Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Good news for stitchers!  (Read 10443 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2005, 10:28:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, but file size has very little to do with how the image is represented in memory, as long as the image resolution is the same. You have to stop thinking of them as files. Think of them as e.g. 6000x4000 resolution images.
Of course. The reason I've been converting images to jpeg is not to reduce file sizes or resolution but simply because Autostitch only accepts images in this format. I'm trying to find out if Autostitch can do anything that Image Assembler cannot.

My impressions so far are that Autostitch cannot handle large files (ie. high resolution images); needs a more substantial overlap between images to work at all, and sometimes has difficulty straightening out images.

Its inability to work with TIF and 16 bit images is clearly a disadvantage, but a perfect stitch in jpeg is probably better than an imperfect stitch in 16 bit TIF, so this is what I'm looking for.

Stitching programs can be great time wasters. To reduce wasted time, it's necessary to know the limitations of the program.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 23, 2005, 07:25:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's a pity this lens is a bit on the soft side.

By the way, the TS-E 90 accepts an extender.
1) That's why I use the Olympus 24 shift on my Canon ;~)

2) ALL the Canon TSE's will accept either Canon converter.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 19, 2005, 08:41:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

Thanks for the answer. I was probably not clear enough, sorry.

My question was more about the .psd export, than import. Meaning the possibility to export the stiched image in .psd in order to be able to edit manually the masks used for stiching.

Best regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 8812


« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2005, 10:21:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Everybody else is saying great things about it, but I just could never manage to get good results out of it, probably as a result of me not devoting enough time to learn to master it.
Yea, my attempts with the Realviz trial version were not encouraging. There's is probably no clear winner here. Each program will have its strengths and weaknesses but to fully evaluate any program and find out what it's really capable of requires a lot of time and experimentation. I'm not prepared to spend that time.

One gets used to a particular interface. An unfamiliar way of doing things can so easily be seen as inherently awkward and cumbersome; a bit like a Mac owner switching to a PC for the first time, or vice versa  Cheesy .

Whenever I've tried other stitching programs which might seem to be more powerfull than IA, or are claimed to be, I've always got the impression of great awkwardness in the method of execution; for example, trying to align a semi transparent overlap and peering at the screen to see if one image needs a little bit more rotation for a perfect alignment when it's difficult to be sure if it's perfectly aligned or not.

What I like about Image Assembler, apart from its very good fully automatic processes, is the easy way one can bring up consecutive pairs of images on the screen and zoom in on just the area where a particular pair of flags are, having positioned them approximately first. It's even possible to place the flags on two matching individual pixels if that's the degree of accuracy that's required.

I also like the way IA can force or align stitched images in a row (if you ticked the box in the 'options' window). Some stitching programs give a resulting image with great bulbous circular edges which have to be cropped, thus wasting up to a third of the image. The new version of IA has improved upon this feature. The 13 images of my 1.1GB stitch referred to earlier were taken about 6 years ago. The camera was not perfectly level and after stitching reduced size scans using the earlier version of IA, there was an unavoidable stepping effect at the top and bottom of the panorama, each image from left to right being a step lower than the previous one. Cropping the final stitch to a rectangle for printing resulted in some waste, maybe 10 or 20% depending on how much additional sky I cloned in. This new version of IA succeeded in forcing all the images into an almost perfect rectangle. Instead of significant stepping, there's just a slight raggedness of the edge in a few places requiring very minimal cropping.

I'm very pleased with this new version. It's a significant upgrade.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1628


« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2005, 10:57:18 AM »
ReplyReply

For getting more megapixels from your camera, nothing beats Autostitch, pricewise.  It's free!

I don't do 360's, I don't stitch rows of stitches and I don't use a tripod. I find the quality amazing and I've been stitching for years.

Lack of control and filetype flexiblity are problematic at present, hopefully this will improve if the software goes commercial.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2005, 12:38:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Almost is the key word.
When I say "almost" I mean I cannot find the seams at actual pixel view even though I know where to look for them.  Anything less, and I'll edit the image to fix it to where I cannot detect seams.

To clarify, with my flat-stitch method -- shifting the lens and counter-shifting the camera -- you get ZERO parallax because you are working fully inside the lens' base image circle, so even lens distortions will not affect the final image seam since they'll line up perfectly.  Any visible mis-matches I get mean I either did not do a perfect counter-shift or there is an exposure or color-balance difference along a seam.
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 23, 2005, 08:58:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has anyone tried the same with one of the shift lenses available in Nikon mount?

Regards,
Bernard
I have tested the following shift lenses on my Canon 1Ds2:

Nikon 35 and 28 PC (latest versions only)
Nikon 85 tilt/shift macro
Olympus 24 and 35 shift
Contax/Zeiss 35 PC
Schneider (Leica) 28 PC
Mamiya 645 50mm Shift
Hartblei 80mm super-rotator

Suffice it to say, I now carry the following as my main lenses for landscape photography:


Olympus 24 shift
Olympus 35 shift
Mamiya 50mm shift
Canon 90 TSE

Cheers,
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 23, 2005, 09:58:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nikon 35 and 28 PC (latest versions only)
Nikon 85 tilt/shift macro
Schneider (Leica) 28 PC
Jack,

Thanks for your kinf feedback. Would you mind elaborating a bit more on what you saw with the 3 lenses below on your 1DsMK2?

Thank you in advance,

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad