Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Where is the best place to pivot the camera?  (Read 5472 times)
jannatul18
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15

Nothing Goes Unpaid


WWW
« on: July 24, 2014, 04:06:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello can you please let me know for panoramic pictures, where is the best place to pivot the camera? Please help.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3771


« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2014, 05:25:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello can you please let me know for panoramic pictures, where is the best place to pivot the camera? Please help.

Hi,

The best point is the center of the Entrance pupil (AKA No-Parallax Point or NPP) of your lens.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1953



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2014, 07:09:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The best point is the center of the Entrance pupil (AKA No-Parallax Point or NPP) of your lens.


Bart's right in theory, but my experience is that it really makes no difference. On a recent trip I made dozens of panoramas ranging from 4 to 12 shots simply by hand-holding the camera a pivoting my neck. They stitched together perfectly. Just be sure you have a good deal of overlap from one shot to the next.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2896


« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2014, 11:24:47 AM »
ReplyReply

See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82928.msg670134#msg670134
Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2014, 04:12:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Bart's right in theory, but my experience is that it really makes no difference. On a recent trip I made dozens of panoramas ranging from 4 to 12 shots simply by hand-holding the camera a pivoting my neck. They stitched together perfectly. Just be sure you have a good deal of overlap from one shot to the next.

I'll second your comment. Most of my panoramas are hand-held with 70-200 mm IS tele with no problems whatsoever. 1/4 or more overlap is the key. If I know I'll be stationary for a long while, close to my car, I'll use a tripod and shutter release cable. That allows me to simply pivot the camera in small increments without even looking through the viewfinder to judge how much overlap I'm using. So sometimes I may be overlapping 70%. Not a problem with that either for PS stitching.
Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 977


« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2014, 03:49:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Programs have gotten better, and you don't need absolute precision to stitch panoramas without very close objects. You do need to use the no-parallax point if you plan on having a close object in your panorama.
Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2014, 04:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Programs have gotten better, and you don't need absolute precision to stitch panoramas without very close objects. You do need to use the no-parallax point if you plan on having a close object in your panorama.
Even then, sometimes I just move a foreground rock or two around so the stitching line doesn't matter.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2014, 07:01:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Bart's right in theory, but my experience is that it really makes no difference.... I made dozens of panoramas ranging from 4 to 12 shots simply by hand-holding the camera a pivoting my neck. They stitched together perfectly.
Much will depend on the subject matter; For panoramas that include little foreground, you can get away with a lot of imprecision, but if you start to include objects closer to camera the importance of pivoting around the lens nodal point increases.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7680


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2014, 07:10:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That works as long as you don't have objects in the near foreground.


Best regards
Erik

Bart's right in theory, but my experience is that it really makes no difference. On a recent trip I made dozens of panoramas ranging from 4 to 12 shots simply by hand-holding the camera a pivoting my neck. They stitched together perfectly. Just be sure you have a good deal of overlap from one shot to the next.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3771


« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2014, 07:54:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That works as long as you don't have objects in the near foreground.

Indeed, the question was, "Where is the best place to pivot the camera?"

Of course there are scenarios (and ways!) to perform the shooting sequence that reduces the risk of failure, but the best one is as indicated ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1953



WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2014, 08:53:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That works as long as you don't have objects in the near foreground.



How close? I have hand-held panos with objects as close as 10 feet and they are fine.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3771


« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2014, 09:45:08 AM »
ReplyReply

How close? I have hand-held panos with objects as close as 10 feet and they are fine.

It all depends on the scene. One can align foreground parallax, or background parallax, not both at the same time. So if e.g. the background is not critical (no predictable structures) or blurred, or chaotic, one can align foreground features without trouble. However, parallax can turn out to be impossible to fix, or at least very time consuming, so it's still better to prevent than (having) to cure.

With a bit of practice (like turning oneself around the entrance pupil, instead of rotating from the neck or torso), and a good amount of overlap and good software, and a suitable subject (few occlusions), and some luck, it is possible to achieve good handheld results. But that was not the question the OP asked. Besides, good technique also requires fewer images (with less overlap) to achieve a successful stitch, which will save more time, especially when focus stacking or exposure bracketing enters the picture, so to speak.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2896


« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2014, 11:21:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Bart's right in theory, but my experience is that it really makes no difference.

My impression is that Bart may see a thousand unacceptable mismatches in that really makes no difference picture :-)
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1953



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2014, 03:59:39 PM »
ReplyReply

My impression is that Bart may see a thousand unacceptable mismatches in that really makes no difference picture :-)

I agree. All of Bart's suggestions may be perfectly true, but do they make a difference in the final photos? Not in my experience. And, isn't that our final goal? A photograph that we and others will look at and enjoy? God save us from the pixel peepers who haven't any interest in (or clue about) the aesthetic value of a photo, but just stick their nose up against the photo and look for flaws. This is not meant as a criticism of Bart, but I do think that a lot of people on LuLa are too obsessed with technique and not concerned enough about composition, lighting, and the like.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3771


« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2014, 05:09:13 PM »
ReplyReply

My impression is that Bart may see a thousand unacceptable mismatches in that really makes no difference picture :-)

Your impression then, is most likely based on your lack of practical experience. My practical experience with panorama stitching (montage, back to the film days) goes back some 2 decades. Time spent in post-processing impossible feature matches is largely wasted time, if better technique could have prevented that waste of time (with no guarantee of success, unlike with proper technique).

I do admit that my experience as a part-time ISO certification team leader in (what then was) the world's largest supplier of photographic materials may bias my opinion towards a 'prevent GIGO', i.e. garbage-in-garbage-out, mentality. It's because 'quality management' actually works.

Avoiding sloppy work at the input stage, will pay off at the end.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 05:36:38 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3771


« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2014, 05:15:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree. All of Bart's suggestions may be perfectly true, but do they make a difference in the final photos?

Hi Peter,

As I said, it depends on the subject matter (and experience to compensate), and the amount of time you choose to waste on avoidable post-processing attempts. Feel free to waste as much time as you wish, but good advice is something different.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 05:37:34 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2896


« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2014, 05:27:56 PM »
ReplyReply

…but do they make a difference in the final photos?

They can and the practical issue is that post-processing fixes to make sure they don't make a difference in the final photos takes time. (Yesterday I repeatedly reworked images to remove mismatched edges in the overlaps, by painting all but one version transparent.)

Often I can bodge the images into a composite and I wouldn't wish to discourage anyone from making composites without a pano head; but if the money's available…


…too obsessed with technique and not concerned enough about composition, lighting, and the like.

I take them to be obsessed with technique and concerned with composition, lighting, and…
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2896


« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2014, 05:31:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Avoiding sloppy work at the input stage, will pay off at the end.

As I agree, I think you grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3771


« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2014, 05:33:52 PM »
ReplyReply

As I agree, I think you grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

What stick?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2896


« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2014, 05:34:45 PM »
ReplyReply

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/get-the-wrong-end-of-the-stick
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad