Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Stitched Nikon to emulate medium/large format capture?  (Read 22877 times)
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3019


« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2011, 06:37:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Didn't know that.  Doesn't it stress the image a bit, so much restructuring?  I actually prefer the look of cylindrical projection most of the time.

The great thing about good stitching software is that it usually also includes a great number of projection methods. Some of them are 'tweakable' and there can even be a hybrid of different methods, depending on the subject.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Steve_Townsend
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 22, 2011, 06:44:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I used to stitch occasionally with a Cambo WDS and a P45+ back. With that camera body and a lateral shift, the lens stayed still and the back moved (good). A vertical shift the lens moves (a pain) so a 4 quarters shift and stitch always needed a bit of fiddling!! Rarely needed that much resolution certainly for my commercial clients.

That said I have given all that up and gone back to dslrs. The odd time I need more resolution now and also perspective correction I stitch with PTGui.  I use the D3s and the D3x with precise nodal adjustment for each lens and an RRS pano head. If you think the resolution of stitched P45+ image is good when compared to the stitched dslr images those are stunning. Yes I am using the best Zeiss glass, the ones that Lloyd Chambers rates, the 25mm (OK), 35/f2 (v. good) the 50mm f/2 (v. good) and of course the 100mm (awesome). The D3x for ultimate resolution but more often than not the D3s (10 frames a second) and then HDR when needed. Rapid capture I am sure takes the ultimate edge off each image, but the quick succession certainly helps with hdr. I think even if I was to use the Alpa Max(?) which I have not tried and therefore not need the above fiddle(!) I would be surprised if it could compete quite honestly.

Post processing mmmm, I'm sure is more time consuming. But most of the time I never do it. Most images didn't warrant that attention and/or the clients didn't expect that quality. But when they or I did need the extra, the RRS pano head comes apart easily and is not too big to carry around with you. I use the L brackets anyway. So I think I have the best of both world most of the time.

Steve
Logged

tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 493


« Reply #42 on: January 22, 2011, 07:49:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Elliot,

I'm sorry I found this thread late. I have been shooting this way for several years. I shot 4x5 for about 30 years. Stitching started out as a curiosity and now all my work is stitched mosaics. I could write about it here but my thoughts have already been captured in the pages in the links below.

All the best.

Scott

http://www.scotthendershot.com/ThoughtsOnADigitalWorkflow.html
http://www.scotthendershot.com/Example01.aspx

Hi Scott-

I see you finally found the Luminous Landscape; you will find some very knowledgeable and helpful readers here.
I would encourage anyone interested in stitching to visit Scott’s site; really beautiful work and lots of information. Unfortunately, web presentation is a great leveler and you can’t see the quality of his prints.  I will say that several years ago his prints and comments convinced a dyed-in-the wool-die-hard-I-know-what-I-like Cibachrome printer to buy an Epson inkjet.  You can see a better representation of his work in Lenswork
Best,

Tom
Logged
Policar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2011, 12:41:20 AM »
ReplyReply

The great thing about good stitching software is that it usually also includes a great number of projection methods. Some of them are 'tweakable' and there can even be a hybrid of different methods, depending on the subject.

Cheers,
Bart

Thanks, I'm going to have to try some of that.  I'm not normally a fan of ultra-wide (wider than 24mm on 135) lenses because of the distorted corners, but that looks promising.
Logged
elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2011, 02:14:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting...is the parallax point usually where the lens meets the body (or half way between sensor and front element or something)?

I don't have any plans to use this technique, but I've been trying to carry my t2i with me everywhere and sometimes I see something that deserves a little more resolution.

The 'no parallax' point is pretty much the same as the 'entrance pupil'.  It is not the same as the 'front nodal point' or 'rear nodal point', however the front nodal point and the entrance pupil can be located at the same position.

Just look in the front of the lens to find the entrance pupil.  It is located at the apparent position of the diaphram. Most modern lens (especially zooms) will move the entrance pupil around when zooming and/or changing focus so they can be hard to use for stitching.  The more accurately you can rotate around the entrance pupil, the less parallax will occur so you can include closer objects in the foreground.
Logged
rschlierbeck
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2011, 09:12:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the kind words. I guess you never know who you are going to run into on these forums. Interesting that you are reading about stitching. Have you started doing mosaics?

Scott
Logged

MalcolmL
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2011, 01:04:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Steve
I purchased PTGui 1 week ago and now have has some experience with this suite and I have some observations to make.
Firstly may I say that PTGui is clearly the best suite developed so far. It outperforms Arcsoft and all others I have tried and so it is now my default stitcher. I need not detail its benefits here. I purchased the pro version mainly due to its ability to stitch bracketed images and apply in suite HDR and tone mapping. Thats important if you have a very high dymanic range in your required end image.

Wanting to gain the highest possible resolution I attempted an eight stitch image with 3 exposures per frame - a total of 24 vertically oriented (portrait mode) images and then applied the HDR at the end. I shoot full frame at 24 megapix per shot. To produce a good wide angle view (equivalent to a FL of about 20mm in my final stitch) I chose a 70mm FL for each frame. I have a very fast computer using Windows 7 64 bit and 12 gig of ram and a fast processor.
It took PTGui a total of about 90 minutes to complete the tasks required including creating and manipulating the HDR. I shot in JPEG and saved as a tiff - If I had shot in RAW that 90 minutes might translate to 90 hours (!!). I never tried.

The end result was fair - heaps of detail but I found the tones and colours in the final image rather bland and lacking that WOW factor. My end file was 400 megabytes and almost all my other applications could either not handle this (as they are written in 32 bits and so can only access 2 gig of ram) or took their time and in the end it became too much of a pain to enhance the images to the point I was pleased with them. I was NOT pleased with the colours or the tonal range.
I then did some maths and I recon that in terms of definition I had ended up with near 10" x 8 " film type detail.

Now the crux of the matter is this. Will this detail be visible in the end print???

That clearly depends on the size of print being created !!


I print up to 19 inch by 13 inch on an A3+ Canon printer. According to R. N Clark (whose opinion I trust) you need 600 DPI to satisfy the discerning eye in the final print. That is NOT the 300 DPI that is commonly touted (http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/printer-ppi/).

Now with the 8 stitch image printing to 19 x 13 inches I would be using a 120 megapixel image  - that is then 2.5 times more than the human eye can resolve assuming my printer would detail up (and I doubt that it could,  but I  have not done the maths).

Now shooting 3 vertical images in a horizontal row with a 55mm FL length lens I can use the in camera dynamic range optimisation that works well here (you cannot use this with an 8 stitch and a longer FL as each piece of the mosaic is too small and the end result is images with such and exposure difference you will end up with an awful result).

Stiching 3 in a row is quick and with this software yields perfect result. With a 20 % overlap the final aspect ration is 3:2 suiting standard paper formats.

I end up with a 65 megapixel file that most of my other photoeditors handle well for the fine tuning. The in camera DRO produces far superior HDR than the software HDR in PTGui.

The image looks natural. VERY natural. WOW !!

Now is this sharp enough?? To get 600 dpi on a 19 inch by 13 inch paper you need 48 megapixels.

I have 65 megapixels from this 3 in a row stitch. There is STILL detail there that the eye will not see.

CONCLUSION

PROVIDED YOU HAVE A FULL FRAME CAMERA WITH DYNAMIC RANGE OPTIMISATION - it seems to me that this is the way to go.
Unless of course you are lucky enough to own an A2 printer. I have not done the maths on that one.

The limiter is your printer - that is my message.

And thanks for introducing PTGui to me.
Kind regards

Malcolm  Shocked



Logged
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2011, 05:47:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I used to stitch occasionally with a Cambo WDS and a P45+ back. With that camera body and a lateral shift, the lens stayed still and the back moved (good). A vertical shift the lens moves (a pain) so a 4 quarters shift and stitch always needed a bit of fiddling!! Rarely needed that much resolution certainly for my commercial clients.

That said I have given all that up and gone back to dslrs. The odd time I need more resolution now and also perspective correction I stitch with PTGui.  I use the D3s and the D3x with precise nodal adjustment for each lens and an RRS pano head. If you think the resolution of stitched P45+ image is good when compared to the stitched dslr images those are stunning. Yes I am using the best Zeiss glass, the ones that Lloyd Chambers rates, the 25mm (OK), 35/f2 (v. good) the 50mm f/2 (v. good) and of course the 100mm (awesome). The D3x for ultimate resolution but more often than not the D3s (10 frames a second) and then HDR when needed. Rapid capture I am sure takes the ultimate edge off each image, but the quick succession certainly helps with hdr. I think even if I was to use the Alpa Max(?) which I have not tried and therefore not need the above fiddle(!) I would be surprised if it could compete quite honestly.

Post processing mmmm, I'm sure is more time consuming. But most of the time I never do it. Most images didn't warrant that attention and/or the clients didn't expect that quality. But when they or I did need the extra, the RRS pano head comes apart easily and is not too big to carry around with you. I use the L brackets anyway. So I think I have the best of both world most of the time.

Steve

Steve, can I ask why you switched from the P45+ to your Nikon system for landscape work?

I am looking at moving from Nikon 35mm to a P45+ so your move in the opposite direction caught my attention,

Thanks,
Aaron
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 02, 2011, 05:27:33 PM »
ReplyReply


Firstly may I say that PTGui is clearly the best suite developed so far.

Have you tried Autopano Giga?

I believe that both PTgui and Autopano Giga are head and shoulder above the rest, but I would probably give APG 2.5 RC2 a slight lead over PTgui for now.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 02, 2011, 05:32:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, can I ask why you switched from the P45+ to your Nikon system for landscape work?

I am looking at moving from Nikon 35mm to a P45+ so your move in the opposite direction caught my attention,

Can't answer on behalf of Steve, but the reason I made a similar move a few years ago were:
- Live view
- Cold weather battery life,
- much wider range of accessible focal lenght in a reasonably compact package (especially on the long side)
- better compromise between DoF and optical quality knowing that most optics peak at around f8
- one does it all package
- support anywhere in the world in case of issue when travelling to exotic countries

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Steve_Townsend
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2011, 05:13:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Aaron

I think that Bernard has beat me to answer the question but the points he has highlighted are most relevant. For me it is the one stop shop. I can do pretty much all I want to do with my dslr set up and when I need the extra I stitch. I had the P45+, a Mamiya 645II and a Cambo WDS, but ninety percent of the time I felt that set up to be cumbersome by comparison.

Sure visualising the stitched combo takes practice but maybe I have just been doing that a long time. I also like the lateral and vertical shifts that are possible in post.

I think for me now, having used both set ups for a long time, the only reason you should go with the MFDB set up above or similar, is if you need that extra quality every day of the week in one shot. My clients are very happy with the quality I produce now with the dslr and when I need that extra, even a 2 shot stitch with a D3x and a range of Zeiss glass the quality is very very impressive. Furthermore if you have the time or the subject to need more shots and then to add hdr, really you are in another league.

Steve
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6925


WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2011, 11:13:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'd just add two theoretical observations:

- A shift pano is limited by the amount of shift of the lens while a rotational pano can have any width.
- A shift pano uses the full image circle of the lens while a rotational pano would not use the corners.

Best regards
Erik


Hi Aaron

I think that Bernard has beat me to answer the question but the points he has highlighted are most relevant. For me it is the one stop shop. I can do pretty much all I want to do with my dslr set up and when I need the extra I stitch. I had the P45+, a Mamiya 645II and a Cambo WDS, but ninety percent of the time I felt that set up to be cumbersome by comparison.

Sure visualising the stitched combo takes practice but maybe I have just been doing that a long time. I also like the lateral and vertical shifts that are possible in post.

I think for me now, having used both set ups for a long time, the only reason you should go with the MFDB set up above or similar, is if you need that extra quality every day of the week in one shot. My clients are very happy with the quality I produce now with the dslr and when I need that extra, even a 2 shot stitch with a D3x and a range of Zeiss glass the quality is very very impressive. Furthermore if you have the time or the subject to need more shots and then to add hdr, really you are in another league.

Steve
Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2011, 01:21:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I took the top 10 DxOmark sensor rankings threw out the high iso ranking and multiplied the dynamic range by the color depth to see which cameras would be best for landscape work without regard to resolution:
1. D3X    338.39
2. P65+  338
3. K5     334.7

my P45+ #7 at 312.18!
Interesting? perhaps a good DLSR stitched gives away nothing to a MFDB these days?
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2011, 04:04:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Steve & Bernard  Smiley,

Can i ask about your basic set ups?

Are you using the same lens for all stitches and just increasing the number of peripheral frames to increase field of view? or do you use a wider lens to stitch a wider image? I have noted that Bernard and some others are using lenses in the 100mm range....

For example, lets say i want to emulate a single frame taken on a plate camera with a 28mm lens and a P45 back---
Do you use your D3x with 100mm and just take enough frames to cover the same field as the P45 set up?

Lets say you want to increase resolution without moving your camera position, do you use a longer lens and take more frames than the above example?

Do you always use a panoramic nodal slide system? If so, are you usually doing single or multi row stitches? Most of the multi row nodal systems look like they would be unstable under the weight of a D3x plus lens.......

Sorry for all the questions! Just trying to get my head around the alternative options before giving phase or Hassy a bag of money.....
Thanks,
Aaron
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2011, 10:24:54 AM »
ReplyReply

For example, lets say i want to emulate a single frame taken on a plate camera with a 28mm lens and a P45 back---
Do you use your D3x with 100mm and just take enough frames to cover the same field as the P45 set up?

Lets say you want to increase resolution without moving your camera position, do you use a longer lens and take more frames than the above example?

Do you always use a panoramic nodal slide system? If so, are you usually doing single or multi row stitches? Most of the multi row nodal systems look like they would be unstable under the weight of a D3x plus lens.......

Sorry for all the questions! Just trying to get my head around the alternative options before giving phase or Hassy a bag of money.....
Thanks,
Aaron

why don't you want to try superresolution software instead of stitching panoramas ? http://www.photoacute.com/


Logged
Steve_Townsend
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2011, 05:09:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Aaron

My basic set up includes a Nikon D3x and/or a D3s and lenses I use to stitch, all Zeiss 25mm, 35f2, 50mm macro and 100mm macro with Live View focus. I have L brackets on the camera bodies and use the RRS pano head (Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Package), an excellent compliment when using L-brackets. The RRS pano head would be really fantastic if it had click stops which it doesn't. I have the Seitz VR Drive as well which comes into its own when mounted on a 60 foot elevated mast I also use, camera triggered using PW PlusII's.

The camera body is usually portrait but a two shot vertical stitch when the camera is landscape is straight forward with this set up and can be useful, depending on the movement within the images and the location of the join!

To be honest I stitch the least number of shots possible to achieve the resolution I require and often just two or three shots. If there is any movement you do want the least number of joins possible. The lens is selected depending on the final FOV that is required. The final images are then rendered rectilinear or cylinderical, though there are other projections I do not use.

I would not like to talk you out of the MFDB, it is just this set up works for me and the work that I do. If you need that extra resolution all of time I do not believe this solution to be cost effective.

Actually my favourite set up is the D3s (at 10fps) stitched and then with hdr. An extremely quick capture but with lengthy processing back in the studio. Try doing that with a Phase back and a pano head (I have tried!)

Steve
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2011, 05:15:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Steve & Bernard  Smiley,

Can i ask about your basic set ups?

Are you using the same lens for all stitches and just increasing the number of peripheral frames to increase field of view? or do you use a wider lens to stitch a wider image? I have noted that Bernard and some others are using lenses in the 100mm range....

For example, lets say i want to emulate a single frame taken on a plate camera with a 28mm lens and a P45 back---
Do you use your D3x with 100mm and just take enough frames to cover the same field as the P45 set up?

Lets say you want to increase resolution without moving your camera position, do you use a longer lens and take more frames than the above example?

Do you always use a panoramic nodal slide system? If so, are you usually doing single or multi row stitches? Most of the multi row nodal systems look like they would be unstable under the weight of a D3x plus lens.......

Sorry for all the questions! Just trying to get my head around the alternative options before giving phase or Hassy a bag of money.....
Thanks,
Aaron

Quick answer:
- the focal lenght has to be adopted to the scene when using manual pano heads. The criteria is the ability to stitch easily, meaning the largest part of the scene without recognizable features. A nice blue sky is unstichable because the pano software has no way to recognize anything... so you'll need something on the ground below it to allow stitching, and that drives the longest focal lenght you can use,
- another criteria is time/movement, things that change fast typically need to be in one frame. It also depends on the time you can afford to spend on that image, the longer the lens, the more frames you need, the longer it takes. Time is money for pros, time is related to safety in the outdoors,
- I use 300, 100 and 60mm lenses on a regular basis. Part of that is due to the fact that the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 is the closest thing in Nikon mount to a perfect lens,
- I have been using 2 different Really Right Stuff heads with good success, but tripod stability is also critical, especially in windy conditions. Use the best you can carry/afford (Gitzo 5531s or RRS TVC when I need to be lighter) and weight it down with your pack.

Good luck.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 05:17:32 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 07, 2011, 04:50:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Aaron

My basic set up includes a Nikon D3x and/or a D3s and lenses I use to stitch, all Zeiss 25mm, 35f2, 50mm macro and 100mm macro with Live View focus. I have L brackets on the camera bodies and use the RRS pano head (Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Package), an excellent compliment when using L-brackets. The RRS pano head would be really fantastic if it had click stops which it doesn't. I have the Seitz VR Drive as well which comes into its own when mounted on a 60 foot elevated mast I also use, camera triggered using PW PlusII's.

The camera body is usually portrait but a two shot vertical stitch when the camera is landscape is straight forward with this set up and can be useful, depending on the movement within the images and the location of the join!

To be honest I stitch the least number of shots possible to achieve the resolution I require and often just two or three shots. If there is any movement you do want the least number of joins possible. The lens is selected depending on the final FOV that is required. The final images are then rendered rectilinear or cylinderical, though there are other projections I do not use.

I would not like to talk you out of the MFDB, it is just this set up works for me and the work that I do. If you need that extra resolution all of time I do not believe this solution to be cost effective.

Actually my favourite set up is the D3s (at 10fps) stitched and then with hdr. An extremely quick capture but with lengthy processing back in the studio. Try doing that with a Phase back and a pano head (I have tried!)

Steve

Thanks Steve,

That's quite the set up, I am not sure i can get the 60 foot pole into my back pack though! I have actually looked at the Seitz Drive but wasnt convinced of its practicality over a basic RRS Pano kit, it makes more sense of course for your remote use.

I am going to test a P45 against a 3 frame Stitch on a D3x in the next couple of days, if the Nikon Stitch cuts the mustard then its a very interesting alternative.

Thanks again,
Aaron
Logged
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 07, 2011, 05:02:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quick answer:
- the focal lenght has to be adopted to the scene when using manual pano heads. The criteria is the ability to stitch easily, meaning the largest part of the scene without recognizable features. A nice blue sky is unstichable because the pano software has no way to recognize anything... so you'll need something on the ground below it to allow stitching, and that drives the longest focal lenght you can use,
- another criteria is time/movement, things that change fast typically need to be in one frame. It also depends on the time you can afford to spend on that image, the longer the lens, the more frames you need, the longer it takes. Time is money for pros, time is related to safety in the outdoors,
- I use 300, 100 and 60mm lenses on a regular basis. Part of that is due to the fact that the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 is the closest thing in Nikon mount to a perfect lens,
- I have been using 2 different Really Right Stuff heads with good success, but tripod stability is also critical, especially in windy conditions. Use the best you can carry/afford (Gitzo 5531s or RRS TVC when I need to be lighter) and weight it down with your pack.

Good luck.

Cheers,
Bernard


Appreciate the info Bernard,

I am going to run some tests this week, i guess the only way to get your head around stitching is to try it! I am just waiting on an RRS kit and i am good to go.

The different lens choices are the hardest thing to get ones head around without experience. I will try the 60 and 100mm for some test images, i have the older manual 60micro and the newer 100 vr micro, not sure how they will perform for stitching but should suffice for an initial experience.

I will bring some bricks in my bag to weigh down the tripod! Stitching workflow seems to have more in common with shooting8x10.

Thanks again,
Aaron



Logged
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


WWW
« Reply #59 on: February 07, 2011, 05:10:05 AM »
ReplyReply

why don't you want to try superresolution software instead of stitching panoramas ? http://www.photoacute.com/




Looks interesting but i would imagine the possible improvements in image quality diminish rapidly as your original single capture quality improves. I can see it working for overlaying multiple noisy images from a point and shoot but a clean low iso file from a large chip would see less gains.
That's just my gut feeling, I have no experience of the software.

Thanks,
Aaron
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad