Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
On 23 Sep 2004 at 20:44, David Mann wrote: On Sep 22, 2004, at 9:27 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: The optimum set-up would have the mount rotating about the lenses nodal point but it's far less of a problem if there isn't a mix of near/far subject matter. I seem to recall a Manfrotto tripod head that was built specifically for shooting Quicktime VR, which does exactly that. Yes there was the 302 and 302Plus (for single row panos) then of late the 303QTVR which is configures for multi-row panos but they are all heavy beasts are that are virtually a concoction of other Manfrotto base components. I had a Kiwi+ head from Kaidan a few years back but it wasn't very sturdy and could only really be set up for a single lens/camera combo easily. I haven't looked about at what's available of late but there must be better stuff out there, if not it's a looming untapped market. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
My point exactly. Thank you Mr. Robb for putting it in words better than I. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Are you shooting moderate apertures and near subjects? Infinity subjects and small apertures will hide the curved field issue... Bingo. John finally gets it. The nice thing is, because the format is so small, infinity happens a lot sooner. And one more thing, what one is doing, in reality, is trading one form of distortion for another. Haven't you ever seen how wonky things go with a really wide angle lens? Its quite likely that the stitched shot will have less apparent distortion than one shot with a single exposure on a super wide lens. William Robb
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Not only that, but there is sofware than can and does compensate for this. Take a look at the software I mentioned before, PTAssembler. It is a user friendly interface on top of another tool that does the real stitching and distortion compensation. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: John Munro Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching The section which states, ... the shooting technique results in a plane of focus of a sphere instead of a plane. baffles me - how can there be a spherical plane of focus of a plane? I assume the plane being talked about is a two-dimensional film plane, am I mistaken? When you rotate the camera and lens, the plane of focus follows that curve, hence becoming spherical. Semi spherical, I suppose, since you will only have so much of the sphere in the picture (unless you do 360° panoramics). Technically speaking, the plane of focus will be a mess, since most lenses aren't flat field anyway, so what you will have is a semi spherical plane of focus, broken down into a number of curved field focus planes. By stopping down to normal shooting apertures though, this becomes irrelevant, since any focus wonks will fall within depth of field. Add to that, there is no reason why each individual image cannot be refocussed (they should stay in scale, close enough for landscapes, anyway), thereby negating any focus problems that may, theroetically, crop up. Photograph William Robby is about taking pictures, and doing a little experimentation to see what works. I've had more than a few discussions about things that I know damn well will work, because I have done it, with theoretical photographers who won't take a picture because it is technically unfeasable. William Robb
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Larry Hodgson Subject: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Hello all, Here is a link to a small version of an image I recently made by stitching 5 images together to make this panorama. http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/8854797/Large That seemed to work quite well. Is it alright if I hate you just a little for having close access to places like this? William Robb Oh, go ahead hate him a lot. I do. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
You do not seem to understand the subject. If the curved or spherical field causes focus errors with the subject you CANNOT correct it afterwards with software. Geometry may be corrected afterwards with software if it is linear but not focus issues. JCO -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Not only that, but there is sofware than can and does compensate for this. Take a look at the software I mentioned before, PTAssembler. It is a user friendly interface on top of another tool that does the real stitching and distortion compensation. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: John Munro Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching The section which states, ... the shooting technique results in a plane of focus of a sphere instead of a plane. baffles me - how can there be a spherical plane of focus of a plane? I assume the plane being talked about is a two-dimensional film plane, am I mistaken? When you rotate the camera and lens, the plane of focus follows that curve, hence becoming spherical. Semi spherical, I suppose, since you will only have so much of the sphere in the picture (unless you do 360° panoramics). Technically speaking, the plane of focus will be a mess, since most lenses aren't flat field anyway, so what you will have is a semi spherical plane of focus, broken down into a number of curved field focus planes. By stopping down to normal shooting apertures though, this becomes irrelevant, since any focus wonks will fall within depth of field. Add to that, there is no reason why each individual image cannot be refocussed (they should stay in scale, close enough for landscapes, anyway), thereby negating any focus problems that may, theroetically, crop up. Photograph William Robby is about taking pictures, and doing a little experimentation to see what works. I've had more than a few discussions about things that I know damn well will work, because I have done it, with theoretical photographers who won't take a picture because it is technically unfeasable. William Robb
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Wrong wrong wrong. Good wide angles (and there are MANY more good wide angle LF lenses than 35mm lenses due to no need for retrofocus) do not do wonky things. If the final result is a flat print, you are going to get less distortion if you use a flat film/sensor than if you pan JCO -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching My point exactly. Thank you Mr. Robb for putting it in words better than I. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Are you shooting moderate apertures and near subjects? Infinity subjects and small apertures will hide the curved field issue... Bingo. John finally gets it. The nice thing is, because the format is so small, infinity happens a lot sooner. And one more thing, what one is doing, in reality, is trading one form of distortion for another. Haven't you ever seen how wonky things go with a really wide angle lens? Its quite likely that the stitched shot will have less apparent distortion than one shot with a single exposure on a super wide lens. William Robb
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
You cannot see the final composition before shooting with the pan and stitch technique. You CAN with a conventional camera technique. That is unequivably better feature. PERIOD. Why use an SLR if you do care about WSIWYG JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching He cant compose, he cant do fleeting moments, he cant do selective focus, he cant do forground background in focus because you need tilt for that,etc. etc. He is only shooting the tip of the iceberg so to speak. With very limited techniques you end up with very limited vision. Its better than nothing, but I do not buy into your BS that you don't need any of the above if you are on the west coast. That's just not credible. He did, however, come to the conclusion that for his shooting, digital stitching was a preferable method to using a view camera. Witness the fact that he is putting the stuff up for sale. BTW, saying a person can't compose a picture using digital image combining is total bullshit, and I am surprised that even you would come up with a statement that is so utterly stupid. If the technique doesn't work for you, thats fine. But why should someone else limit their approach to your lowest common denominator? William Robb
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
I have taken many that couldn't be done that way. I like seascapes. I wait till the boats are in right position for the shot and then fire a SNGLE exposure at the right moment. Impossible with pan and stitching for the large boats because they are moving objects but not moving fast enuff to be capture with LF. JCO -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22 Sep 2004 at 10:12, J. C. O'Connell wrote: PLANE OF FOCUS is not a geometry issue and cant be corrected in software. Even with the lens rotating on nodal point you are going get to a curved or spherical plane of focus with a shooting using a panning technique. Well then you better just notify everyone successfully using these techniques that it can't be done. :-) Exactly, I have seen many examples that would not be able to be duplicated in a single LF frame (the Gpixel example being one). And have yet to SEE an example of something taken in LF that could not be duplicated with this technique, if not at least closely aproximated. Some people will not be happy even if there is only a .1% chance that something might not be possible with a new technology. Half empty view if you ask me. It might be wise to accept that it's a new technique, it works and that it's opened up a lot of new photographic avenues to a whole bunch of photographers who wouldn't have dreamt of ever shooting LF. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching I have taken many that couldn't be done that way. I like seascapes. I wait till the boats are in right position for the shot and then fire a SNGLE exposure at the right moment. Impossible with pan and stitching for the large boats because they are moving objects but not moving fast enuff to be capture with LF. I don't think anyone has said digital stitching is the be all and end all or a total replacement for the large format. What people are objecting to is your obdurate insistance that the technique is flawed beyond usability when the facts are plain that it does work for many picture taking situations. I look back on all of my large format stuff, I suspect that well in excess of 2/3s could have been done via digital stitching (other than my rather dated love for black and white film and darkroom work getting in the way). William Robb
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
On 23 Sep 2004 at 14:34, J. C. O'Connell wrote: You obviously havent read my posts on the matter. The technique can work for some subjects of course, but it is limited to VERY static shots and long distance and/ or small apertures. That is only a small fraction of what is possible with LF photography. Why never dream of LF? What is the big deal in just using LF if you want high res images? Press photogs used 4x5 for all kinds of things including action handheld for over 30 years via speed graphics so it is well proven you can do much more than just static distance photography with LF. Hi John, it seems to me that you've not read or not understood my posts on the matter (please reading on before you reply). Try to think about this whole concept rationally, just because YOU have no problems purchasing and processing sheet film or carrying your gear to your favourite shooting locations doesn't mean everyone else is in the same position. I for one don't wish to kit up to process sheet film, also chemistry and film is getting harder to come by and expensive plus labs that can handle processing are quite expensive to deal with around here. I also would not like to be lugging LF gear up a bloody mountain, that's why I purchased my Mamiya 7 Kit, even the P67 was way over the top weight wise. For 95% of the subjects that I'd consider worthy of dedicating a sheet of 4x5 film to the stitching technique would work, for the other 5% my 67 gear will provide a worthy compromise. I'm keen to see how Larry fares with his new work- flow. I hope he sells hundreds of stitched prints at US$250 each but I don't think his purchasers with give a rats ass what he used to shoot the damned things with. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching You cannot see the final composition before shooting with the pan and stitch technique. You CAN with a conventional camera technique. That is unequivably better feature. PERIOD. Why use an SLR if you do care about Composition is about deciding what you want in the picture, and then making sure that it is in the picture. You can do it in one shot or many, it really makes no difference. The photographer is in full control of composing the image, no matter how many exposures it takes to get what he wants. Your feature has more to do with technique and philosophy than with taking pictures. Her's a hypothetical question for you: You are shooting with a view camera, and have every intention of scanning the film for printing (I know you do this routinely). Your vision of what you want cannot be done with the equipment available. What do you do? Do you walk away, satisfied that the picture you wanted to take is not possible? Or do you take a couple or more pictures, overlapping them enough to stitch them in Photoshop? Or, do you think about doing that, but decide that you can't compose a picture that way, and walk away, again, satisfied that the picture cannot be taken? William Robb
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
I would only pan and stitch if my lenses werent wide enough AND the subject permitted it. But I have some killer very wide LF lenses so I don't need to unless I wanted to do something radically wide like a 180 deg. panorama. But that is not what people are suggesting here. They are suggesting that small format pan and stitch can replace general purpose LF photography and I say it cant, simply for the very slow image capture the technique requires if nothing else. That is a huge hinderance. Exposure times that long date back to the 19th century... JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching You cannot see the final composition before shooting with the pan and stitch technique. You CAN with a conventional camera technique. That is unequivably better feature. PERIOD. Why use an SLR if you do care about Composition is about deciding what you want in the picture, and then making sure that it is in the picture. You can do it in one shot or many, it really makes no difference. The photographer is in full control of composing the image, no matter how many exposures it takes to get what he wants. Your feature has more to do with technique and philosophy than with taking pictures. Her's a hypothetical question for you: You are shooting with a view camera, and have every intention of scanning the film for printing (I know you do this routinely). Your vision of what you want cannot be done with the equipment available. What do you do? Do you walk away, satisfied that the picture you wanted to take is not possible? Or do you take a couple or more pictures, overlapping them enough to stitch them in Photoshop? Or, do you think about doing that, but decide that you can't compose a picture that way, and walk away, again, satisfied that the picture cannot be taken? William Robb
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:20:32 -0700, Larry Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, Here is a link to a small version of an image I recently madesnippage of techo-goop that just went completely over my head http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/8854797/Large I've not taken the time to read all 80 posts in this thread. I don't understand how you made it, or any of that fractal stuff you said, and I don't know if LF would have done it better or not. What I do know is that's one freaking cool photo!! Another winner, Larry from Prescott!! thanks for sharing, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Regarding architectual phots with a view camera, the standard method is to keep the film plane parallel to the building front, then NO distortion occurs and you don't need any tilts or swings which could introduce distortion because the entire front will fall into focus if the back is parallel. Gosh, I never knew that. WW
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
On 22 Sep 2004 at 0:47, John C. O'Connell wrote: If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved plane of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical plane of focus? Geometry can be treated a few ways in good stitching programs. The final print can be configured to provide a cylindrical view (true panoramic), rectilinear (under 180 degree V or H OAV) but ultra wide shots start looking strange and spherical projection for display in VR applications. The optimum set-up would have the mount rotating about the lenses nodal point but it's far less of a problem if there isn't a mix of near/far subject matter. Good info can be read at: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/ http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/oxfordtour/stitchingtest/update.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
this is all taken care of in the right software. reprojection isn't hard if you know the lens FOV. most software assume a distortion free lens, but most programs can correct for symmetrical barrel or pincushion distortion and vignetting too. doing it in Photoshop assumes that you are using a lens near normal FOV or longer. stitching images taken with very wide angle lenses requires compensating for the lens FOV. Herb - Original Message - From: John C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 12:47 AM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved plane of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical plane of focus? I would think this could be masked with small apertures to gain depth of field, but what about geometry? I don't see how you could do architecture via stitching. Another thing, in order to get correct geometric projection, wouldn't you need to mount the camera such that the panning axis is at the nodal point of the lens instead of the usual tripod mount which is further back near the focal plane?
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Thats excellent work Larry. Perfect subject for this technique. Do you use a pano head tripod or just wing it? Also, do you use the PTAssembler software that was used by someone to stitch the gigapixel image? I've heard its really good and am tempted to get it. rg Larry Hodgson wrote: Hello all, Here is a link to a small version of an image I recently made by stitching 5 images together to make this panorama. I have upsized this image to 18128x5100 pixels. I will print this image this coming weekend on my new Epson 4000. Should have it by this Friday. I am going to print it at 17high by 60 wide. That works out to be 300 ppi. Now I know you cannot see what it will look like so you'll have to trust me. I will report what it looks like in terms of sharpness, color and overall impact from a normal viewing distance one would experience in a gallery. I have done a lot of processing on this image to get it to this point.This includes stitching, healing brush, color enhancement, noise reduction twice, sharpening and upsizing using Genuine Fractals. The final image is 277 MB at 8 bit color depth. The original 5 images were from my *istD using FA 28 and RAW. I carefully converted with CS RAW in 16 bits and converted to 8 bits while stitching. This has been a fun project and I am very excited to see the final results printed very large. Comments welcome. Larry from Prescott http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/8854797/Large
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Yes, you do have to compensate if taking geometry into account. This fellow did it like I mentioned before, this is an extreme example: http://tinyurl.com/6zmnj He has many other images in his gallery that are very impressive. rg John C. O'Connell wrote: If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved plane of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical plane of focus? I would think this could be masked with small apertures to gain depth of field, but what about geometry? I don't see how you could do architecture via stitching. Another thing, in order to get correct geometric projection, wouldn't you need to mount the camera such that the panning axis is at the nodal point of the lens instead of the usual tripod mount which is further back near the focal plane? JCO
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
On 22 Sep 2004 at 10:12, J. C. O'Connell wrote: PLANE OF FOCUS is not a geometry issue and cant be corrected in software. Even with the lens rotating on nodal point you are going get to a curved or spherical plane of focus with a shooting using a panning technique. Well then you better just notify everyone successfully using these techniques that it can't be done. :-) It might be wise to accept that it's a new technique, it works and that it's opened up a lot of new photographic avenues to a whole bunch of photographers who wouldn't have dreamt of ever shooting LF. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching PLANE OF FOCUS is not a geometry issue and cant be corrected in software. Even with the lens rotating on nodal point you are going get to a curved or spherical plane of focus with a shooting using a panning technique. For the life of me, I can't see what the problem with this is. A lot of lenses have a curved plane of focus and they seem to work just fine. William Robb
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
if the subject is a plane and the capture is a cylinder or sphere you wont be able to achieve subject in critical focus. The only way would be to stop way down which be okay if that is what you want but it would never allow for selective focus technique. All lenses are essentially flat field, even the ones not marketed as flat field are curved field but the degree of curvature is slight and no where near the degree of curvature of that would occur with pan shooting. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching PLANE OF FOCUS is not a geometry issue and cant be corrected in software. Even with the lens rotating on nodal point you are going get to a curved or spherical plane of focus with a shooting using a panning technique. For the life of me, I can't see what the problem with this is. A lot of lenses have a curved plane of focus and they seem to work just fine. William Robb
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
That would be interesting to see (the selective focus shot). Much of the field curvature may not be as significant as the geometric distortions. From what I've seen, its just a projection, and in fact is probably better compensated by software than can be by a lens of the equivalent focal length. J. C. O'Connell wrote: You can correct geometry sometimes but you cant correct plane of focus after the fact. All of these images I have seen so far are using small fstops which is masking the field curvature. Id like to see what happens on a selective focus shot with considerable panning JCO -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Yes, you do have to compensate if taking geometry into account. This fellow did it like I mentioned before, this is an extreme example: http://tinyurl.com/6zmnj He has many other images in his gallery that are very impressive. rg John C. O'Connell wrote: If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved plane of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical plane of focus? I would think this could be masked with small apertures to gain depth of field, but what about geometry? I don't see how you could do architecture via stitching. Another thing, in order to get correct geometric projection, wouldn't you need to mount the camera such that the panning axis is at the nodal point of the lens instead of the usual tripod mount which is further back near the focal plane? JCO
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
You cant compensate after the fact with software if the plane of focus does not match the subject. i.e. if the subject was a flat front of a building and the shooting technique results in a plane of focus of a sphere instead of a plane. JCO -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 4:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching That would be interesting to see (the selective focus shot). Much of the field curvature may not be as significant as the geometric distortions. From what I've seen, its just a projection, and in fact is probably better compensated by software than can be by a lens of the equivalent focal length. J. C. O'Connell wrote: You can correct geometry sometimes but you cant correct plane of focus after the fact. All of these images I have seen so far are using small fstops which is masking the field curvature. Id like to see what happens on a selective focus shot with considerable panning JCO -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Yes, you do have to compensate if taking geometry into account. This fellow did it like I mentioned before, this is an extreme example: http://tinyurl.com/6zmnj He has many other images in his gallery that are very impressive. rg John C. O'Connell wrote: If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved plane of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical plane of focus? I would think this could be masked with small apertures to gain depth of field, but what about geometry? I don't see how you could do architecture via stitching. Another thing, in order to get correct geometric projection, wouldn't you need to mount the camera such that the panning axis is at the nodal point of the lens instead of the usual tripod mount which is further back near the focal plane? JCO
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
their gear is about the middle of the price range for VR panorama gear. i used to have a pair of Kaidan pan heads. i gave one to a good friend of mine in return for a favor and the other is mostly retired. i use a RRS pan clamp with the B-16 adapter bracket for now. i may drop the adapter bracket when i get a new camera because then i will be able to get a dedicated L bracket for it. Herb - Original Message - From: Stephen Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:28 AM Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Apparently it can be a bit of an issue. My just-arrived Really Right Stuff catalogue came with a supplement featuring their (rather pricey) gear for accomplishing this.
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
another couple of good sites are www.panoramic.net and www.panoguide.com. i'm thinking about getting RealViz Stitcher to replace my current program, iseemedia PhotoVista. PhotoVista is the best of the inexpensive programs. Stitcher is one of the best programs for the PC. QuickTime VR Studio is highly recommended for the Mac. Herb - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:49 AM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Geometry can be treated a few ways in good stitching programs. The final print can be configured to provide a cylindrical view (true panoramic), rectilinear (under 180 degree V or H OAV) but ultra wide shots start looking strange and spherical projection for display in VR applications. The optimum set-up would have the mount rotating about the lenses nodal point but it's far less of a problem if there isn't a mix of near/far subject matter. Good info can be read at: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/ http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/oxfordtour/stitchingtest/update.html
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
why is this relevant? do you shoot wide open all the time? as for close vs far, it depends on how much care you take in finding the nodal point and how good your lens is. if you have nothing close, the nodal point pretty much doesn't matter. i'm a couple of centimeters off the nodal point on my panoramas and you can't tell the difference between that and distortion in the lens. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:00 AM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Software may be able to correct for typical geometry, but there is NO WAY it can correct for curved or spherical plane of focus due to the panning. Both the plane of focus curvature and geometery errors due to non-nodal panning would be much worse for closeup objects vs. infintiy.
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
The whole point of stitching is HIGH resolution. If the subject goes out of focus due to curved or spherical field you defeat the whole purpose of doing the stitching in the first place. DUH. And a lens doesn't have to be wide open for the subject to go out of focus. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching why is this relevant? do you shoot wide open all the time? as for close vs far, it depends on how much care you take in finding the nodal point and how good your lens is. if you have nothing close, the nodal point pretty much doesn't matter. i'm a couple of centimeters off the nodal point on my panoramas and you can't tell the difference between that and distortion in the lens. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:00 AM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Software may be able to correct for typical geometry, but there is NO WAY it can correct for curved or spherical plane of focus due to the panning. Both the plane of focus curvature and geometery errors due to non-nodal panning would be much worse for closeup objects vs. infintiy.
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Also, Nodal point has NOTHING to due with the curved field due to panning. The curved field is there where you pan on the node or not. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching why is this relevant? do you shoot wide open all the time? as for close vs far, it depends on how much care you take in finding the nodal point and how good your lens is. if you have nothing close, the nodal point pretty much doesn't matter. i'm a couple of centimeters off the nodal point on my panoramas and you can't tell the difference between that and distortion in the lens. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:00 AM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Software may be able to correct for typical geometry, but there is NO WAY it can correct for curved or spherical plane of focus due to the panning. Both the plane of focus curvature and geometery errors due to non-nodal panning would be much worse for closeup objects vs. infintiy.
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Larry is selling all his large format equipment because stitching is better for him than LF. if you want to define the small area where a 4x5 camera is still superior as the only thing that matters to you, go right ahead. the examples shown and discussed are none of those. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching NO , I do understand. Of course you can do SOME things this way but to say it is a suitable replacement for LF in general is really absurd.
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
On 22 Sep 2004 at 20:59, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I repeat, this curved field issue has nothing to do with the lenses, It's the FILM/SENSOR rotation that is causing it, so why the references to macro lenses, etc I made the reference to macro lenses not Herb, I was being facetious. As you should well know virtually all 35mm format lenses excepting the best macro designs don't provide planar focus. Yes the panning effect will swamp the lens errors but there is software which can correct these aberrations (obviously only for image with an AOV of under 180 degrees). Have you actually had a look at the following page yet? http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/detail.htm Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Wrong , you cant correct an out of focus planar subject taken with techniques that have spherical or cylindrical planes of focus after the fact with software. The photo on that page neither has a near field planar subject nor a very wide panning angle looking at the subject. I don't see what lens he used or distance to far wall specified, is it described on another page? JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching On 22 Sep 2004 at 20:59, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I repeat, this curved field issue has nothing to do with the lenses, It's the FILM/SENSOR rotation that is causing it, so why the references to macro lenses, etc I made the reference to macro lenses not Herb, I was being facetious. As you should well know virtually all 35mm format lenses excepting the best macro designs don't provide planar focus. Yes the panning effect will swamp the lens errors but there is software which can correct these aberrations (obviously only for image with an AOV of under 180 degrees). Have you actually had a look at the following page yet? http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/detail.htm Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Herb, have you checked out Panorama Maker from Arcsoft? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching another couple of good sites are www.panoramic.net and www.panoguide.com. i'm thinking about getting RealViz Stitcher to replace my current program, iseemedia PhotoVista. PhotoVista is the best of the inexpensive programs. Stitcher is one of the best programs for the PC. QuickTime VR Studio is highly recommended for the Mac. Herb - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:49 AM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Geometry can be treated a few ways in good stitching programs. The final print can be configured to provide a cylindrical view (true panoramic), rectilinear (under 180 degree V or H OAV) but ultra wide shots start looking strange and spherical projection for display in VR applications. The optimum set-up would have the mount rotating about the lenses nodal point but it's far less of a problem if there isn't a mix of near/far subject matter. Good info can be read at: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/ http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/oxfordtour/stitchingtest/update.html
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
How about a SINGLE exposure? (Decisive Moment) How about selective DOF? How about lower distortion? How about camera movements? How about accurate composition on the ground glass. How about a true Plane of focus at ANY distance? There's probably a whole lot more too Those reasons above are huge and make the stitching technique seriously limited compared to normal LF photography. I think the DSLR solution is a better digital camera with a bigger and higher resolution sensor, not stitching. But even then you arent going to get the movements with all your lenses like you do with LF. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Larry is selling all his large format equipment because stitching is better for him than LF. if you want to define the small area where a 4x5 camera is still superior as the only thing that matters to you, go right ahead. the examples shown and discussed are none of those. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching NO , I do understand. Of course you can do SOME things this way but to say it is a suitable replacement for LF in general is really absurd.
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
JCO, You're perhaps right. And, if we were into forensics photography, probably all the technical accuracy would matter a lot, but here it was just about some arteestec shot, what really counts is that the image is pleasing to our eyes and not how many planes of focus were actually stitched there. That's the photographer's darkroom and I don't need to know about it. J. C. O'Connell wrote: How about a SINGLE exposure? (Decisive Moment) How about selective DOF? How about lower distortion? How about camera movements? How about accurate composition on the ground glass. How about a true Plane of focus at ANY distance? There's probably a whole lot more too Those reasons above are huge and make the stitching technique seriously limited compared to normal LF photography. I think the DSLR solution is a better digital camera with a bigger and higher resolution sensor, not stitching. But even then you arent going to get the movements with all your lenses like you do with LF. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Larry is selling all his large format equipment because stitching is better for him than LF. if you want to define the small area where a 4x5 camera is still superior as the only thing that matters to you, go right ahead. the examples shown and discussed are none of those. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching NO , I do understand. Of course you can do SOME things this way but to say it is a suitable replacement for LF in general is really absurd.
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
i was in a Detroit studio the other day where a lot of cars are shot for magazine ads and brochurs. They were shooting with a Cambo 4x5 camera and a back that was fitted with four digital sensors. Each was around 7 megapixels I would guess, because the final image was 60 megapixels raw. The digital back was tied into a Mac that stitched the images together according to preset parameters. The results were very good. The studio photographer claimed they were at least as good as 4x5 film, and of course the instant feedback was invaluable. Auto stitching is alive and well in large format photography. Paul On Sep 22, 2004, at 9:12 PM, Herb Chong wrote: Larry is selling all his large format equipment because stitching is better for him than LF. if you want to define the small area where a 4x5 camera is still superior as the only thing that matters to you, go right ahead. the examples shown and discussed are none of those. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching NO , I do understand. Of course you can do SOME things this way but to say it is a suitable replacement for LF in general is really absurd.
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
JCO, Assuming EVERYTHING you say is absolutely correct, so what!? Larry is getting the results he wants using the technique and gear that works for him. So, what's the big deal? One thing that you must remember is that Larry's photographing out west, where the vistas and distances and scenery are very different than the relatively close scenery in the east. I know where Larry's photographing. His equipment choice makes sense from the POV of ease and convenience. And he obviously enjoys the post processing techniques. And he's used LF gear, so he has a point of comparison. You've neither photographed out west (AFAIK) nor used the camera and software he's using. So, who's better to judge what's best for Larry? Shel From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about a SINGLE exposure? (Decisive Moment) How about selective DOF? How about lower distortion? How about camera movements? How about accurate composition on the ground glass. How about a true Plane of focus at ANY distance? There's probably a whole lot more too Those reasons above are huge and make the stitching technique seriously limited compared to normal LF photography. I think the DSLR solution is a better digital camera with a bigger and higher resolution sensor, not stitching. But even then you arent going to get the movements with all your lenses like you do with
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
How is an out of focus image pleasing to the eye? That is what will happen if the circlar plane of focus doesn't have enough depth of field on a flat object. As far as technical accuracy goes, why stitch if the goal isnt a higer resolution image and if you're out of focus you wont achieve it now will you? You cant even Get a fleeting moment with stitching so how does that please your eye? How do you make a perfect composition when you cant even see your final image on the ground glass? This stuff isnt the stuff of forensics, this is BASICS of photography so your way off base here with that comment. I really think it is a very POOR substitute for LF if you ask me based on all the things I mentioned below. JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching JCO, You're perhaps right. And, if we were into forensics photography, probably all the technical accuracy would matter a lot, but here it was just about some arteestec shot, what really counts is that the image is pleasing to our eyes and not how many planes of focus were actually stitched there. That's the photographer's darkroom and I don't need to know about it. J. C. O'Connell wrote: How about a SINGLE exposure? (Decisive Moment) How about selective DOF? How about lower distortion? How about camera movements? How about accurate composition on the ground glass. How about a true Plane of focus at ANY distance? There's probably a whole lot more too Those reasons above are huge and make the stitching technique seriously limited compared to normal LF photography. I think the DSLR solution is a better digital camera with a bigger and higher resolution sensor, not stitching. But even then you arent going to get the movements with all your lenses like you do with LF. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Larry is selling all his large format equipment because stitching is better for him than LF. if you want to define the small area where a 4x5 camera is still superior as the only thing that matters to you, go right ahead. the examples shown and discussed are none of those. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching NO , I do understand. Of course you can do SOME things this way but to say it is a suitable replacement for LF in general is really absurd.
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
What you describe is totally different and much better solution. In that case they don't have to pan which is much better. But being tied down in a studio is not very useful for nature photography. Still not a substitute for a lightweight field LF film camera for nature JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching i was in a Detroit studio the other day where a lot of cars are shot for magazine ads and brochurs. They were shooting with a Cambo 4x5 camera and a back that was fitted with four digital sensors. Each was around 7 megapixels I would guess, because the final image was 60 megapixels raw. The digital back was tied into a Mac that stitched the images together according to preset parameters. The results were very good. The studio photographer claimed they were at least as good as 4x5 film, and of course the instant feedback was invaluable. Auto stitching is alive and well in large format photography. Paul On Sep 22, 2004, at 9:12 PM, Herb Chong wrote: Larry is selling all his large format equipment because stitching is better for him than LF. if you want to define the small area where a 4x5 camera is still superior as the only thing that matters to you, go right ahead. the examples shown and discussed are none of those. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching NO , I do understand. Of course you can do SOME things this way but to say it is a suitable replacement for LF in general is really absurd.
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Gosh lets not go into that discussion. This is all subjective. I liked a lot Larry's photo, if you didn't it's your opinion and you're entitled to have and that's it. John C. O'Connell wrote: How is an out of focus image pleasing to the eye?
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
I have been following this thread with some interest, but it has become exceedingly tiresome. Too many of you are witing about actual experience, rather than esoteric theory. It appears that Mr. O'Connell is right, and the rest of you guys are full of crap. I know that because he tells us so, over and over. To save the waste of bandwidth, I suggest that everyone else shut up and left Mr. O'Connell do all the talking (which wouldn't be much of a change in any event). Then we can all read and learn from the master, and once a week or so tell him how wonderful he is and how gratefull we all are to be his pupils. Sent via the KillerWebMail system at stanleypmlaw.com
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Like I said in my last post, there is nothing esoteric about single exposures or the ability to compose and see what your photograph is going to look like before you take it. There is nothing esoteric about a subject in or out of focus. I have a lot of experience with LF cameras and know what they can do. This pan and stitch technique might work for some things but it certainly does not have the versatility of a LF camera. It's better than nothing if all you have is a single low res camera but to those of you who are excited about higher resolution photography I suggest you investigate normal LF photography before you decide that pan and stitch is anywhere near as good as normal LF. JCO -Original Message- From: Daniel Matyola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching I have been following this thread with some interest, but it has become exceedingly tiresome. Too many of you are witing about actual experience, rather than esoteric theory. It appears that Mr. O'Connell is right, and the rest of you guys are full of crap. I know that because he tells us so, over and over. To save the waste of bandwidth, I suggest that everyone else shut up and left Mr. O'Connell do all the talking (which wouldn't be much of a change in any event). Then we can all read and learn from the master, and once a week or so tell him how wonderful he is and how gratefull we all are to be his pupils. Sent via the KillerWebMail system at stanleypmlaw.com
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
no, it's not one of the ones i have tried. in addition to iseemedia PhotoVista (i have been using it since 1.32), PanoVue Image Assembler, Ulead Cool 360, VR Toolbox PanoWorx, i've tried at least 3 or 4 other programs. PhotoVista is the best of the inexpensive ones. of the programs i have tried on the www.panoguide.com site, i have to agree with their basic assessments. the ones i own but have never used are Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, and PaintShop Pro. as soon as i read that they don't correct for the FOV of the lens, i didn't even bother trying. the wider FOV of the base lens, the more you have to reproject the image before stitching, either into a cylinder or a sphere. that requires knowing or calculating the real FOV, not the nominal, for your lenses. depending on conditions, i use my Sigma 12-24 or the DA 16-45 in portrait mode on my *istD. if i am using my Nikon Coolpix 5000, i will use the wide angle adapter with its 19mm equiv FOV, again in portrait mode. i did only a few panoramas on film because of skew in the scanned images from my mounted slides. i had more success with negatives, but they gave me other hassles with grain. i actually miscounted, i had 4 VR panoramic heads, not 3. i'm down to 3 now and am looking to sell the Kaidan one. if anyone is interested, contact me offline. i started doing panoramas when i got my first digital camera, a Casio 1.3 megapixel when the very first 2 megapixel cameras were just being announced. Herb... - Original Message - From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:27 PM Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Herb, have you checked out Panorama Maker from Arcsoft?
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
- Original Message - From: Larry Hodgson Subject: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Hello all, Here is a link to a small version of an image I recently made by stitching 5 images together to make this panorama. http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/8854797/Large That seemed to work quite well. Is it alright if I hate you just a little for having close access to places like this? William Robb
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
So, how much for a 17x60? ;-) Don It depends on the image. I recently sold a bare 13x19 printed on Velvet Fine Art paper for $100.00 US. If my 17x60 panorama comes out as I expect I will be asking $250.00 US for a bare print. Larry from Prescott
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Very nice Larry. Bill hates me a little too. :) Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:33:48 -0600 - Original Message - From: Larry Hodgson Subject: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Hello all, Here is a link to a small version of an image I recently made by stitching 5 images together to make this panorama. http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/8854797/Large That seemed to work quite well. Is it alright if I hate you just a little for having close access to places like this? William Robb
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/8854797/Large This is humiliating. I hate you, Larry ;-)
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Actually it's quite inspiring... and if he can sell a print for $250 on the street/internet to a non-PDML member I want to hear about! Tom C. From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:52:53 -0400 http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/85647/1/8854797/Large This is humiliating. I hate you, Larry ;-)
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved plane of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical plane of focus? I would think this could be masked with small apertures to gain depth of field, but what about geometry? I don't see how you could do architecture via stitching. Another thing, in order to get correct geometric projection, wouldn't you need to mount the camera such that the panning axis is at the nodal point of the lens instead of the usual tripod mount which is further back near the focal plane? JCO
Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
- Original Message - From: John C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved plane of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical plane of focus? I would think this could be masked with small apertures to gain depth of field, but what about geometry? I don't see how you could do architecture via stitching. Another thing, in order to get correct geometric projection, wouldn't you need to mount the camera such that the panning axis is at the nodal point of the lens instead of the usual tripod mount which is further back near the focal plane? Depth of field isn't going to be much of a problem, in fact it may well be less of a problem than with the view camera, since you can refocus for each exposure, rather than depending on camera movements or lens depth of field primarily. I can't really see too much of a problem shooting architecture, but I also haven't tried this technique for it, so I don't know if anything unsurmountable would crop up. Obvioulsly, one would be doing some work in Photoshop to correct the perspective. Not ideal, but certainly doable, and I expect easier with a view camera, all else being equal. Sometimes all else isn't equal.. I was hired once to shoot an office building. The AD wanted some street detail, but also wanted the building to look strong (her descriptive, not mine). What I settled on was to overcorrect the verticals, so that the building would actually be leaning in. My test shots (not of the building in question, it was in a different city, so I picked a local office building of similar height to test my idea) were accepted as a good idea, and I was hired. Unfortunately, there wasn't any way to do the shot in camera. In order to get wide enough to fit the entire building in, the bellows was so short that I couldn't fully correct the vertical, much less overcorrect it. Today, I would fix it in Photoshop. My option in 1986 was to do some massive whacky easle adjustments in the darkroom. Having the pivot point at the nodal point is technically the best way to do it, but I think with digital stitching it will be less of an issue. It really depends on scene type, most scenes are very forgiving, some are not. The typical methods for gaining depth of field with a view camera have potential for causing massive amounts of image distortion, but ususally it doesn't seem to matter all that much. William Robb
RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
I should have added the caveat, Im talking about curved or spherical plane of focus on NON infinity focus subjects. It certainly is going to give you a different projection than a single exposure on a wide angle camera because the back isnt rotating. Regarding architectual phots with a view camera, the standard method is to keep the film plane parallel to the building front, then NO distortion occurs and you don't need any tilts or swings which could introduce distortion because the entire front will fall into focus if the back is parallel. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching - Original Message - From: John C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching If you pan the camera to take the sequence of photos to be stitched later, isnt the fact that the camera back is panning going to give you a curved plane of focus or in the case of vertical as well as horizontal panning, give you a spherical plane of focus? I would think this could be masked with small apertures to gain depth of field, but what about geometry? I don't see how you could do architecture via stitching. Another thing, in order to get correct geometric projection, wouldn't you need to mount the camera such that the panning axis is at the nodal point of the lens instead of the usual tripod mount which is further back near the focal plane? Depth of field isn't going to be much of a problem, in fact it may well be less of a problem than with the view camera, since you can refocus for each exposure, rather than depending on camera movements or lens depth of field primarily. I can't really see too much of a problem shooting architecture, but I also haven't tried this technique for it, so I don't know if anything unsurmountable would crop up. Obvioulsly, one would be doing some work in Photoshop to correct the perspective. Not ideal, but certainly doable, and I expect easier with a view camera, all else being equal. Sometimes all else isn't equal.. I was hired once to shoot an office building. The AD wanted some street detail, but also wanted the building to look strong (her descriptive, not mine). What I settled on was to overcorrect the verticals, so that the building would actually be leaning in. My test shots (not of the building in question, it was in a different city, so I picked a local office building of similar height to test my idea) were accepted as a good idea, and I was hired. Unfortunately, there wasn't any way to do the shot in camera. In order to get wide enough to fit the entire building in, the bellows was so short that I couldn't fully correct the vertical, much less overcorrect it. Today, I would fix it in Photoshop. My option in 1986 was to do some massive whacky easle adjustments in the darkroom. Having the pivot point at the nodal point is technically the best way to do it, but I think with digital stitching it will be less of an issue. It really depends on scene type, most scenes are very forgiving, some are not. The typical methods for gaining depth of field with a view camera have potential for causing massive amounts of image distortion, but ususally it doesn't seem to matter all that much. William Robb
