Novoflex VR-System SLANT  

In the panorama field, hardware is also part of the success. You can discuss here about it: camera, computer, pano head, anything
User avatar
claudevh
Member
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Mont-Saint-André (Belgium)

Novoflex VR-System SLANT

by claudevh » Mon May 07, 2012 11:31 am

Hello all, :)

Have somebody experiences with the Novoflex VR-System SLANT ?
http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/panorama-photography/vr-system-slant/

Is that no problems with Autopano stichting by the fact that all pictures are taken at an angle of 60° ?
Is that eventual problems with panorama's taken in small area like inside a building ?

Will be happy to ear from existing "real" experiences.... ;)
:cool: Claude :cool:
Merlin + Papywizard on Windows 7 & Nokia 770 § N810 & Acer (Netbook) + PanoramaApp Androïd + Deltawave PapyMerlin BT + Autopano
Spherical Pano (180 x 360) with Canon 40D + Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 Zoom & Pôle Pano with Canon 5D MK2 and shaved Tokina 10-17 3.5-4.5 AF DX Fisheye
Gigapixel photography with Nikon D200 + Sigma 70-200 F 2.8 EX DG APO HSM

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7886
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

by klausesser » Mon May 07, 2012 12:20 pm

claudevh wrote:Is that no problems with Autopano stichting by the fact that all pictures are taken at an angle of 60° ?

No. But you have the shortcoming of reduced resolution compared to 10,5mm/DX and 6 shot or 15mm/FX and 6 shot.
The time you save making only 3 or 4 shots isn´t - in my opinion - enough for justifying the loss on resolution.

On the other hand: IF you have to be quick . . why not.

I use slanted mountings quite often - with APG no problem at all.

The main problem is that most of the cheaper fisheyes produce massive CAs and rather mediocre optical resolution.
If you add a mediocre optical resolution to a reduced amount of pixels you´ll not likely will be really happy . .

best, Klaus
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7886
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

by klausesser » Sat May 26, 2012 9:18 pm

Artisan S. wrote:Why a reduced resolution Klaus,

If you get full coverage of a sphere with three shots, or full covarage of a sphere with six shots, you still wind up with just as many pixels. Only you will find more pixels at the edges of the lens of course.......is that the only cause or am I missing something?

Greetings, Ed

Hi Ed!

You´re right - i argumented "unsharp" . . ;) I meant that using a somewhat longer lens and doing more shots brings a higher resolution/zoom-range than a shorter lens and fewer shots.

I use a 15mm fisheye on a 21MPx fullframe camera. This give me 112MPx with 6 shots. I could use an 8mm fisheye and would need fewer shots.
But that would give me lesser resolution - while covering the same sphere.

The time it takes to do 2 or 3 more shots isn´t that dramatically - but the higher resolution provides a deeper zoom/bigger scaling range.

So i suggest the use of a 15/16mm fisheye on fullframe resp. 10,5mm fisheye on DX. You´re not THAT much quicker needing only 3shots in slanted mount that it would be vital regarding the loss of pixels - but in crowded places it surely has advantages . . at the cost of sharpness/zoom-range ;)

Depends on what you shoot - crowded places or indoors, real estate or what.

best, Klaus
Last edited by klausesser on Sat May 26, 2012 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel


Return to Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron