 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | You are not logged in.
I do a lot of 180 degree panoramas. Autopano Pro merges them most of the time but the result is a distorted image with a bulge in the middle. I was wondering if Autopano Pro can succcessfully merge photos taken with different zoom settings? That is, as you start you zoom in a bit so that this part of the panorama will appear larger. If this process is gradual will a successful merge be possible? To compensate maybe take many more photos that usual. This might be asking the software to do too much but I wonder if anything can or will be done to overcome this distortion problem.
Offline
vfb wrote:
I was wondering if Autopano Pro can succcessfully merge photos taken with different zoom settings? That is, as you start you zoom in a bit so that this part of the panorama will appear larger.
Autopano Pro can succcessfully merge photos taken with different zoom settings but it will compensate for these different zoom settings (in other words using a longer zoom setting will result in having a higher definition - more pixels - but exactly the same image, bulge included.)
Using the same word distortion for different meanings is usual but makes things more difficult to grasp:
- barrel distortion of wide angle lens is an actual construction defect and it can be corrected
- elongated shape of a ball when placed in an image corner of a very wide-angle lens (the shorter the lens the more elongated the image of the ball) is not a construction defect and can't be "corrected". Using a cylindrical projection would result in a more acceptable (though not perfect) image of this ball but as a consequence horizontal straight lines would be curved on the corresponding panorama.
- circular images from a fisheye lens are "purposely distorted" because this is the only possible way to place on an image (a single one, that is) objects being at the far left side and at the far right side of the camera.
The truth is that no lens and no projection mode exactly corresponds to "what we see" when watching a scene where the field of view reaches or is larger than 120 degrees (one third of what is around us.)
In the following example (3 different projections of the very same panorama):
The first image (linear projection) would be fine ... if severely cropped to keep only the central part (this part would correspond to using a moderate wide-angle lens).
The second one is better but left and right sides are "too compressed" and the ground tiles are not seen as squares like they should.
The third version (panini projection at a particular setting) is the best compromise to my eyes but still suffer from the same defects...
Last edited by GURL (2010-07-22 13:36:09)
Offline