--- 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: AI
Mathew 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 ---
