Holiday Pics 2006...

Hi Ali!
Very nice pics!
Remind me when it's snow time here!
70/100 cm last time and no way to reach the main roads.
A good reason to stay home and keep warm!

quote:

If you like using stitching programmes, use them, but in the long term you'd be better off learning how to fully manipulate images in Photoshop.

Certainly the tricky bit is matching the exact color/exposure rendition at the boundary of individual images when using stitching programs so they are not perfect. This can of course be fixed by photoshop but the nice thing that stitching programs do is an approximate parallax correction which tricks the eye well enough.
The stitched picture of the Roman Colliseum illustrates what happens without any parallax tricks beinging played.

I am not suggesting anything is perfect but visually until you put them to close scrutiny software stitched photos do well enough as memories.

I used the Canon version BTW for the shots published on this thread, which I know have varying degress of join effects visible.

regards
geoff

quote:

the tricky bit is matching the exact color/exposure rendition at the boundary of individual

That's the tricky bit? Right.

This forum never changes. Why do people here, insist on stating their opinions when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

For your information, Photoshop can twist, pull, disort, call it whatever you want. It can distort an image to whatever shape you choose.

The Colliseum image doesn't have any parallax problems. The Colliseum is a 360 degree subject and the horizontals give that impression.

Ah Count so knowledgable, so expert. You will just have to ignore us dabblers if we annoy you.

The kids have sent us this. Yesterdays view of Les Arcs.

View of the slopes.

quote:

Ah Count so knowledgable, so expert. You will just have to ignore us dabblers if we annoy you

My point had nothing to do with me being knowledgable or annoyed by people who know very little about a subject. It's about poorly informed people, who arrogantly state their opinion. Perhaps you should ask and not tell.

People with egos. It only happens here and has ultimately led to this forum's demise.

Yosemite Upper Falls in February - now that was a b***** to get to the top of:

quote:

Perhaps you should ask and not tell.

...

quote:

There is no programme that will enable stitching to be done successfully.

Is this asking or telling?

Christ Geoff, you're thick.

in good company then

Don't worry, Geoff, I have seen you pictures, and they look rather fine to me! I do joints with a Stanley knife, card and glue, which works well, but is hardly state of the art, I suppose.

Then I scan the resultant work and tidy it up, one pixel at a time, with paintshop. That really is a fantastic way to do it if the picture is important, but very tiring on the eyes!

Like Mannuel, I kna' nathin!

All the best from Fredrik

count.d

Let me apologise for daring to have an opinion and for you having to suffer the fools in this forum....it must be hard knowing everything.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by count.d:

quote:

the tricky bit is matching the exact color/exposure rendition at the boundary of individual

That's the tricky bit? Right.

This forum never changes. Why do people here, insist on stating their opinions when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

For your information, Photoshop can twist, pull, disort, call it whatever you want. It can distort an image to whatever shape you choose.

Why distort somthing in photoshop when you can use the right tool in the first place so that you don't have to? If PS was so good it would be the death of shift lenses the world over, except that the loss of resolution you would get from using photoshop to do so is quite serious.

quote:

The Colliseum image doesn't have any parallax problems. The Colliseum is a 360 degree subject and the horizontals give that impression.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Geoff. Comparing your stitched pic with the 24mm one, the stitched one looks as if it has been squeezed in the middle. The edges also don't look natural.

It has a Noblex, swings-lens look about it where subjects closer to the camera are exaggerated compared to subjects further back. The effect has been made worse by your camera pointing slightly downwards at the time. Notice how the front of the circular section in the middle has been "pulled" towards the bottom of the frame. This is classic swing lens distortion, a clear sign of parallax problems.

If you had used a rectilinear wide format camera such as a 617 or 624, the perspective would be the same as the 24mm shot. The perspective would also be the same if you had eliminated parallax at the point of taking the sequence of pictures. This point has nothing to do with me being knowledgable or annoyed by people who know very little about a subject. It's about poorly informed people, who arrogantly state their opinion, when in fact, what I just stated is actually the case.

:P

Geoff, what you need to do to eliminate/reduce parallax errors is to fix your focus, then reposition your camera around the nodal point of the lens (every time you refocus the nodal point changes, so do it once only) - best to use a tripod with the necessary tools to pull your camera back from its normal mounted position. You also need the same exposure settings. As I mentioned in another thread, www.reallyrightstuff.com has some good information on the subject and just about every tool you need to get the job done properly. Of course, some subjects are more prone to noticing obvious problems, you can usually get away without such gear for sweeping landscapes such as the ones you already posted.

Ok guys, it's my thread (I started it) and I don't want any more count.d bashing or in-fighting any more!!

This was meant to be a happy thread where you could share memories/experiences through the medium of photography....of ANY description OR quality!!

On a side note.... andrew-hemsley - welcome to the forum (he's a new member for fucks sake guys, what sort of example are we setting for him!!) That's a really dramatic shot you've taken there, nice one!


Here's one I made earlier....following on from the whole winter weather and being delayed on-shore situation.... When we finally made it to work it was still pretty wild, about a foot of snow was dumped through the night and I couldn't resist.....

He's five foot ten (seriously, he was!) has a warm personality (for a snowman), likes making snow angels, he has a nice smile and good sense of humour. He's seeking a similarly inclined snowwoman, to share cosy nights out in the cold, make snow angels with and he's willing to travel......although that may be difficult because he'll need to move so the helicopter can land....seeing as we built him up on the helideck!!



Sorry for the quality, the pic was pulled from the vid cam we have on the helideck, oh, and that's a fire extinguisher covered in snow in the foreground in case you're wondering....

Just thought I'd try and lighten things up on this thread......

Cheers,
Ali

Idunno, I really don't. Forum killers.

If you like to have your ego squashed, you've come to the right place. Let's look at your childish outburst.

quote:

Why distort somthing in photoshop when you can use the right tool in the first place so that you don't have to?

All "wideangle" images are distorted. Photoshop is a tool, like your lens.

quote:

If PS was so good it would be the death of shift lenses the world over, except that the loss of resolution you would get from using photoshop to do so is quite serious.

Photoshop is that good. It is limitless. Every pixel can be manipulated to go anywhere you wish. I've already told you, did you no read my previous post.
"shift" lenses? Haven't you used a 5x4 camera? As soon as the lens is off centre, the light falloff and distortion increases dramatically.

quote:

Sorry, but I have to agree with Geoff. Comparing your stitched pic with the 24mm one, the stitched one looks as if it has been squeezed in the middle.

The stitched one uses the 24mm as the centre and so, has not been squeezed. Try cropping it.

quote:

The edges also don't look natural.

If you care to take a close look, the people either side are looking out into the shot. The panorama is approx 150 degrees angle. The edges will never look completely "natural" (whatever that means). I know some of you anoraks look like Kameleons, but I don't think you'll see 150 degrees without moving your eyes.

quote:

It has a Noblex, swings-lens look about it where subjects closer to the camera are exaggerated compared to subjects further back.

You call that perspective. Try looking at a tree in the distance. Now place your hand in front of your face. Which is bigger? Now smack your hand across your face.

quote:

Notice how the front of the circular section in the middle has been "pulled" towards the bottom of the frame. This is classic swing lens distortion, a clear sign of parallax problems.

Ahh yes, the classic swing lens distortion thingy, hahahahahahaha.

quote:

If you had used a rectilinear wide format camera such as a 617 or 624, the perspective would be the same as the 24mm shot

617, 624, 5x4, 12x6, 35mm, 6x6????????? What on earth are you twittering on about? What lens? What crop? What image size and at what digital resolution? Do you not understand that in photography, one is just playing with an image circle. I don't think you do. Have a long think.

quote:

The perspective would also be the same if you had eliminated parallax at the point of taking the sequence of pictures

Have a long think. (Hint: crop, sky, centre, 360 degrees, image circle, jumpers for goalposts and previous information)

It's embarassing that poorly educated people feel the need to challenge experts. For example, Rod talks about wine on this forum and I honestly cringe at some of the comments he receives. People are actually rude to him. He obviously has a huge and indepth knowledge of wine and everything he writes here, will only be a very small percent of what he knows. So learn from him!

Accept my apology for typing errors. I'm not proof reading this lot.

quote:

Originally posted by arf005:
Ok guys, it's my thread (I started it) and I don't want any more count.d bashing or in-fighting any more!!

Ali

Sorry dude, I humbly apologise. Just for you, no more Count bashing here even if he richly deserves it.

quote:

Sorry dude, I humbly apologise. Just for you, no more Count bashing here even if he richly deserves it.

Yeah yeah yeah, cut the "I'm your pal, Ali" crap. The usual weak person's "seek out help when in trouble" solution.

Refer to my previous post, if you want to write something. If you can.

Here's a test for you. I found this out 22 years ago when I was 18, by myself.

Question: On B&W film, you photograph the same subject with same lighting four times. Once with no filter, once through Kodak Wratten No.61, once through No.29 and once through No.47b. These, as you should know, are the three primary colour filters.

Do you notice anything? If so, which colour? Why? What does that tell you about the lens?

The answer is nothing about the way colours appear and you won't find anything from your usual shit sites.

I look forward to your answer and maybe you could post some pictures you've taken.

OK, fuck it - bash away folks......

Hehe

quote:

Originally posted by count.d:


Here's a test for you. I found this out 22 years ago when I was 18, by myself.

Who's a clever boy then?

Me, I've told everyone already. Don't you read?

quote:

Originally posted by count.d:
Me, I've told everyone already. Don't you read?

quote:

Originally posted by Cherry Garth:

quote:

Originally posted by count.d:
Me, I've told everyone already. Don't you read?

For goodness sake, don't encourage him!!
Although there is a chink of a sense of humour in there somewhere.......

Ali,

My partner is of half Asian descent and I find that remark racist. This thread should be pulled (as soon as idunno has completed the school kid's trial)

Well count.d, it was not meant in that context! Chink as in a chink of armour....
If it offends you then I apologies. Feel free to report the thread as offensive, after idunno has completed your task.....

My mother is Chinese, born and raised in Malaysia, so I am half Chinese half Scottish (best of both worlds) and yes, I would find that word offensive too if it was meant in the way you have perceived it.....