Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CS3 automated stitch example  (Read 25743 times)
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2007, 10:03:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Okay, I spent a few more minutes on Ray's pano.  Here it is after a quick horizon level, slight perspective transform, crop and minor curves adjustment in CS3:
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 10:38:46 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

gdeliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2007, 10:06:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's another vote for CS3's photomerge. I recently tried it and I was very pleased with the results, especially considering that the process was so easy. The program definitely has its limitations in that a stitch I tried directly from raw had blown skies while the same stitch from pre-processed .psd's was perfect. A difficult series that I took a couple of years ago with the camera in AE, AF mode simply didn't stitch properly. The same series after some manual blending did stitch perfectly, something I have yet to achieve from other stitching programs. For my purposes, a few shots to produce higher resolution for printing up to 16" X 24" or perhaps an ocasional 24" X 36" for kicks, it looks like CS3 will be all I need, especially if the final version is improved over the beta.

George Deliz
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2007, 11:07:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Okay, I spent a few more minutes on Ray's pano.  Here it is after a quick horizon level, slight perspective transform, crop and minor curves adjustment in CS3:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack,
Thanks for the attempt. Have you noticed you lost a stretch of mountain range in the left segment   . Also the mountains look smaller in general, in relation to the rest of the image. I took the same image from Photomerge's auto stitch and used 'free transform/warp' to pull up the two top corners, as below. You also lost the people. Were those cloned out? I'm a bit undecided about this. People have a tendency to walk up close to a large print on the wall print to see the detail. When they do with this one, they'll notice a group of tourists taking photos of each other with their P&S cameras. Leaving them in might be a sort of social commentary   .

[attachment=2006:attachment]
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2007, 11:40:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack,
Thanks for the attempt. Have you noticed you lost a stretch of mountain range in the left segment  . Also the mountains look smaller in general, in relation to the rest of the image. I took the same image from Photomerge's auto stitch and used 'free transform/warp' to pull up the two top corners, as below. You also lost the people. Were those cloned out? I'm a bit undecided about this. People have a tendency to walk up close to a large print on the wall print to see the detail. When they do with this one, they'll notice a group of tourists taking photos of each other with their P&S cameras. Leaving them in might be a sort of social commentary  .

[attachment=2006:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, I simply cropped to the maximum rectangle after orienting the horizon and AFTER generating the PERSPECTIVE CORRECT rendering per the first version I posted.
If you look at that image, you can see that the perspective correction squeezed out the people and the rectanglar crop of that image would eliminate part of the horizons and sky at the edges...

No way around that unless you want to stick with a cylindrical projection or reposition only projection.  These both will have the resulting curved horizon, since it appears your camera was angled down slightly as you panned.  

Here is an uncropped, unprocessed version of a "reposition only"  CS3 assembly.  You may prefer it since the people are there and the mountains are there, just the horizon has that swing-lens curve which I don't care for. Different strokes :
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 12:11:20 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2007, 12:05:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Lastly, here is the "Cylindrical" or pan projection from CS3, uncropped and unprocessed, that attempts to correct for a level pan, so it pulled the lower corners in a bit and bowed the captures for a more correct cylindrical projection.  

Again, my point is simply that CS3 can do a credible job with relative ease, even on difficult stitches, and yet offers a variety of options for assembling them at the same time:
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 12:10:52 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2007, 04:02:30 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]

Actually Jack's image of SF seems to qualify.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7904



WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2007, 06:27:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, the one I find most interesting of all of these so far is Ray's "Triangle plus Rectangle!" But perhaps it belongs in the "But is it art?" thread.    
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

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

Posts: 185


« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2007, 08:15:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm pretty sure Chris Jordan shoots most of his work with an 8x10 view camera..not to sure about the "running the numbers" series but I do believe he's an 8x10 gilm guy. I don't think he's stitching stuff.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2007, 09:16:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually Jack's image of SF seems to qualify.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A nice shot of SF with a lovely red sunset glow. If the details on the flags are visible, it must be really high resolution. But I'm not sure it qualifies for a 'large mosaic stitch'.

As Jack mentioned, this prints to 17"x34" uninterpolated at 360ppi. It's not clear what camera Jack used, but a vertical shot with the 1Ds2 should produce a 14" high print at 360ppi. I think Jack uses higher rez cameras than the 1Ds2.
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2007, 09:36:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Pete, Chris is shooting 8x10 and stitching with some images in that series and before. He has recently sold off most if not all of his LF stuff and is switching to digital.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 09:37:21 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

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

Posts: 8878


« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2007, 09:57:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lastly, here is the "Cylindrical" or pan projection from CS3, uncropped and unprocessed, that attempts to correct for a level pan, so it pulled the lower corners in a bit and bowed the captures for a more correct cylindrical projection. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack,
I've probably botched the image preparation for this stitch (just as I botched the taking of the shots   ).

I usually try to make the job for stitching programs easier by cropping all images to the same size and rotating the crops (if necessary) to bring elements in each frame to a similar level. With these handheld wide-angle shots, the levels were all over the place. How did I manage that? Well, I certainly wasn't drunk. Perhaps I was just exhausted after climbing an 800 metre hill before breakfast.

I tried the stitch again with the 3rd image uncropped and larger in size. It worked just fine and gave me more image on the right. This is another 'tick' for photomerge.

[attachment=2030:attachment]

I'm particularly pleased that the large, red lens-flare spot on the left of the third image (to the right) has disappeared in the stitching process.

[attachment=2031:attachment]  [attachment=2032:attachment]

This is a known common problem of this lens. Quite often I just raise my hand to protect the lens. A rectangular piece of cardboard would be better, though.

It seemed a pity to crop out that extra image area bottom right, so I searched for other similar images of the same scene and did a copy/paste and clone job in the bottom left corner.

The near-final rendition, which is almost ready to print, appears below.

[attachment=2033:attachment]
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2007, 10:07:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund, thanks for the compliment on my SF skyline shot!  But as Ray pointed out, it does not qualify as it is not a stitch but rather a single scan capture from a Betterlight back.

Ray, that last un-cropped full frame is clearly superior.  I have never bothered to try and "help" the program -- it is way smarter than I am  

Cheers,
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2007, 10:39:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, the one I find most interesting of all of these so far is Ray's "Triangle plus Rectangle!" But perhaps it belongs in the "But is it art?" thread.   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
We seem to think alike   . I also thought this was quite cute. I'm seriously considering printing it, if for no other reason than to study the non-plussed expressions of those who view it   .
Logged
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2007, 10:46:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Pete, Chris is shooting 8x10 and stitching with some images in that series and before. He has recently sold off most if not all of his LF stuff and is switching to digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Another one bites the dust. I wonder how it'll change his approach to things. Definitely a look to his work and prints that was heavily wrapped up in a view camera mind set. I liked that.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2007, 12:12:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have never bothered to try and "help" the program -- it is way smarter than I am  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's for sure, but I don't believe in miracles   .

When I know the images are 'bodgy', I feel compelled to help the program.

Here are the 3 uncropped images at the basis of the above stitch.

[attachment=2034:attachment]  [attachment=2035:attachment]  [attachment=2036:attachment]

Below is the automatic stitch of those 3 images.

[attachment=2037:attachment]

Now, I know what you are thinking. Was this guy on prohibited drugs when he took these shots? No, I wasn't. I wasn't on any drugs of any description. I didn't even have a cup of coffee before I set off on the pre-dawn climb.

The automatic stitch of these 3 images is impressive. I cannot fault any join. But the sloping horizon is a signifiant problem. That's why I sometimes try to help the program, Jack   .
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2007, 09:01:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Well I suppose it depends on the original captures and guess it makes sense in that the GIGO laws still apply   But it is good to know that there may be salvation for a poorly-captured set of stitch images -- thanks for sharing the full details!

PS: However, the second set of frames look like a completely different set than the first...  That first frame with the people in it has much less foreground in it and the second frame has the people which the original set did not. Edges are different too.  Maybe you grabbed a couple of sets and got them mixed up?  

Cheers,
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 09:10:44 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7904



WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 06, 2007, 09:04:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didn't even have a cup of coffee before I set off on the pre-dawn climb.
That's the problem, Ray! I could certainly never get a pre-dawn horizon straight if I hadn't had my morning coffee. In fact, I'd probably leave the lens cap on and not even notice it.  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 06, 2007, 11:03:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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]
Careful, as you don't always realise the value of things at the time.
People can become famous/infamous later and suddenly those arty B+W nude pics you did of Madonna Ciccione are worth a fortune.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #58 on: March 07, 2007, 06:47:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
-- thanks for sharing the full details!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack,
You want the full details? Okay! I'm in strict scientific mode for this post; no arty farty pretensions.  

There's no doubt that the above 3 images were taken in progressive sequence, from left to right. The metadata indicates there are just a few seconds between each shot. However, looking at the larger sequence of shots on each side of these 3 (I took a few dozen or so from this position with various lenses), it's now clear that the first image is the third of a previous group, panning from right to left, not the first of a second group panning from left to right. I took over 12,000 images on this trip and have difficulty sometimes in remembering the precise circumstances of each shot. However, having given it some thought, I can now reconstruct the exact circumstances.

These particular images were taken with the 5D on a Manfrotto 740SH tripod from the top of a 'look out' tower. It's a rather inadequate tripod for stitching purposes, being a ball-head, and doesn't have much height, even with the column fully extended. But it's very light and compact and serves its purpose for stitching with a T&S lens using the RRS L bracket and clamp.

The 'look out' tower of course has a fence around the platform to prevent people falling off. My tripod was not high enough to allow the lens an unobstructed view over the top of the fence. My guide, a very obliging chap, suggested he might be able to find a few slabs of rock to elevate the tripod. So whilst my guide was searching below for suitable slabs of rock, I was taking handheld shots, some for stitching and some not.

A few minutes later the guide appeared carrying a few rocks that did the trick. I normally pan from left to right because Panavue IA positions images in numerical sequence. But on this occasion, lens flare from the sun on the right was a problem, so I started from the right, then back from left to right, then back from right to left and so on. Here are the first 5 shots.

[attachment=2044:attachment]  [attachment=2045:attachment]  [attachment=2046:attachment]  [attachment=2047:attachment]  [attachment=2048:attachment]

As you can see, the first image is reasonably level, judging by the clouds. The second image is not too bad but has a more noticeable slope to the left and the 3rd image is just atrocious. To what extent this is due to the ball-head and to what extent due to the effects of a wide-angle lens tilted down, I'm not sure. But it's clear that between the third and fourth shot, I tried to correct the tilt but overcorrected so the horizon is now sloping the other way slightly. However, in the 5th shot, the clouds are sloping in the opposite direction to the 4th shot, which tends to indicate the ball-head is not keeping the camera level.

Now, as you know, a good tradesman always blames his tools when things go wrong, so I'm blaming that ball-head tripod.  

I converted the first 3 images again, paying particular attention to keeping the vignetting amount, vignetting mid-point, temperature and tint the same for each shot, something I sometimes overlook. Keeping the conversion settings identical in every respect seems to improve the tonal transitions between images in the sky. The image below shows how CS3 auto stitch compares to the best I can do with Panavue's Image Assembler using flags and lens selection, and also Panavue in full auto mode.

[attachment=2049:attachment]

It's interesting to note that the CS3 result is significantly smaller in spite of more white background. The Panavue result in auto mode has duplicated the person being photographed in the foreground, otherwise it seems okay. The 'flag' stitch has a slight discontinuity near the base, as shown in the interpolated crops, and has used the duplicated figure in the middle image as opposed to CS3's preference for the first figure.

[attachment=2050:attachment]

I should also mention that the first 3 images in this sequence were taken with the zoom lens set at 21mm. When I corrected the horizon level in the 4th image, I also changed the focal length to 25mm. The stitches in previous posts consist of one image at 21mm and two at 25mm.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2007, 09:35:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Makes sense Ray, I understand getting images from different sets confused.  I often take several "sets" of one subject for a stitch if I think the composition warrants it.  After all, once you're set up, taking the second or third set is no biggie.  

The first time I did this, I was instantly "confused" when editing the images for the stitch -- was that 3 frames or 5 I took for this one, did I pan left to right or right to left and where does the best series start and end?  Like you, I had to go back to the metadata, try and remember what I did when I shot it, generally play detective and work it all out.  For those who have not done this, no it isn't as easy as it sounds if you look at just the order they show in the browser -- multiple sets in front of you can create confusion with many compositions, especially if you are processing them several days after you captured them.  

So FWIW, I now use a simple trick. Since I'm in manual mode anyway, I just stick my hand in front of the lens and grab a frame between each set.  Makes it easy to differentiate them after the fact...

Cheers,
« Last Edit: March 07, 2007, 09:38:11 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad