When there is a pattern on the floor like a logo, can you do that with retouching? Seem to me you copy something into the nadir that is not exactly what was actually there.
As i wrote several times: if i NEED to do it - i do it . . . OF COURSE. But itÂ´s very rarely really needed.
a second identical sphere? why, how what?
Hans, you seem to miss some "rafinesse" in panoshooting . .
Think about you need to do a transition day/night: you need two identical spheres from the same spot with a time-gap of some hours.
I learned - after having made the mistake to unmount my rig for another shot and replaced it for doing thej night-sphere - that itÂ´s much better
to let the setup on the spot and wait for "the moment". But that needs precisely reproducable shootings when you do it hires and with 7 step bracketing.
Think about you need to focus-stack 3 or 4 focus-steps: you need to so a sphere 3 or 4 times using different focus-settings.
Think about you need to catch 4 different times of a day using 7 step-bracketing for each situation for doing a hires composing. You need to shoot 4 identical
spheres with 7 steps bracketing each . . . this rapidly sum up to about 700-1000 shots. Are you the one who can do it manually? IÂ´m not - iÂ´d forget dozens of shots in between . .
xml? Why? I have my pattern written down on paper and APG had no problem detecting it, even though there was a white wall.
ItÂ´s very easy pattern-wise shooting spheres: each time the same pattern. But what about shooting mosaics? Starting up left and ending down right? Using 399mm now and 600mm an hour later? Many sky-images? Forget it without xml - would takes days to place them predisely enough to get a good stitch.
How would you generate a pattern for that?
Making the nadir shots took 3 minutes. So total work problably closer to 10 minutes.
Using which focal-length? 50mm? I definitely doubt itÂ´s done in 10 min total if you need to be precise. And definitely not i all situations.
You can do it shooting rather simple sujets. But what when you need to have the camera looking straight down from a balcony? How will you shoot a Nadir when the camera sits 20cm right above the railing on a 30° tilted tripod? NO WAY!
You don't NEED to use a motorised head! You CHOOSE to use a motorised head or not.
For what *I* do *I* definitely NEED a motorized head. I rather rarely do simple shootings.
Try to use a manual head on 3,50m with a 35 or 85mm lens.. . . youÂ´ll fail. YouÂ´ll even have big problems doing it with a fisheye and 7 steps bracketing!
Try to use a manual head with 35mm reaching over a railing to have a straight downlook from a building. And so on.
See: all thatÂ´s kidÂ´s-toy doing it with a fisheye. I shot from a skyscraper in 2006 by mounting the camera with a fisheye on a boom which was positioned 3m high and @45° over the railing to have a steep downlook-angle because we were not allowed to place the camera byond the railing for safety reasons.
If I would, I would go for the moonslide, which is the only motorized head I know that can make nadir shots http://www.marc-kairies.de/english/mk-panomachine-moonslide/index.html
examples have perfect nadir.
- wait some weeks and be surprised
Test was done indoors in a rather messy living room. Rather not show that.
Aha? I donÂ´t care for messy rooms. I care for examples.
As I said, I want to do a test in a more convincing situation. hope to show that, though I am not sure if anyone will be convinced by that either.
At the same time, I don't think I can nor care about convincing people. When it works for me and the people I work with, that is good enough
this whole thing isnÂ´t about "convincing" somebody or not. IÂ´m on this theme because i think itÂ´s important to dicuss techniques for finding appropriate solutions.
You donÂ´t need to "convince" me - i very well know what i do and what i need after 35 years being a professional photographer.
And i donÂ´t need or want to "convince" you at all - youÂ´re not a professional/commercial photographer. And thatÂ´s the reason you easily can do work without
to care about anything which i MUST care about.
Doing panoramas for me means to earn money and make a part of my living parallel to "usual" photography for advertising. That means to need a shooting- and postproduction workflow which fits ALL possible situations.
After using a manual - and custom-modified to my needs - Manfrotto head which i can work very fast and precise with using fisheyes (and which allows to turn the vertical arm outside for shooting a Nadir in seconds since 2008 btw.) i realized that a motorized head providing xml gives me more possible ways to shoot, more stability with heavy cameras/lenses, let me work faster and much more reliable/reproducable and some more aspects.
OF COURSE nobody NEEDS a motorized head for quikly shooting fisheye-panos of 6 or 7 shots for average real-estate or other simple situations. THAT`S not the point in our discussion.
So in the end my conclusion still is: i shoot Nadirs very rarely and prefer to retouch them instead because in MY shooting-process itÂ´s very complicated, too time-consuming or simply impossible to do Nadir-shoots.