|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
--- Begin Message ---
- Subject: Re: shooting spherical panoramas with circular fisheye lens?
- From: B Yen <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:53:33 -0800
- Organization: AIMathew Waehner wrote: > You probably have enough coverage in the single row of shots that you > don't strictly need the top image. If not, next time you can angle the > camera up a few degrees and capture less of the tripod and cover the > sky in one row. When I "angle up the camera" (for each row of shots), I have to redo "nail the nodal point"..correct? (by angle-up, the nodal point of the camera no longer coincides with the axis-of-rotation of the pan head..right?). What I don't understand, is how people can do this in the field *easily* (it implies you have a near-foreground object, where you can do a "parallax" test with a distant object. When I was in that Arizona canyon recently, with that incredibly wide-angle Nikon 16mm/2.8 (full frame fisheye) I was able to just use a "rock on the ground" as my near foreground object. I could kinda do a parallax test, with an feature at infinity. Say, I DIDN'T have that super wide angle 16mm/2.8, like a telephoto lens (to do a high-rest multi-row spherical panorama). Then, how do I do the parallax test ("nail the nodal point"), in that situation? > > > The "dang tripod legs" can only be removed in Photoshop by retouching. > You will need to convert the image to six cube faces, patch up the > bottom face, then put it back together. Panoramic photography demands > good retouching skills- extensive retouching is often unavoidable. > > Give it a shot and let us know if (when) you have questions! I have an aversion to "insertion or deletion" (aka "Photoshopping"), it violates the ethics of Editorial Photography..Google search this, you'll see.. (Scientific Photography is along the same lines.."don't F** with the data!" is the mantra among Scientific Illustration). Remember that LA Times photographer last year, that got caught merging 2 images of those Iraqi civilians being watched a British soldier..one of the Iraqi men APPEARED TWICE IN THE DOCTORED PHOTO!! It was obvious, to *anyone* who examined the photo halfway closely. Needless to say, the LA Times was in the embarassing position of publishing a "doctored (fraudulent) photo"..they had no choice but to fire the photographer..TO PROTECT THEIR REPUTATION as an "objective" (interpret this as you may..all media has a particular bent, right or left wing) news source. Remember that well known USA Today journalist, who got caught *platgiarizing* an article for his article? He was fired, & the chief editor @USA Today was forced to resign (an upper management person felt the "axe"!). Not to mention the infamous NY Times plagiarism scandal (Jayson Blair), where the head-editor was also forced out. Then, there was that other guy (college grad from some Pennsylvania university) working at some well known magazine, who caught up in a web of lies..they actually did a movie on it. That infamous National Geographic "move the pyramids closer" scandal way back when..where the cover shot was a doctored image. I just got on this list.. Has the Ethics Issue cropped up in the past, regarding "Photoshopping out tripod legs"? One interesting thing: it's FAR EASIER to get a CLEAN IMAGE out in the field, than coming home & "photoshopping out unwanted artifacts" -- IT'S REALLY TIME CONSUMING!! It's the old saying "Pay now..or pay later!". I'd rather pay-my-dues out in the field, & come back & have a relatively easy going stitching operation. I like that guy who posted the 3 pictures of his monopod arrangement. I think I will try to emulate his hardware, using my Bogen monopod (sitting around, doing nothing). > > > On Dec 29, 2004, at 12:00 PM, B Yen wrote: > > > Mathew Waehner wrote: > > > >> On Dec 29, 2004, at 6:41 AM, B Yen wrote: > >> > >>> In doing the 4th vertical frame, is it necessary "to nail the nodal > >>> point"? > >> > >> If there is blue sky above or a white ceiling, it won't matter a bit. > >> That exposure shouldn't be necessary at all with a 7.5mm lens, > >> although > >> you may choose to use it as the edges of the fisheye circle are > >> "stretcehd" more than teh center, and have a lower resolution. > > > > I examined the "vertical shots", I was in this canyon in Arizona..I was > > picking up the canyon walls in addition to the blue-sky. Does that > > mean, > > the vertical-shot will help, or is it still unnecessary like you say? > > > >> > >> > >> It requires an expensive tripod head to nail the nodal point with > >> vertical tilt- the big advantave of fisheyes is that you can shoot a > >> single row. > > > > I have no problem in "nailing nodal point" for my full-frame fisheye > > (mounted vertically)..I have the Slik macro-focusing 2-axis adjustable > > thing. The PROBLEM, is these dang tripod legs..which always appear in > > the > > bottom part of the frame. It seems as if the only way to avoid it, is > > to > > use a monopod. If so, I don't get a "systematic" way of doing > > constant-angle pans..I have to kinda rough-guess, which is repulsive to > > me.. I don't like "uncertainty", I need > > precision/accuracy/repeatability. > > > > > >
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. QuickTime-VR mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.
Copyright © 2011 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.