First off, there is absolutely NO comparison between plagiarism
and cloning over tripod legs.
Second - if you really need to worry about panorama ethics,
there are a LOT bigger issues you can dwell on than cloning out the
tripod legs!
If you want to get nitpicky about it, ANY panorama made from
multiple images is a "fake" because it "lies" and appears to show a
single image shot at the same instant.
I noticed from the very first crowd panoramas I shot that this
isn't quite "reality." In one crowd shot a child stood very close to
the camera, very recognizable, with her mother to the left in one shot,
and her mother to the right in another. After masking the edges to get
rid of the "half-people", her mother wasn't ANYWHERE in the final
panorama.
I used to imagine scenarios with the child's father SCREAMING at
the mother because he saw the panorama with the child apparently totally
unsupervised, or even going to court to get custody because of it! :)
Another "ethics" problem I encountered was during a memorial
service, and everyone stood up to salute the flag. By the time I had
made a full circle around, they were finished, and some people started
to sit down again. I decided not to use it because it made a few people
in the last shot look disrespectful.
There's also plenty of photography ethical issues that have
nothing to do with panoramas if you're looking for things to worry
about.
Here's a good example:
http://www.new-eden.com/ViewJavaPanorama.asp?PID=50
This is a panorama of some guys walking by a statue in downtown
Minneapolis. Two of the guys in the picture are walking fast, and their
arms are swinging back and forth. From the angle I was at, the picture
looks like these two guys were walking down the street holding hands.
I actually considered "amputating" the guy's arm. And now I
wish I had, because a few weeks ago I was looking through my web stats
and followed one of the referrers back, and found a forum with a link to
my panorama, and some gay dude saying he wished he was the one holding
the guy's hand in the panorama!
IF they had really been holding hands it wouldn't bother me, but
I feel bad because they are NOT holding hands! (Or at least I don't
THINK they are!) Maybe some guy's going to lose his girlfriend when she
sees it. Or maybe he'll come after the photographer! So I'm still
thinking about amputating one of their arms when I have time. :)
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: quicktime-vr-bounces+edfink=email@hidden
[mailto:quicktime-vr-bounces+edfink=email@hidden] On
Behalf Of Samir Ahmed
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 6:24 AM
To: email@hidden
Cc: email@hidden
Subject: RE: shooting spherical panoramas with circular fisheye lens?
Hey there Mathew,
Well u should invest in a spherical panorama head or build your own,
this
way all angles (except for down) are exact to the nodal point you have
set
the head at. To shoot down, well, I use a piece of thread that is of
approximate length of distance between nodal to ground and than after
setting the cam to point down, I mark the axis where the thread touches,
viola u have another "quite approximately correct" base shot without the
tripod! (else use a monopod, saves up less space for the legs! I have a
monopod with a small manfrotto table-top tripod attached to the base as
a
stabilizer!)
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: B Yen [mailto:email@hidden]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 3:54 PM
To: Mathew Waehner
Subject: Re: shooting spherical panoramas with circular fisheye lens?
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.
> >
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
QuickTime-VR mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
m
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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
