough image circle for many Giga-pixels, so you could overcome any lack of lp/mm by down rezzing.

If you can produce a pano from 9 pictures taken with a 100mm lens that is equivalent to a single shot taken with the same camera with a 24mm lens, then the only benefit is that you could do without the 24mm lens, for subjects that do not move, in circumstances where you have the time to set up your kit and take 9 pictures!

I appreciate that cylinder / spherical stitching is different, and would, for me, be the technique of choice for panoramas of curved subjects.

[Anders_HK]

For ultimate image quality, thus also correct perspective one need to do flat stitching.


Bernard...

Much data is lost in rectilinear stitching, as the distorted images have to be cropped back to rectangles, but you can compensate for this by using more images.

(In pano-cylinder-stitching using long lenses, there may be little or no distortion or loss of data.)

No DSLR or other camera with an anti-aliasing filter approaches the "per pixel" quality of any medium format digital back, let alone the best modern ones, but, you could use your technique with a top quality camera.

I know your technique works, and you have photos to prove it, but for ultimate image quality, and correct perspective, one needs to flat stitch with a MFDB and a quality lens.

This is because the stitching software has to distort and re-sample the image, and this can only degrade the image, causing loss of resolution.

I am aware that the better stitching programs do a good job, and the loss of resolution is minimal, and would be difficult to see or quantify in a high-res image.

I think that even the best £5,000 ultra-wide angles are not distortion-free, and if you have to correct distortion in post-production, then you are re-sampling the image, and this would result in the same type of loss of resolution that you get with pano software, so, in extreme circumstances, a rectilinear pano can produce results comparable with what can be achieved with a less than ideal ultra-wide angle lens. (and I have to admit that i do not think they ever have produced an ideal ultra-wide, and never will.)

One problem is that there are AFAIK, there are no digital long lenses for Medium format digital view cameras, but the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses might be useful as they have enough image circle for many Giga-pixels, so you could overcome any lack of lp/mm by down rezzing.

If you can produce a pano from 9 pictures taken with a 100mm lens that is equivalent to a single shot taken with the same camera with a 24mm lens, then the only benefit is that you could do without the 24mm lens, for subjects that do not move, in circumstances where you have the time to set up your kit and take 9 pictures!

I appreciate that cylinder / spherical stitching is different, and would, for me, be the technique of choice for panoramas of curved subjects.

Dick,

Thank you.


Bernard,

Puh.  

Allow me to be frank and without the meaning of being impolite; I have to admit that it is a tad tiring when one repeated is being requested on this site to justify/defend with proof of what one state, and to in deeper and deeper justify ones experience or what tool one chosen and have preference to use. It is permitted and positive with different experience and preference. I respect that. It is good if we can communicate those and leave it at that and not deeper and deeper interrogations. I have already written my reply in above. If you are interested I encourage you to try (more) flat stitch and see for yourself. It is good to retry things. In the end... lets just leave it as a preference thing.

I hope that my writing has been informative, also to others. And I hope others clearly see that there are options; also that the latest craze of tech method in software is not photography, only yet another tool. In no way do I seek to mathematically or scientifically justify my approach. Flat stitch is nothing much different than rise/fall and shift has been since Ansel Adams times and long before. The only thing is one use several sensor locations within an imagre circle, instead of one. Photography is visual art, not pixel peeping. My eye tells me that images with wide lens are not as truthful as round stitches, and it is frank a heck easier to flat stitch only 2-3 shots rather than round stitch many more. The Mamiya 50mm shift is a temptation for me. That is one simple way; any shift lens. If I recall there is a used Nikon 28mm such that could be a good option for anyone with a Nikon or (adapter) Canon DSLR. Such lens also give rise and fall, which is useful for perspective corrections.

The other aspect is the type of camera / lens one prefer. I prefer medium format and lean towards large format. It makes the process more slow, or... better planned. I also did not imply that CS4 was the only or best software for stitching.

What I do encourage is anyone to try what they feel is within their interest and eye, and of course based on $$.

Something I found very interesting lately and can much encourage anyone with interest in panoramics is using 617 or 612 camera. Mine is a Fotoman 617 with a 90mm lens. It yields images on Velvia 50 measuring 168mm x 56mm - - - each in ONE SHOT, ONE CLICK = finished.    It also lends one to see in a very different format, with proportions 3:1. It is dramatic, powerful.  

Regards
Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

If you are interested I encourage you to try (more) flat stitch and see for yourself. It is good to retry things. In the end... lets just leave it as a preference thing.

Anders,

I guess that the difference between you and me is that I did try both a lot and selected the technique that delivered the best results.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JdeV]

A side note: The important is not only the image, but how one see it. A groundglass on a technical camera is one way. Or a panoramic viewfinder. The last can also be used on a DSLR. Seeing many stitched panoramas, frankly most do not have very good composition, because the photographer attempts to see the view in their mind.

This is not a side note, it's absolutely central. Most stitched panos are boring as all hell for the viewer, even if the photographer enjoyed making them. I'm sure a lot of this has to do with not having a satisfactory means of composition. A groundglass is unsurpassed for considered, deliberative work. (A series of Polaroids only makes things better but maybe I'm being too recherche).

[BernardLanguillier]

This is not a side note, it's absolutely central. Most stitched panos are boring as all hell for the viewer, even if the photographer enjoyed making them. I'm sure a lot of this has to do with not having a satisfactory means of composition. A groundglass is unsurpassed for considered, deliberative work. (A series of Polaroids only makes things better but maybe I'm being too recherche).

Why blame some particularities of a technique instead of the photographers who authored those many boring images?

I have a hard time believing that any talented photographer actually needs a groundglass to compose a good image.

Cheers,
Bernard

[cunim]

[quote name='Dick Roadnight' date='Apr 6 2010, 05:49 PM' post='358557']
I think you are talking about camera movements, rather than moving the camera?

Yes - but I am trying to do stitching with tilt or swing movements.

Someone did post a picture involving moving the camera - the photo was of the building along a river or estuary in Scandinavia somewhere.

Photogrammetry, I think it is called.  Once knew someone who did it along the entire hull of a sunken battleship.  

...are you contemplating rectilinear stitching? ... you are looking at a rectangular building, and you want it to look rectangular on the print?

...or are you wanting perspective in the print of a rectangular object?

Not usually rectangular, more cigar shaped with thingies sprouting out.  Aircraft.  Yes, perspective is the big issue.

I just read Simmons and Stroebel and was feeling quite proud of myself.  Then I checked out your Merklinger reference.  Aaargh - complicated.  His tutorial is rather neat, though.

[Anders_HK]

Anders,

I guess that the difference between you and me is that I did try both a lot and selected the technique that delivered the best results.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

Kindly stop. What you are posting is along lines with

1. Wrong and false interpretations to drag me deeper and deeper into an argument. As I have stated in above I have done round stitching. I did not like it. I found it severe inferior to flat stitching, in particular for short lenses. While I like the methodology of flat stitching on a viewcamera, it is too time consuming both in setup and in zeroing tilts and swings. Instead I feel the solution is a technical camera simply because lens plane and sensor planes remain perfect parallel.

2. I find your posts beginning with the likes of offending and dragging me into argument

"Thanks for sharing your results on this. I am almost tempted to write "I told you". One more step and you will recognize the superiority of spherical stitching."

"Could you please point at evidences supporting your statement above? They are not backed up by either experience or mathematical theory."

and in the recent thread on low ISO "Have you used a d3x since we last discussed this? At that time you had not if my memory serves me well." albeit I there really tried very hard and long to write something diplomatic in return.

In frankness, your replies in line with above and over the years, indeed are same as some select others in the crowd on LL who seemingly seem to seek to justify that their "little thing" is being greater and better to whatever someone else write of THEIR experience and learnings with something that frank is superior in results. In fact it reminds me of a post Jack Fletcher made a few months back to another member Ray in line with how he had observed his behavior of dragging people into argument deeper and deeper to justify and prove that the method or gear they use is better than his, and which in end he always failed to accept. That feels psychotic. Please stop.

This forum is a tremendous resource. While I honest have impression that rotational stitching is pure crap compared to flat stitching, I have tried to be diplomatic not to state so, simply because I recognize that people can have different opinion. Instead I have tried my best to be fair and simply point at options and some pros and cons for people to form their own opinion.

It is a pleasure of informing of things we learnt as photographers, but that is a heck alot more than the round stitching and D3X that you have written so much to justify in posts of all kinds over the last two years. All across this forum it seems that the mere mentioning of "sensitive" things such as viewcamera/panoramic should be argued by certain folks for the "pros" for round stitching, film should be argued for that digital is superior (also when in my case I shoot both and like both), MFDB should be argued DSLR instead... now come on Bernard and others, this is complete B.S. nonsense and silly. Fine, in my case I use a quality digital back and shoot exclusive low ISO, thus why should I waste my time and go out try a D3X which is severe inferior for MY use?? Or... in this thread, why should I waste my time and go out and try more round stitching when I see it is a crap compared to flat stitching?? With flat stitch 2-3 shots only. Heck, 617 is truly a pure breeze, ONE SHOT, finished.  

Regards
Anders

[Anders_HK]

This is not a side note, it's absolutely central. Most stitched panos are boring as all hell for the viewer, even if the photographer enjoyed making them. I'm sure a lot of this has to do with not having a satisfactory means of composition. A groundglass is unsurpassed for considered, deliberative work. (A series of Polaroids only makes things better but maybe I'm being too recherche).

Agreed, very exactly.

But... was trying avoid...  you know what...

. . .


Photography is about SEEING. Not having the tool to accurately compose an image is like a painter painting in the air, versus one painting in a set frame. Then... who have best chance to arrive at good composition???  

Regards
Anders

[JonathanBenoit]

It's all about showing something unique and real. Distorted panos that show nothing are pointless even if they  take a lot of work.

Check out T.C. Wohlbruck's panographs from early 1900's .. if you can create something with as much character, than you know you are creating something special.

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,

Kindly stop. What you are posting is along lines with

1. Wrong and false interpretations to drag me deeper and deeper into an argument. As I have stated in above I have done round stitching. I did not like it. I found it severe inferior to flat stitching, in particular for short lenses. While I like the methodology of flat stitching on a viewcamera, it is too time consuming both in setup and in zeroing tilts and swings. Instead I feel the solution is a technical camera simply because lens plane and sensor planes remain perfect parallel.

2. I find your posts beginning with the likes of offending and dragging me into argument

"Thanks for sharing your results on this. I am almost tempted to write "I told you". One more step and you will recognize the superiority of spherical stitching."

"Could you please point at evidences supporting your statement above? They are not backed up by either experience or mathematical theory."

and in the recent thread on low ISO "Have you used a d3x since we last discussed this? At that time you had not if my memory serves me well." albeit I there really tried very hard and long to write something diplomatic in return.

In frankness, your replies in line with above and over the years, indeed are same as some select others in the crowd on LL who seemingly seem to seek to justify that their "little thing" is being greater and better to whatever someone else write of THEIR experience and learnings with something that frank is superior in results. In fact it reminds me of a post Jack Fletcher made a few months back to another member Ray in line with how he had observed his behavior of dragging people into argument deeper and deeper to justify and prove that the method or gear they use is better than his, and which in end he always failed to accept. That feels psychotic. Please stop.

This forum is a tremendous resource. While I honest have impression that rotational stitching is pure crap compared to flat stitching, I have tried to be diplomatic not to state so, simply because I recognize that people can have different opinion. Instead I have tried my best to be fair and simply point at options and some pros and cons for people to form their own opinion.

It is a pleasure of informing of things we learnt as photographers, but that is a heck alot more than the round stitching and D3X that you have written so much to justify in posts of all kinds over the last two years. All across this forum it seems that the mere mentioning of "sensitive" things such as viewcamera/panoramic should be argued by certain folks for the "pros" for round stitching, film should be argued for that digital is superior (also when in my case I shoot both and like both), MFDB should be argued DSLR instead... now come on Bernard and others, this is complete B.S. nonsense and silly. Fine, in my case I use a quality digital back and shoot exclusive low ISO, thus why should I waste my time and go out try a D3X which is severe inferior for MY use?? Or... in this thread, why should I waste my time and go out and try more round stitching when I see it is a crap compared to flat stitching?? With flat stitch 2-3 shots only. Heck, 617 is truly a pure breeze, ONE SHOT, finished.  

Anders,

I appreciate your attempt to be fair, but basing your advise on facts instead of opinions would help the original poster more. I am just reacting to emotional and innacurate information. You don't need to be diplomatic, please just try to be rigorous in your statements since you are trying to help.

My final comment will be about facts:

- It is impossible to distinguish a stitch planar projection from a single image captured with a wide angle lens as long as the angular coverage is the same,
- Those cases where cylindrical panos exhibit geometric distorsions like curved lines correspond to cases where a single lens would not be able to reach the same angular coverage (with or without flat stitching). If this is a problem then just stick to reasonnable angular coverage by using a long enough lens, it will at worst limit you to what you could have done with a single lens, but with much higher resolutions if needed,
- Cylindrical stitching can be done without having to care about the accuracy of the positioning between sensor and lens since the camera itself (including sensor and lens) is moved. It can therefore be executed fast which extends considerably the range of applications that can be handled with cylindrical stitching (),
- The equipment needed to do cylindrical stitching is indendant from the camera used. It is therefore a long term investement that is flexible,
- Cylindrical stitching can be done with whatever camera, regardless of its sensor size and I know more than a few people doing it with MFDB. I am not sure why you comment about the D3x in this thread.

About the D3x, the only thing I did in that other thread was to ask you whether you had actually used a camera you were commenting negatively about. Here again, I don't need your diplomacy, just the honnesty of sticking to what you know from first hand experience.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Agreed, very exactly.

Photography is about SEEING. Not having the tool to accurately compose an image is like a painter painting in the air, versus one painting in a set frame. Then... who have best chance to arrive at good composition???  

Anders,

I used to play indoor soccer and once injured the ligaments of my right knee. Because of that it can get painful after 6 or 7 hours walk when the elevation difference is more than 1000m downwards. That is my own issue and limitation. I have never consider telling people around me that they should pick their hiking trails so as to avoid walking more than 1000m downwards, nor that buying knee support is a must when hiking.

You are unable to compose without a viewfinder. Fine. That is not biggie and there are ways around this. There might or might not be many photographers like you. I don't know of any stats covering this aspect of human activity.

Now... why do you feel that you have to advise the world not to consider some shooting techniques because you own inabilities are a poor match with their characteristics?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Why blame some particularities of a technique instead of the photographers who authored those many boring images?

I have a hard time believing that any talented photographer actually needs a groundglass to compose a good image.

I agree. Heck, I don't even need a camera to see if a useful composition is present and the light(ing) is adequate, even before I take my camera out of the bag and fit the lens that I suspect will suit the job best. Perhaps some people need more help, could be. One of the great things about stitching is that we are no longer restricted by the default aspect ratio of the image format. We don't crop to adjust but we can add to adjust (or we can conform to a desired output format).

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No DSLR or other camera with an anti-aliasing filter approaches the "per pixel" quality of any medium format digital back, let alone the best modern ones, but, you could use your technique with a top quality camera.

I know your technique works, and you have photos to prove it, but for ultimate image quality, and correct perspective, one needs to flat stitch with a MFDB and a quality lens.

This is because the stitching software has to distort and re-sample the image, and this can only degrade the image, causing loss of resolution.

I am aware that the better stitching programs do a good job, and the loss of resolution is minimal, and would be difficult to see or quantify in a high-res image.

Hi Dick,

IMHO there is not a single best solution for all circumstances, it depends on those circumstances. I just want to mention some considerations.

Flat stitching quality depends on the quality of the edges of the image circle. Therefore image quality is not as good across the image, unless one closes down the aperture enough so that the center suffers a bit from difraction and the edges improve due to reduced residual aberrations, and everything evens out a bit. Flat stitching does allow for simple postprocessing.

Rotating the camera through it's no-parallax point always uses the optically best part of the lens' image circle, and with some overlap even the edges are not used at all, so lens (edge) quality becomes less important (as long as it's good in the center). Your argument about resolution loss due to resampling only, and I repeat only, applies to those areas where it leads to interpolation in the sense of stretching the data beyond its sampling density. This is usually only the case where an extreme angle of view is chosen that probably would exceed the FOV of a single lens. Besides, shooting panorama tiles with a slightly longer focal length will even compensate for that, delivering superior resolution which usually requires downsampling rather than upsampling. It's just a bit more work/time to composite the full image, although as a bonus it automatically corrects for lens distortions and slight keystoning errors.

There's a place for both techniques, although I rotate more than I do flat stitching but that's probably due to the freedom in resolution and aspect ratio.

Cheers,
Bart

[Dick Roadnight]

Hi Dick,

IMHO there is not a single best solution for all circumstances, it depends on those circumstances. I just want to mention some considerations.

Flat stitching quality depends on the quality of the edges of the image circle. Therefore image quality is not as good across the image, unless one closes down the aperture enough so that the center suffers a bit from difraction and the edges improve due to reduced residual aberrations, and everything evens out a bit. Flat stitching does allow for simple postprocessing.

Rotating the camera through it's no-parallax point always uses the optically best part of the lens' image circle, and with some overlap even the edges are not used at all, so lens (edge) quality becomes less important (as long as it's good in the center).

...Besides, shooting panorama tiles with a slightly longer focal length will even compensate for that, delivering superior resolution which usually requires downsampling rather than upsampling. It's just a bit more work/time to composite the full image, although as a bonus it automatically corrects for lens distortions and slight keystoning errors.

There's a place for both techniques, although I rotate more than I do flat stitching but that's probably due to the freedom in resolution and aspect ratio.

Cheers,
Bart

Apart from the bit I edited out about resolution loss due to re-sampling, I agree with everything you say.

Bernard says he can, using 9 shots with a 100mm produce a photo indistinguishable from a pic taken with a 24 mm lens on the same camera, but I would have expected that, using a 100mm lens on a D3X, one could produce a picture comparable to what you could produce with a P65+ and a wide angle with a single shot... but, I have a MFDSLR and a wide angle, so I would not bother, except for cylinder panos for very wide FOV.

I have a Schneider Super Angulon 47XL, which I hope I could use for FOVs up to about 100 degrees with shift and stitch... until I get one of those £5K digi UWAs.

[Alan W George]

All my work for the last 3 to 4 years has been stitching (alan-george.com if interested).  I just recently switched from nodal point stitching with RRS and 5DII to single image circle stitching with a Cambo RS and PhaseOne P40+.  For me the biggest difference is the pixel quality of the P40+ surpasses the 5DII by quite a bit.  At 100% the 5DII (and other 35mm DSLRs) are always a bit fuzzy no matter how I attempt to sharpen them, but the P40+ with the digital lens at 100% are stunning.  Blow me away.  This translates for me into much larger prints.

[JdeV]

All my work for the last 3 to 4 years has been stitching (alan-george.com if interested).  I just recently switched from nodal point stitching with RRS and 5DII to single image circle stitching with a Cambo RS and PhaseOne P40+.  For me the biggest difference is the pixel quality of the P40+ surpasses the 5DII by quite a bit.  At 100% the 5DII (and other 35mm DSLRs) are always a bit fuzzy no matter how I attempt to sharpen them, but the P40+ with the digital lens at 100% are stunning.  Blow me away.  This translates for me into much larger prints.

Possibly the first time I've gone to a photographer's site from a forum link and actually liked some of the stuff there.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My view is that excellent results can be achieved by both means.

We have excellent programs that can generate rotational panoramas with great ease. Rotational panoramas can be made with any gear and at great ease. I have shot rotational panoramas with both 12 and 560 mm on DSLRs.

In my view it's not necessarily the case that shift panoramas would be advantageous to rotational panoramas. On the other hand, shifted panoramas are made in camera while rotational panoramas are made in the computer. When I shoot rotational panoramas I always assume that cropping would be included. Very simple gear, like this:

[attachment=21381:Screen_s...00.21_PM.png]

Can achieve excellent results with programs like Autopano Pro (using Smart Blend)

It's like the old proverb, "F/8 and be there".

Best regards
Erik

Hi guys,

I just have a little theoretical question about stitching with a view camera ... Can one easily combine normal stitching by shifting and nodal point stitching with a nodal point adapter in order to get really gigantic panoramas? Or are there any caveats?

One main advantage of using view cameras is to my understanding the capability of easy, seamless stitching by way of shifting the digital back.  Coming from 35mm though, I read a lot about panoramic heads - such as the one from manfrotto - as another viable way of creating huge panoramas.

My thought now is to combine these two methods. I.e. by combining multiple 2 x 2 shifted images that were sequentially created side by side with the help of the panoramic head.

Is there anywhere a list where I can see the nodal points of the Rodenstock/Schneider lenses?

Kind regards

Paul

[ErikKaffehr]

Anders,

I'd say that Bernard has definitively a point when he say that excellent results can be achieved with standard equipment, like normal DSLRs. Now, the equipment that Bernard is using is not plain vanilla DSLR but top of the class Nikon equipment. Never the less, making the best use of what we have is generally a very good idea. It is quite obvious that equipment built for a set condition has some benefits over more generic equipment. On the other hand, the option that Bernard advocates, that is to use generic equipment in a flexible way also have a lot of advantages.

In a way, I would say that the person behind the lens is still the most important factor. In the digital era much of the image making moved in the light room, in the analogue time it used to be the dark room. Ansel Adams, who is often mentioned in this context, had a very scientific approach to image making. What he achieved by using advanced science and art in the chemical dark room is much more achievable in the software based "Light room".

Our hobby is a bit fixed on technology. Bernard say essentially: "You can do it with a DSLR", in my view it is a good piece of information. He doesn't really says that you cannot do it better with an MFDB.

Best regards
Erik

Bernard,

Kindly stop. What you are posting is along lines with

1. Wrong and false interpretations to drag me deeper and deeper into an argument. As I have stated in above I have done round stitching. I did not like it. I found it severe inferior to flat stitching, in particular for short lenses. While I like the methodology of flat stitching on a viewcamera, it is too time consuming both in setup and in zeroing tilts and swings. Instead I feel the solution is a technical camera simply because lens plane and sensor planes remain perfect parallel.

2. I find your posts beginning with the likes of offending and dragging me into argument

"Thanks for sharing your results on this. I am almost tempted to write "I told you". One more step and you will recognize the superiority of spherical stitching."

"Could you please point at evidences supporting your statement above? They are not backed up by either experience or mathematical theory."

and in the recent thread on low ISO "Have you used a d3x since we last discussed this? At that time you had not if my memory serves me well." albeit I there really tried very hard and long to write something diplomatic in return.

In frankness, your replies in line with above and over the years, indeed are same as some select others in the crowd on LL who seemingly seem to seek to justify that their "little thing" is being greater and better to whatever someone else write of THEIR experience and learnings with something that frank is superior in results. In fact it reminds me of a post Jack Fletcher made a few months back to another member Ray in line with how he had observed his behavior of dragging people into argument deeper and deeper to justify and prove that the method or gear they use is better than his, and which in end he always failed to accept. That feels psychotic. Please stop.

This forum is a tremendous resource. While I honest have impression that rotational stitching is pure crap compared to flat stitching, I have tried to be diplomatic not to state so, simply because I recognize that people can have different opinion. Instead I have tried my best to be fair and simply point at options and some pros and cons for people to form their own opinion.

It is a pleasure of informing of things we learnt as photographers, but that is a heck alot more than the round stitching and D3X that you have written so much to justify in posts of all kinds over the last two years. All across this forum it seems that the mere mentioning of "sensitive" things such as viewcamera/panoramic should be argued by certain folks for the "pros" for round stitching, film should be argued for that digital is superior (also when in my case I shoot both and like both), MFDB should be argued DSLR instead... now come on Bernard and others, this is complete B.S. nonsense and silly. Fine, in my case I use a quality digital back and shoot exclusive low ISO, thus why should I waste my time and go out try a D3X which is severe inferior for MY use?? Or... in this thread, why should I waste my time and go out and try more round stitching when I see it is a crap compared to flat stitching?? With flat stitch 2-3 shots only. Heck, 617 is truly a pure breeze, ONE SHOT, finished.  

Regards
Anders

[PaulSchneider]

Hey guys!

Thy for all chiming in ... can't wait to get my MFDB to try stitching out ...

Just saw this: http://gigapansystems.com/gigapan-products...oduct-page.html

Anyone thinking of trying one of these gigapan-machines out with a  MFD-camera?

Regards

Paul

[Dick Roadnight]

Hey guys!

Thy for all chiming in ... can't wait to get my MFDB to try stitching out ...

Just saw this: http://gigapansystems.com/gigapan-products...oduct-page.html

Anyone thinking of trying one of these gigapan-machines out with a  MFD-camera?

Regards

Paul

Could be very useful, when they support the H4D. (Cheap substitute for a Hex-stitch back, which, with a 60 Mpx sensor, would be high enough res for most jobs.)

These systems are obviously limited by the lens, and if the lens/sensor will not resolve bricks at 1km, then the system will not.

...but a D3X with a good lens might produce as good a result ... and taking ¿3 or 10? times as many pictures would not be a problem if it was fully robotic/automatic.

If everybody asks them when they are going to support the H4D, they might move it up the list.

The "trouble" with this is that it will allow anyone to produce very high res, high quality panos without spending mega-bucks, and without specialist knowledge.

Re-edit... most of the pictures are awful (due to variations in light between the exposures) so it seems that it does need luck, or a good day, or specialist skill to produce a good picture. ...it would be nice to have a system which automatically adjusts the colour temperature for individual exposures, but I think that would be impossible with a gray card in each picture!

Using a higher res camera (e.g. H4D-60) would reduce the total time for the stitch, making it easier to get the light the same, and, as there would be fewer pictures, it would be easier to adjust them for consistent colour.