At 3/24/2020 10:38 PM, Moose wrote:
>My rule for stitching is to use narrower AoV FLs. With the Tamron 17-35 on my
>5D, if 17 mm wasn't wide enough, I'd go to 35 mm, vertical and take a bunch of
>shots for the later stitch.
>Here's one done that way at Ship Harbor in Acadia. Nine vertical, 35 mm shots.
>Awesome printed across two pages in a lay flat book!
>As I think about it, I remember the same basic technique worked well with the
>Âµ4/3 Oly 9-18 zoom. Shots @ 9 mm didn't work at all well. I've got great
>panas with that lens done that way. Later, I went to making pana stitch shots
>with the 12-60 PLeica. This was done @ 24 mm eq.
>And stitched in Hugin, to put this one in context.
Nice shots, I love the clouds. Looking at the second one, and panos, did you
determine the "entrance pupil" of the lens (often referred to as nodal point).
With all the close detail, seems it would be necessary. I can only imagine
printed big, the online version makes my eyes squint.
>I think that, even though we don't notice them, there are distortions in the
>wider lenses, or zoom settings, that disturb the Adobe panorama engine(s). The
>other advantage of this technique is greater vertical AoV. It's easy to forget
>that in panorama stitching, then find it wasn't enough.
>Hugin is generally the better stitcher. Free, more powerful, more controls,
>quirky (to be kind) interface. On a lot of landscapes, much better than PS.
>But just recently, it simply choked on one that PS did fine. Very powerful
>tools, such as the ability to choose control points.
I'll have to experiment.
>>One WA landscape trick I heard, with something in the distance being tiny, is
>>to put it toward the top of the frame to enlarge it.
>I don't get it.
Just like the corners magnify (distort) faces, you can magnify mountains in the
background by placing them near the edge of the frame, with a WA.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/