Jaguar XF RS 550ch  

Share what you've done with Panotour or Panotour Pro.
Montrez nous vos oeuvres avec Panotour ou Panotour Pro.
no avatar
david catrou
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:37 am

Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by david catrou » Mon May 05, 2014 11:39 am


User avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Destiny » Mon May 05, 2014 12:28 pm

Hi... I get really exciting when I see a link to the inside of a car VR.. I have seen some amazing examples and I have seem many more not so good.. Sorry to say, yours is not so good..

With the interior of a car, partially prestigious cars like a Jaguar, you really need to be spot on with your stitching.. When editing the nadir, its important not to use the clone tool since that will give a smudged blur effect..

You need to achieve much more depth and detail, so bracketed shots is very important. This has a few benefits. Firstly you get to see much more detail but it also can hide unwanted errors too....

You also need to spend time going over just about every mm to remove every spec of dust and specks.. Bracketed shots can actually hide much of this.. The silver features of this car are blown out by too much light. Again, bracketed shots will provided a much better final look with materials like shiny metals..

I realise how hard it is to capture the inside of a car. My fist attempt was worse than yours..

Destiny..

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Mon May 05, 2014 6:30 pm

Destiny wrote: When editing the nadir, its important not to use the clone tool since that will give a smudged blur effect..


You can avoid that by using no soft edges.

Destiny wrote:I realise how hard it is to capture the inside of a car.


Not necessarily

Destiny wrote: My fist attempt was worse than yours..


Matter of practising.

Klaus

no avatar
david catrou
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:37 am

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by david catrou » Wed May 07, 2014 7:26 am

the next will be better... i hope !!!!
Jaguar F-type, AUdi S3 cabrio and audi S5 cabrio....

User avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Destiny » Wed May 07, 2014 8:31 am

=D Thats good positive thinking...

Look forward to seeing it..

Destiny..

no avatar
Aaron Eriksson
Member
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Aaron Eriksson » Tue May 20, 2014 2:17 am

Awesome Job. I have wanted to do this but know I would suck. How do you get everything in focus? I wish there was a tutorial on how to do this.

I use a sigma fisheye for my tours. I am pretty satisfied but I see these jobs and seems like the focus is spot on. So do you take multiple pics with multiple focus points for near and far? Also, how did you secure the camera in the seat so you could get the hdr?

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Tue May 20, 2014 10:45 am

Aaron Eriksson wrote:Awesome Job. I have wanted to do this but know I would suck. How do you get everything in focus? I wish there was a tutorial on how to do this.

I use a sigma fisheye for my tours. I am pretty satisfied but I see these jobs and seems like the focus is spot on. So do you take multiple pics with multiple focus points for near and far? Also, how did you secure the camera in the seat so you could get the hdr?



Using a *good* fisheye you don´t need multiple focusing. In that kind of car you need a DOF from about 0,50m - 1,50m when the camera is placed above the driver´s seat. That´s a kind of DOF you can achieve already by using f5,6 or 8.

Klaus

User avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Destiny » Tue May 20, 2014 11:46 am

At close range like a car, you would not use f8 for DOF.. There would be little to none.. If DOF is what you want here, then go with F5 ish.. I personally for a car VR would use F16... Clear and sharp..

Not so sure there is any bracketing going on with that Jaguar pano.. Thats the point, it needs it...

Destiny...

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 14272
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by mediavets » Tue May 20, 2014 12:44 pm

Destiny wrote:At close range like a car, you would not use f8 for DOF.. There would be little to none.. If DOF is what you want here, then go with F5 ish.. I personally for a car VR would use F16... Clear and sharp..

Not so sure there is any bracketing going on with that Jaguar pano.. Thats the point, it needs it...

Destiny...


We are talking about fisheye lenses that all have massive depth of field at all apertures.

no avatar
Aaron Eriksson
Member
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Aaron Eriksson » Tue May 20, 2014 1:29 pm

Do you anchor or how do you stabalize the tripod?

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Tue May 20, 2014 2:16 pm

Destiny wrote:At close range like a car, you would not use f8 for DOF.. There would be little to none.. If DOF is what you want here, then go with F5 ish.. I personally for a car VR would use F16... Clear and sharp..

Not so sure there is any bracketing going on with that Jaguar pano.. Thats the point, it needs it...

Destiny...


Destiny - i did such panos succesfully several times. You just need to take into accound that you don´t need more DOF than
which covers the inside of the car - imagine a circle around the camera and regard that no point in the car is closer than about 50cm and no point is
more than 1,50 - 2 meters away . . .

So regarding the hyperfocal you can calculate it yourself. Using f8 and setting the focus intelligently you have sharpness where you need it to have.
Nobody expects - or wants - the surrounding landscape of a car tack-sharp to the horizon . . :cool:

F16 on a fisheye would be of no help at all - you give away a part of resolution due to refraction . . . which already tends to start at f8, but isn´t
recognizable then. So using f8 you´re on the safe side - using f16 with a fisheye is a no-go. At least viewed from a photographere´s perspective ;)

Klaus

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Tue May 20, 2014 2:23 pm

Aaron Eriksson wrote:Do you anchor or how do you stabalize the tripod?



The best way - that´s what professionals do - is to mount the camera/head on a pole and shift it through a side-window into the car.
Of course you need to rotate it @90° then. The "Nadir" is the side-window then through which you shift the camera.
One "Nadir" shot from inside the car to cover the small Nadir-hole is very easy then.

Klaus

User avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Destiny » Wed May 21, 2014 2:32 am

I would use a minimum of f8, but anything less I have found it can lead to stitch issues since the DOF has ill defined pixels... I also realise that some pano photograhers use a low f stop for all their panos... I seem to get better stitching at f16... The sharpness is still good too. Next time I capture a car, I will try a low f stop again...

Destiny
klausesser wrote:
Destiny wrote:At close range like a car, you would not use f8 for DOF.. There would be little to none.. If DOF is what you want here, then go with F5 ish.. I personally for a car VR would use F16... Clear and sharp..

Not so sure there is any bracketing going on with that Jaguar pano.. Thats the point, it needs it...

Destiny...


Destiny - i did such panos succesfully several times. You just need to take into accound that you don´t need more DOF than
which covers the inside of the car - imagine a circle around the camera and regard that no point in the car is closer than about 50cm and no point is
more than 1,50 - 2 meters away . . .

So regarding the hyperfocal you can calculate it yourself. Using f8 and setting the focus intelligently you have sharpness where you need it to have.
Nobody expects - or wants - the surrounding landscape of a car tack-sharp to the horizon . . :cool:

F16 on a fisheye would be of no help at all - you give away a part of resolution due to refraction . . . which already tends to start at f8, but isn´t
recognizable then. So using f8 you´re on the safe side - using f16 with a fisheye is a no-go. At least viewed from a photographere´s perspective ;)

Klaus

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Wed May 21, 2014 11:17 am

Destiny wrote:I would use a minimum of f8, but anything less I have found it can lead to stitch issues since the DOF has ill defined pixels... I also realise that some pano photograhers use a low f stop for all their panos... I seem to get better stitching at f16... The sharpness is still good too. Next time I capture a car, I will try a low f stop again...


Destiny - could you please explain in detail what you mean saying "anything less than f8 . . the DOF has ill defined pixels"?
That sounds somewhat funny - but: who knows the meaning of it ;) :cool:

Pano photographers - like all other photographers too - use the aperture which suits their needs best on a certain location.

Physical fact nevertheless is: from about f11 on most lenses start showing diffraction - which means their optical resolution gets weaker affected by narrowing the light-passing through the aperture (the opening gets smaller and the rims of the blades cause this effect).

At f16 most of the lenses do NOT produce their optimal results resolution-wise. So it´s not clever to use f16 at all - aside from you desperately need a certain DOF which is provided only with f16 - 22. In that case you need to take some softening-effect into account for achieving a deeper DOF. So f16 definitely is a compromise - not the preferable solution.

Especially cameras with very high resolution - like a D800 - react very critical in this aspect.

In terms of stitching it is critical to have sharp images - the control points rely on clearly defined structures. Blurry structures make them a hard day . . .

Photography in general is always a balance between resolution-abilty of the lenses and the ability of the "recording medium" - film or sensor - to deal with what the lenses provide as resolution/sharpness. As a matter of fact DOF is relative - there is only one real sharp plane . . . and this one is very shallow. DOF "extends" this plane to some amount - more or less - but isn´t an absolute value.

So from practical aspects: i prefer to not use more than f11 with ANY lens - as long as i´m not forced to need the DOF of f16 or f22 or f32 or f64 (with large-format lenses). The Nikon 2,8/14-24mm for example "by the papers" has it´s optimal sharpness/resolution @5,6 - but i prefer to use f8, no more. F16 definitely weakens it´s over-all resolution.

On the other hand - as said - if you desperately need the DOF: you do it. It´s a decision between resolution (which in this case means all-over-sharpness) and a relative sharp image field.

But this is much more related to still-life product-photography than to anything else.

For panoramaphotography the use of more than f11 surely is not a good idea. When i need more DOF - for example indoors - i use focus-stacking. Two planes usually already are sufficient.

Very interesting and good understandable:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... -field.htm

Klaus

Regard that with fisheyes DOF is quite different!!

Some joke:

Question: What does "circle of confusion" mean?

Answer: A group of photographers discussing sharpness. =D :cool:

f8.png

f11.png

f16.png

User avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Destiny » Thu May 22, 2014 8:35 am

To be honest Klaus, I would expect that question from someone who had no understanding of DOF or an amateur with little understanding.. :rolleyes:

Something that is: ill-defined
adjective
the boundary between the two manors was rather ill-defined: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, inexplicit; blurry, blurred, fuzzy, hazy, woolly, nebulous, shadowy, dim. ANTONYMS well defined, sharp.

When capturing a set of images in a sequence such as a Pano, each same feature on the next image to be stitched will have different pixel colours/shade/tone etc.. Therefore stitching may become an issue..

Destiny...

"Destiny - could you please explain in detail what you mean saying "anything less than f8 . . the DOF has ill defined pixels"?
That sounds somewhat funny - but: who knows the meaning of it ;) :cool:"
Attachments
aperture-example1.jpg

User avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Destiny » Thu May 22, 2014 9:19 am

Thats not true with a fisheye...

Between F8 and F16 produces the best results...

Destiny..

"At f16 most of the lenses do NOT produce their optimal results resolution-wise. So it´s not clever to use f16 at all - aside from you desperately need a certain DOF which is provided only with f16 - 22. In that case you need to take some softening-effect into account for achieving a deeper DOF. So f16 definitely is a compromise - not the preferable solution."

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Thu May 22, 2014 12:27 pm

Destiny wrote:To be honest Klaus, I would expect that question from someone who had no understanding of DOF or an amateur with little understanding.. :rolleyes:

Something that is: ill-defined
adjective
the boundary between the two manors was rather ill-defined: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, inexplicit; blurry, blurred, fuzzy, hazy, woolly, nebulous, shadowy, dim. ANTONYMS well defined, sharp.

When capturing a set of images in a sequence such as a Pano, each same feature on the next image to be stitched will have different pixel colours/shade/tone etc.. Therefore stitching may become an issue..

Destiny...

"Destiny - could you please explain in detail what you mean saying "anything less than f8 . . the DOF has ill defined pixels"?
That sounds somewhat funny - but: who knows the meaning of it ;) :cool:"


Destiny - too often there is a difference between *reading* and *understanding* informations people get from the web : ;) :cool: .
You don´t seem to having read the links i provided - which rather intensely deal with "well defined pixels" and "ill defined" pixels and
the basics of WHY they are "well defined" or "ill defined".

Discussions about "well defined" :cool: ) and "ill defined" :cool: i had very much in my life as a photographer, i can assure you ;)
And they´re not at all related to pixels alone - also to film-grain and scanning patterns for example . . . letting aside digital audio (where this also is a major theme)

"When capturing a set of images in a sequence such as a Pano, each same feature on the next image to be stitched will have different pixel colours/shade/tone etc.. Therefore stitching may become an issue.. "

Well - you read it. But did you understand it in detail? Where would "different pixel colours/shade/tone etc." come from?
Please explain.

Regarding your attached images:

They just state what i say: use the appropriate DOF. To do that you need to set an optimal focusing point.

With fisheyes - your examples are no fisheyeshots - it´s quite simple: due to the "special" kind of projection the DOF of a fisheye lens is VERY different to a lens with a rectilinear projection.
Because of that fisheyes provide a MUCH larger DOF than other lenses - already when being stopped down just moderately.

Using f16 on a fisheye definitely is counterproductive. Stopping down to max. 8 (or f11 in extreme situations) already leads to a DOF from some 50cm to infinity and helps with dampening chromatic abberations. But the main thing is: the correct focus-point.

Of course it would be somehow insane focusing to 50cm and expect to achieve a DOF to infinity . . :lol: :cool:

But setting the focal point to, let´s say, 2 meters and using f8 it´s indeed realistic to achieve a DOF from 50cm to infinity.

BUT - and here it becomes "in deep": sharpness is not an absolute value: it´s a relative value.
In fact there is not such a thing like "sharpness" at all. It´s always kind of "more or less" - and it´s always a more or less "well" or "ill" definition of pixels!

That´s why we deal with "airy disks" and "circle of confusion" and some other items when we talk about resolution, sharpness or - surely sounds more sophisticated to you =D - "well or ill defined pixels" and others.

Ok. Enough said.

Klaus
Last edited by klausesser on Thu May 22, 2014 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Thu May 22, 2014 12:28 pm

Destiny wrote:Thats not true with a fisheye...
Between F8 and F16 produces the best results...



Wrong.

Klaus

http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Canon_8-15m ... focalpoint

KR_F.png
Ken Rockwell on 2,8/16mm Nikon fisheye

User avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Destiny » Thu May 22, 2014 9:43 pm

Klaus, why did you ask me to explain when you already know..

Destiny..

"Destiny - could you please explain in detail what you mean saying "anything less than f8 . . the DOF has ill defined pixels"? "

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Thu May 22, 2014 11:27 pm

Destiny wrote:Klaus, why did you ask me to explain when you already know..

Destiny..

"Destiny - could you please explain in detail what you mean saying "anything less than f8 . . the DOF has ill defined pixels"? "


Well - often things are a question of interpretation. I was interested to learn your interpretation.

Klaus

User avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by Destiny » Fri May 23, 2014 7:28 am

The point I was trying to make, sure the images are sharper at low f stop but.. When attempting to stitch a sequence of fisheye images, a compromise has to be made against sharpness and fewer issues with stitching using a higher f stop. Since the fisheye image have about a 30% overlap, its far better to have APG detect well defined pixels rather than ill-defind pixels captured using a low f stop.. I would expect that images captured using a 16mm FX full frame would work better with a slightly lower f stop than using a DX 10.5 fisheye.. Therefore I would suggest that f8 would be equal to about f11 using a 10.5.. I do not have a 16mm to test this so I am only guessing... If I were to capture a pano using f5.6 with a 10.5mm fisheye, using my D800, I would have stitching issues.. However, if I used f11 to f16, depending on the situation, I would do better with my stitching.... Also, if I used f5.6 I would notice some blurred patches in my pano.. Sometimes very noticeable but sometimes not so much...

Destiny..

no avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 7882
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany

Re: Jaguar XF RS 550ch

by klausesser » Fri May 23, 2014 11:44 am

Destiny wrote:The point I was trying to make sure the images are sharper at low f stop


They are less "ill defined" then.
Let´s have a closer look on the term "ill defined".

"Ill defined" basically says . . . . : nothing at all :cool: . I don´t know where you read this term regarding photography - it´s non-specific and isn´t related to sharpness only.
"Sharpness" needs to be understood! To understand "sharpness" you need to understand "circle of confusion" and "airy disks" - and
some other things.

That´s why i suggested to read carefully the links i postet. The images you postet clearly show that the issue is a wrong focusing.
Set the focus wrong results in a faulty set DOF. To get the background AND the foreground sharp you would have needed to not set the focus on the flowerpot but a calculated distance some meters behind it. In that case you would have achieved the optimal DOF.
You simply misunderstand DOF here! No problem: most people do ;)

Destiny wrote:but.. When attempting to stitch a sequence of fisheye images, a compromise has to be made against sharpness and fewer issues with stitching using a higher f stop. Since the fisheye image have about a 30% overlap, its far better to have APG detect well defined pixels rather than ill-defind pixels captured using a low f stop..


In photography it´s ALWAYS preferable to have "well defined" pixels - which usually simply means "sharpness" . . . . :cool:

Destiny wrote:I would expect that images captured using a 16mm FX full frame would work better with a slightly lower f stop than using a DX 10.5 fisheye..


Why would you expect that?

Destiny wrote:Therefore I would suggest that f8 would be equal to about f11 using a 10.5..


Why would that be?

Destiny wrote: I do not have a 16mm to test this so I am only guessing... If I were to capture a pano using f5.6 with a 10.5mm fisheye, using my D800, I would have stitching issues..


Most unlikely due to "ill defined pixels" by aperture, sorry . . ;)

Destiny wrote:However, if I used f11 to f16, depending on the situation, I would do better with my stitching.... Also, if I used f5.6 I would notice some blurred patches in my pano.. Sometimes very noticeable but sometimes not so much...


If you have "blurred patches" in your pano they definitely do not result from stopping down to 5,6 or 8.

I know the 10.5mm Nikon FE very well - used it for about a year when i started shooting panos about 7 years ago.
Used it here: http://360impressions.de/Tower/

It shows it´s optimal performance @f5,6/f8. It´s performace weakens from f11 on. That doesn´t mean it becomes really blurry - but the resolution of details becomes softer. Which is the opposite to "well defined pixels".

The same is with the 16mm Nikon FE and the Canon 15mm FE: stopping them down to more than f8/11 softens the detail-resolution.

Diffraction is a major theme with lenses - it´s related to ALL kind of lenses. It results from the light ray´s dispersion which occurs on the rims of the aperture´s blades the smaller the opening becomes.

Fisheyes have the advantage of no need to being stopped down more than two or three steps - which usually means 5,6 or 8 on a 2,8 lens - because due to their kind of projection they´re DOF is very big stopped down two steps already.

Now what does that mean in terms of stitching?

It means:
A) set your focus carefully - that´s most important. Learn about "hyperfocal distance" and how to calculate it.
B) choose an appropriate aperture. Diffraction often is over-estimated. It softens the performance of a lens - ANY lens.
Softening the performance of a lens means less definition of details. That influences the "clearness" of pixels in a way it makes it harder for the stitcher to identify details in images and finding the correct place to set a CP.

A real problem rises with long tele-lenses. Here you usually need to use a small apetrue for achieving an appropriate DOF.
The point is: APPROPRIATE.

Appropriate means to set the focus accordingly to the situation and regarding your DOF.
Hyperfocal calculation also here helps a lot.

A camera like the D800 - and much more extremely a digital MF camera - due to high resolution is much more critical in the way it is handled. It reveals any kind of wrong handling without mercy.

Conclusion: anyone who uses a high-resolution camera needs to get used to what "resolution" and "sharpness" mean in detail.

So i again sugest to read the links i postet:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... -field.htm

best, Klaus


Return to Virtual tour gallery / Galerie de visites virtuelles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest