Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CS3 automated stitch example  (Read 25742 times)
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2007, 05:32:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yep, that is my feeling as well, but there are always some things to improve on. Evaluating PS CS3 stitching capability might be worth it.

Personnally, I think that it is a waste of resources for Adobe to develop such functions though.

Instead of trying to compete with - already excellent - small guys in niche applications, they should focus on their most important job which is to keep providing a top notch platform for image editing. We still don't have 64 bits support.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry but for what would you nned 64 bits Huh?
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7900



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2007, 04:30:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry but for what would you nned 64 bits Huh?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This really isn't the topic of this thread, sorry about that Jack. I'll answer once on this... I would like to have 64 bits support to save time when dealing with really large images.

- 4x5 scans with multiple layer masks,
- panoramas from Mamiya ZD...

I often end up having image size on file that is larger than 1.5 GB, sometimes in the 2GB range.

A recent post from Adobe PS's product manager acknowledged the value of 64 bits for images larger than 1GB. I will give a try to 4GB systems in my next box (either Mac Pro 8 cores when it is released or a Vista box), but I have seen no evidence that it will help enough with my size of images.

For your information, many professional applications, like CATIA V5 in the CAD area for instance, have been migrated to a full 64 bits implementation about one year ago already.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2007, 06:33:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This really isn't the topic of this thread, sorry about that Jack. I'll answer once on this... I would like to have 64 bits support to save time when dealing with really large images.

- 4x5 scans with multiple layer masks,
- panoramas from Mamiya ZD...

I often end up having image size on file that is larger than 1.5 GB, sometimes in the 2GB range.

A recent post from Adobe PS's product manager acknowledged the value of 64 bits for images larger than 1GB. I will give a try to 4GB systems in my next box (either Mac Pro 8 cores when it is released or a Vista box), but I have seen no evidence that it will help enough with my size of images.

For your information, many professional applications, like CATIA V5 in the CAD area for instance, have been migrated to a full 64 bits implementation about one year ago already.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Oh sorry my fault :-P Now I know what You mean and you are right. My question was than I just read it really quick, that you ment a 64 bit Image ;-)
Logged

jadazu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2007, 11:20:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack,

In your rectilnear output, the 'verticals' on the right side of the stitched image aren''t close to vertical...
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 11:20:44 PM by jadazu » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2007, 11:45:09 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not vertical in that last single frame either  

Fact is, I wasn't all that careful setting up this image.  Also, this was the side of a factory built out of brick in 1875.  Could be the foundation has settled a bit or could be I had the camera at an angle.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 11:48:36 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2007, 11:59:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm going to continue this thread rather than start another, to preserve continuity which is important. Jack has tantalising raised the issue that PS3's Photomerge is as good as any dedicated stitching program. Some reader have suggested the new CS3 Photomerge cannot compete with PTGui. I think this is probably true.

My favourite stitching program is Panavue's Image Assembler, which has continually improved over the years. I was therefore very interested in how PCS3's Photomerge would compete.

It simply cannot. I'm led to the conclusion there is no substitute for a dedicated, professional stitching program.

Okay! let's not denigrate the improvement of Photomerge in PCS3. It is improved (over CS2) and it is possible with just a few images, of the right sort, to produce a perfect stitch, automatically.

However, with big projects it doesn't pass muster. For 2 or 3 or 4 images though, it's sometimes quite good in automatic mode.

Most stitching programs have an automatic mode. Sometimes it works perfectly. More often than not, it doesn't.

How do we handle a series of images, in CS3 photomerge, that doesn't work in automatic mode? Not easily, I suspect.

It so happens I have a huge stitching program on my hard drive (and of course backed up on DVD) of a view of Brisbane from Mt Coot-tha, right out to the Bay on a clear day. (That's Brisbane, Australia. Not Brisbane, America   ).

The shots were taken with a 20D and 400mm lens (100-400 IS) and the completed stitch will consist of 2 rows of 33 images each, ie a total of 66 images.

I tried stitching the first 16 images, top left segment, using CS3. It couldn't handle it. Zero result.

Below is the result from Image Assembler.

[attachment=1984:attachment]

This is not satisfactory, but at least the joins are perfect.

As I mentione PS3 could not handle 16 images, but it could handle 12. Here's the result.

[attachment=1986:attachment]

The joins are also perfect. But both of these images are no use to me. How could I print such images on a rectangular piece of paper. I'd have to crop them so severley, I'd have nothing much left.

There's a solution to this problem in Image Assembler. I select just 3 images from the row and create a 'lens type' using the 'Lens Wizard'. Very straightforward and quick. I then use this lens type for the whole 33 image stitch, but not unfortunately in automatic mode. I have to use 3 pairs of flags at each overlap. Positioning these flags is tedious to say the least, but it produces the goods, as can be seen below in the full top row of 33 images.

[attachment=1987:attachment]

Now, you should notice in the first 2 images, the sea is sloping dangerously. This could be catastrophic for the city of Brisbane.

In the third stitch, everything is just right. The sea is perfectly horizontal and minimal cropping is required for a rectangular print.

Accept my word for it; all joins in all 3 images are perfect.

But, there may also be another advantage of a professional stitching program. I think all of us who have tried these procedures are aware of the problems of subject movement during the time it takes to move the camera from one frame to the next.

Here's an example of such movement in the above stitch, which is a screen grab showing the positioning of the flags before running the stitch.

[attachment=1988:attachment]

As you can see, between one frame and the next, the yacht has moved and someone in a speed boat has appeared on the scene.

How will Panavue handle this? Will it produce a double image of the yacht? Not on your Nelly. It'll include all relevant image detail and exclude all duplication, as can be seen in a small crop from the final stitch below.

[attachment=1989:attachment]

Well, what more can I say. I think Panavue should send me a cheque for all this free advertising   .
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 12:08:00 AM by Ray » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2007, 04:43:17 AM »
ReplyReply

For the technically minded, I should add that the full 33 image stitch, in 8 bit, is 720MB and 68,884 pixels long. After stitching the 2nd row and perhaps replacing and extending the sky (which is a bit uninspiring due to pollution), I'd expect the completed image to be at least 1.5GB. At 240ppi, uninterpolated, it should print out about 24ft x 3ft.

The camera was the Canon 20D with 100-400 IS lens at 400mm, f16 and ISO 400.

However, my printer is only 24" wide so I'll have to downsample the image to 16ft x 2ft.

Here's a crop of the centre 2 to 3 images from the top row.

[attachment=1990:attachment]
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 04:50:14 AM by Ray » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2007, 10:51:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack has tantalising raised the issue that PS3's Photomerge is as good as any dedicated stitching program. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

FTR, I don't think I actually said that here; what I said was I found it faster... If I was not being clear, my apologies.  What I tried to imply was that the new CS3 capability in this arena is impressive, easy to implement while already working inside CS and thus certainly convenient -- and at the end of the day, more than adequate for my needs.  I suspect it will be adequate for many other users too, though power-stitchers like you are excepted    

Regarding your program's results, they are impressive Ray -- and obviously you are more experienced in assembling large panoramics than I am.  

~~~

To be clear though, my reason for stitching is not generally to create a pano, but rather to regularly assemble 2 or 3 captures -- and on rare occasion 4, 6 or 8 -- for a higher-resolution normal aspect ratio single image.  Sometimes I will certainly grab a 6 or 8 frame set to assemble for a pano, but that is not my normal cup of tea.  

FWIW, I did experiment with really large panos when I had my Betterlight scanning back and dedicated Betterlight pano adapter.  That device made panos up to 9000 pixels high by 360 degrees -- with a long lens this was enough image data to crush any modern computer's ability to process it.  If I were interested in routinely making large panoramic images, this is the device I would use over attempting to assemble 32 frames after the fact.  However, in the end, I only ever made a few "skyline" style panos I really liked.  I linked to one below,  "San Francisco at sunset", that prints uninterpolated to 17"x34" at 360PPI.

I also made some big ones -- 2-gig file size in 16-bit that would print uninterpolated to 2 feet x 10 feet  at 360 PPI and obviously bigger (3' x 15') at 240PPI.  What I soon learned is you need a pretty large wall to display them and not many folks have that kind of wall space...  I also very quickly learned mounting them was a pain and I did not even have enough space to store the rolled prints!  

Here is the SF skyline sunset pano link for those interested.  In the 17" print, you can see the individual stripes in the American flags on the building tops, though it's tough to see the flags themselves in this 1/36th scale 1000x2000 pixel image:

[a href=\"http://jack.cameraphile.org/gallery/view_photo.php?full=1&set_albumName=album10&id=sunsetskyline2]SF Skyline Pano[/url]

Cheers,
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 01:25:11 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2007, 10:56:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Question any differnece between Panavue's Image Assembler ? Pano Tool Assampler ? or PTGui ?
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2007, 12:03:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm going to continue this thread rather than start another, to preserve continuity which is important. Jack has tantalising raised the issue that PS3's Photomerge is as good as any dedicated stitching program. Some reader have suggested the new CS3 Photomerge cannot compete with PTGui. I think this is probably true.
...

I couldn't be arsed to tinker with pano programs the way you do, especially since fully automatic stitching software exists.

I have a ~75-image 330 megapixel panorama of NYC nighttime skyline shot from Brooklyn Heights I'm working on. I used Autopano and all I did was drag-and-drop all the images into the program and a few hours later I had an almost perfectly stitched shot. There was only one problem with a corrugated sheet metal door near the edge of the shot I need to fix.

The point is that you can get all the functionality without having to do any control points, aligning or even arranging shots in their proper places. Drag, drop, go to bed. The shot's finished in the morning and you can start working on the actual post.
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2007, 06:06:54 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW

Has anyone done or seen a really stunning image executed with a large mosaic stitch? It is a ton of work and I personally have yet to see an image done that way that was worth all the effort except as a demo or necessary for some documentation project. I do find some of Chris Jordon's work conceptually interesting "Running the Numbers"  Chris Jordon.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 06:32:51 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2007, 06:20:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
FWIW

Has anyone done or seen a really stunning image executed with a large mosaic stitch? It is a ton of work and I personally have yet to see an image done that way that was worth all the effort except as a demo or necessary for some documentation project. I do find some of Chris Jordon's work conceptually interesting. See Running the Numbers  Chris Jordon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Most problem of today is still post processing. I have some larger stichted images. around three rows of 10-15 1DsMk2 images, but it is such a pain to work with them I feel like ages ago. 300 or more MP are fantastic in detail and for huge prints, but with the current technology they are also a pain.
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2007, 06:55:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
FWIW

Has anyone done or seen a really stunning image executed with a large mosaic stitch? It is a ton of work and I personally have yet to see an image done that way that was worth all the effort except as a demo or necessary for some documentation project.

That's a good point Kirk.  

Just because it can be done does not mean it automatically creates a good image.  Artistic basics still apply and vision is 90% of the final image IMO.  The typically short duration of the sweetest shooting light or the rapidly changing high drama of a clearing storm do not lend themselves well to a mosaic stitch as too much changes between the first and last exposure. One might be able to make a few frames work, but it is unlikely one could make dozens of them work. Kind of leaves that use relegated to static images...   I guess it's why some of us still like to capture images on large pieces of film

Cheers,
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 06:58:13 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7904



WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2007, 07:41:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
FWIW

Has anyone done or seen a really stunning image executed with a large mosaic stitch? It is a ton of work and I personally have yet to see an image done that way that was worth all the effort except as a demo or necessary for some documentation project. I do find some of Chris Jordon's work conceptually interesting "Running the Numbers"  Chris Jordon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Excellent point, Kirk. Reminds me of a comment Minor White made back in the 1960s (when "archival processing" was just becoming all the rage): "What we need is more archival images, not more archival prints."

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2007, 08:14:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric,

Good point. I tell me students not to go overboard with things like archival processing of prints (film ok) until they have some mature work that deserves it. Otherwise it is a big waste of time and resources.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7904



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2007, 10:34:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Eric,

Good point. I tell me students not to go overboard with things like archival processing of prints (film ok) until they have some mature work that deserves it. Otherwise it is a big waste of time and resources.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, for many years I processed all of my prints archivally, because once I had the system down, it was easier to stick with one "workflow" than to keep switching back and forth. But finding the archival images has always been harder.

I do plan to try stitching soon, but I can't see myself ever wanting to put more than about three images together. The amount of time and effort put into it should be appropriate to the potential quality of the resulting image, IMHO.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
jeffball
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2007, 10:39:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Kirk,
I had the privilege to view, if I recall correctly, a 15 image multiple row stitch by Joseph Holmes at the most recent Digital Fine Art Summit by Alain and Natalie Briot.  I believe the data was acquired with a Canon 5D and the 70-200mm lens at 100mm, I could have some of the details incorrect.  What is important is that the image was stunning in composition and detail.  The light was open shade and the scene was of a mixture of hardwoods in a hillside forest.  The print was certainly worthy of "fine art" designation in my books and a testament to what can be accomplished with today's equipment.  He used the panorama gear from Really Right Stuff which motivated me to purchase the same gear and begin my own investigation of the technique.  I don't know if that print is on his website yet, but it was stunning to see.  
Jeff Ball
Quote
FWIW

Has anyone done or seen a really stunning image executed with a large mosaic stitch? It is a ton of work and I personally have yet to see an image done that way that was worth all the effort except as a demo or necessary for some documentation project. I do find some of Chris Jordon's work conceptually interesting "Running the Numbers"  Chris Jordon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2007, 08:45:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To be clear though, my reason for stitching is not generally to create a pano, but rather to regularly assemble 2 or 3 captures -- and on rare occasion 4, 6 or 8 -- for a higher-resolution normal aspect ratio single image.  Sometimes I will certainly grab a 6 or 8 frame set to assemble for a pano, but that is not my normal cup of tea. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack,
I've done a few more tests using CS3 Photomerge to stitch just a few images at a time and it doeas appear to outperform Pananvue's Image Assembler in auto mode in these circumstances.

The following 3 handheld shots with the Sigma 15-30mm and 5D are impossible to stitch in Panavue's auto mode, but CS3 does just as good a job as the more tedious 'flag positioning' method that I have to use with image Assembler.

[attachment=1996:attachment]  [attachment=1997:attachment]  [attachment=1998:attachment]  [attachment=1999:attachment]

However, the mountain range on the far right is sloping down a bit too obviously, so I tried using the 'perspective' option in Photomerge and it did a wonderfully abstract job consisting of a triangle and a rectangle which I quite like. It sort of almost conforms to the rule of thirds, but not quite, which makes it more interesting   .

[attachment=2000:attachment]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2007, 09:28:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The point is that you can get all the functionality without having to do any control points, aligning or even arranging shots in their proper places. Drag, drop, go to bed. The shot's finished in the morning and you can start working on the actual post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm always willing to try a faster method. The problem is, there's usually a learning curve with new software, but a program that claims to handle things automatically shouldn't take too long to get the hang of.

I downloaded the trial version of Autopano and tried it out on the 33 images that Panavue handled flawlessly with flags. It seems to do a pretty impressive job automatically aligning the images in a straight line, but I can't find a way to enlarge the images to full detail so I can't inspect the joins. The trial version just gives me a thumbnail preview of the final stitch and the 'save' function is disabled. Perhaps there's some obvious control that I've missed. I can't understand why anyone would offer a free trial without an option of seeing the full rez stitch.

Another gripe is the way it handles color profiles. All my images have an embedded ProPhoto RGB profile. The stitched images in Autopano all appear in sRGB.

Although the images seem well aligned in a straight line, the color is seriously off. Some of the stitches were really bad. Below is the best of them, compared with the panavue stitch which I've copied and pasted below. As you can see, the tone and color changes from left to right to a degree that is not acceptable.

I tried various setting, using maximum quality and maximum number of detection points etc. I don't see what else I can do, unless you've got any suggestions?

[attachment=2001:attachment]
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 09:30:45 AM by Ray » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2007, 09:52:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray:

FWIW, here is my version of your three frames above using the "interactive" option, then checking "perspective" after I confirmed positioning for CS3's Photomerge.  Maybe not as good as your dedicated program, but as I said above, still pretty darn good IMO -- and it did this in about 10 seconds with those jpegs  

All I need to do is level the horizon in CS, and maybe transform perspective a bit to suit, and then I think it woud be quite good for a casually captured scenic pano:
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 10:06:20 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad