 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | Rules | You are not logged in.
Hello all,
I am searching for the best step forward regarding the quality of my panoramas.
Below you see a link to a virtual tour holding 3 panoramas which are based on photos I made in my studio on a somewhat sunnyday. They were made to show what seems to be the maximum quality that comes out if I simply run all steps but without doing any tweaking on colors and so. I like to have a good untweaked version, saves me time and work.
I would like to use it as a starting point to discuss with you what I can do to improve my panoramas.
What I would like to know is whether this is about the quality I can expect from the setup described below. If so, I would like to know what would be the best way to improve quality while still keeping the same decent time needed for making the shot. It now took 11 minutes on a bright day, going to 30 minutes is acceptable but I really need to see improvement that make it worth while.
The photos were made by a Canon 40D with the 24-105 f4 lens set on 24 mm, focus 1 m and f11 diafragma. I used a Nodal Ninja 5 to rotate horizontally 24 degrees at vertical +70, +35, 0, - 35, -70 degrees. A total of 225 photos came out of that, in RAW-format.
The first panorama (RAW with hole) was made by importing the RAW files into Autopano giga stacked by 3 in a 5 * 15 pattern. This resulted in a group of 31686 * 15843 size, 360*180 degrees and 2.37 RMS. 5 times 3 files were not connected to the main panoramas. I rendered it rendered it into a 32 bits KRO file using a bicubic interpolator, anti-ghost blending settings, multiband mixer, cutting. This took 2 h 39
For the second panorama (tiff with hole) I first processed the RAW-files into tiff files using RAW therapee wit no special setting. Loading these into autopano giga resulted in exactly 30000 * 15000, 360*180, 2.44 RMS and again 5 times 3 files were not connected to the main panoramas. Rendering settings exactly the same as above it took 3 h 13 minutes
For the third panorama (merged with hole) I merged the tiff-files using enfusegui with standards settings into 75 files. Loaded these into autopano giga which gave a 27486 * 13743 pixel file, 360 * 180 and 2,33 RMS, all files were connected into main panorama. Rendering took 1 h 29.
I loaded them all into panotour pro, choose jpeg quality 10 and generated a tour of 6162 files in 115 folders.
The result can be seen at http://hanskeesom.com/panoramas/24mm/
So how about it? Is this about what one is to expect from the gear I use?
If not, do you see obvious possibilities for improvement?
If it is what is to be expected, what gear should I buy to improve the most for little money?
-A promote control (500 euro) to have more photos on each stack combined with focus stacking?
-A better camera, if so which is gonna bring the most impressive improvement per euro?
-A better lens of about the same length as the 24 mm but with much sharper images?
Hoping to hear your contructive criticism and questions.
Kind regards,
Hans Keesom
Offline
HansKeesom wrote:
-A better camera, if so which is gonna bring the most impressive improvement per euro?
Hey Hans!
1) get a fullframe
2) get a fullframe
3) get a fullframe
ideally 21MPx.
4) use a really (!) sturdy and fast programmable head. Dr. Clauss Rodeon (surely the best but most expensive one), SeitzVR2 or Josef´s head. Depends on what you can afford.
Using a 5D2 and Josef´s head i can shoot a full sphere of about 112MPx using a 15mm fisheye in about 1min, a sphere of about 700MPx in about 3min using a 35mm
and a 4GB sphere using 85mm in about 8min (i recalled the times from memory) - in fact it´s fast. All times depend on the exposuretime of each shot of course, mirror-lock or not, bracketing and so on.
Bracketing with mirror-lock definitely takes the longest time . . 
Photography begins - under technical aspects - with resolution of the lenses and the film/chip and the dynamic-capabily. The higher the better.
best to you, Klaus
P.S.: you Nadir doesn´t seem to be correct!
Last edited by klausesser (2012-03-13 14:18:13)
Offline
Dear Klaus,
Thank you for your answer.
I get the impression your answers are not connected to my questions, which are
-"Is this about what one is to expect from the gear I use?"
-"If not, do you see obvious possibilities for improvement?"
Please answer the first question with a yes/no.
I do not understand how your suggestion to buy a full-frame camera has anything to do with the quality of the panorama. That is problably my lack of understanding, so therefore I would like to ask you to explain.
I do understand that full frame will speed up the taking of the panorama*.
Or is it just that I am having such old camera that a newer camera will do better anyhow because of newer chips and processing in camera.
Yes the nadir is not perfect. But do you think it has so much influence on the general quality?
Hoping you or someone else can clear some things up for me.
Kind regards,
Hans Keesom
* as it allows me to use a 36 degree rotation horizontally instead of 24 degrees and vertically use at vertical +70, +20 - 30, -70 degrees instead of +70, +35, 0, - 35, -70 degrees.
Yes this will reduce the number of photos that I need to make to 40 * 3 = 120, instead of the 225. That is great, but not my question or concern.
Same regarding the automatic panorama machine, great that it is fast, but speed is not my concern at this moment.
Offline
HansKeesom wrote:
Dear Klaus,
Thank you for your answer.
I get the impression your answers are not connected to my questions, which are
-"Is this about what one is to expect from the gear I use?"
-"If not, do you see obvious possibilities for improvement?"
Please answer the first question with a yes/no.
Good morning, Hans!
Using a fullframe means either lesser images you must shoot or you get higher resolution for zooming. Another advantage is to be able to use a wider range of lenses - which you can easily find on ebay in
very good quality. I use some older Nikon primes on my 5D2 and before on my 20D - they´re great. No CAs and very low or none distortions.
Sorry if i misinterpreted your question: "Is this about what one is to expect from the gear I use?" How should anybody know? Depends on many things.
Thought you were looking for improvement.
best, Klaus
Offline
klausesser wrote:
Using a fullframe means either lesser images you must shoot
understood
klausesser wrote:
or you get higher resolution for zooming.
...while shooting the same number of photos, yes I got that.
klausesser wrote:
Another advantage is to be able to use a wider range of lenses - which you can easily find on ebay in
very good quality.
I did not know that. Do some lenses not work on a 1.6x camera?
klausesser wrote:
Sorry if i misinterpreted your question: "Is this about what one is to expect from the gear I use?" How should anybody know?
well, maybe someone has been shooting with the same camera and lens and therefore is able to tell.
klausesser wrote:
Thought you were looking for improvement.
I am looking for improvement, but if there is improvement possible with my current gear I think I should find that first and apply the improvement and only then look for improvement by buying new gear. This is why I asked the question whethere this is about one would expect from a 40d with a 24-105 lens
best, Hans
Offline
just realised, that the biggest advantage qualitywise of ff is that photos shot with a ff and a 24 mm lens will be easier to stitch then photos shot by a 1.6 camera using 35 mm, while, assuming they have the same pixeldensity on their cmos, having the same number of pixels in the endresult.
I gues the biggest advantage qualitywise of an automatic head then must be that one can be sure about positions and use the xml or textfile during import...
Offline
HansKeesom wrote:
klausesser wrote:
Another advantage is to be able to use a wider range of lenses - which you can easily find on ebay in
very good quality.I did not know that. Do some lenses not work on a 1.6x camera?
Of course a FF lens woks on a DX camera - but with a limited FOV as you know. There are much more very good lenses
out there for FF than for DX.
Buying DX lenses you can throw away in case you upgrade somewhen to a FF. Buying a FF lens - there are first-class old Nikon-lenses on ebay -
you can keep using when you upgrade.
It´s - like always - a question of what you need for doing your work.
best, Klaus
Offline
Hi Klaus,
Ok, glad ff lenses work on DX, i thought you were suggesting otherwise when you said "
Another advantage is to be able to use a wider range of lenses - which you can easily find on ebay in
"
As I said in the OP I use a 24-105 l lens, which as I understand is ff. That would save me from having to buy a new lens if I would be going ff.
Processing at the moment photos i made at 50 mm in a high constrast situation. I Was surprised to see how wel they stitch, when rendering is done I will show them here and hope for some comment.
Offline