DrSlony wrote:

how did you light the plant you showed on your previous bug post about removing CPs above a certain level?

Only the plain old july sun!

(This pano was only a test for NPP adjustment in the 25cm-50cm (10"-20") distance range of a non-macro zoom @ 135mm equ. setting to be used for the suculent flowers...

Joubarbe???

Ca se fume ?

I agree the focus, clarity and detail is amazing.

Please do tell us more ... camera & lens or did you oversample (shoot a lot of pixels and then scaled it down). ... What is the magic?

Thanks, Tom

Thanks for wonderfully detailed explanation.

The most, I love you ingenious usage of toilet paper rolls!! :-) :-)

May I suggest using longer kitchen paper rolls for more accurate NPP setup?

Long time ago, I used similar technique to create this view ... of industrial nature .....

        --- I'm sorry the picture better go before someone .... ---

Last edited by tomask (2009-07-27 23:29:20)

DrSlony wrote:

GURL could you upload one of the RAW files you used to stitch the "Zooming in..." picture? I see some demosaicing artifacts, I'd like to try running it through a few different demosaicing algorithms and see if they can be gotten rid of.

Here is one: http://www.panorama-numerique.com/DSCF2404.RAF (a 25 MB Fuji RAF where half of the pixels are -2 EV "underexposed" and where the pixel grid don't follow the usual row/column arrangement...) BTW, as the above images are the result of several JPEG conversions and as I used a low quality setting for the last conversion, I doubt you still can see demosaicing artifacts.

The folowing is a 100% JPEG from one of the RAW image to show that when using a f/32 aperture the limited DOF is still more important than the diffraction. In my opinion this is an effect due to the high magnification. A shorter focal length than the 125mm equivalent I used would only hide this DOF problem by reducing the magnification but would not solve it.

To my surprise it's not stupid to use apertures like f/22, f/32 or more when shooting panoramas. We often have more pixels than we can actually display so that we can bind those pixels to clear out the diffraction a smaller aperture implies. Panoramas (even landscape) can be seen as higher magnification images and this is often enough to changes the DOF versus diffraction optimal ratio.

Last edited by GURL (2009-07-21 13:08:09)

Ah, I mistook these vertical stripes for demosaicing artifacts because I thought that was a 100% image but it wasn't. They're not present at all in your last 100% jpg, and also there was almost no difference which demosaicing algorithm i used because of the general lack of sharpness in the image. Demosaicing mazes appear in sharp shots, or where moire and small patterns are present.

Take a look here if you're interested:
http://www.rawtherapee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1399

Last edited by DrSlony (2009-07-21 17:04:15)

I love it. Exploring close-up in pano - would be great in a natural setting.

GURL wrote:

I sometimes dream of a shrinked camera + a shrinked motorized panohead to make ant view 360°x180° panos where a blade of grass would look like a tree!

A little... like this ?

http://www.visites-interactives.eu/fr/v … index.html

Flowers were about 15 - 20 cms height... Not far from what you suggested. We can do better, it was a kind of joke as we were only going for a stroll Trekker and I, with just the smallest camera in our bag in  case of...

I must precise that there was not motorized panohead, only trekker's ten fingers...

Last edited by Ma Trekker (2009-07-23 15:08:13)

GURL wrote:

sunmaster14 wrote:

Exploring close-up in pano - would be great in a natural setting.

I sometimes dream of a shrinked camera + a shrinked motorized panohead to make ant view 360°x180° panos where a blade of grass would look like a tree!

Yes, I have often wondered how I could do a macro pano, but get all the way down there, watching ants building, or something in that size, but photograph it so it looks large

anyway, i'll work something out one day

Henrik