Stitching example!

[Jack Flesher]

With all the questions on stitching, and since pictures are worth thousands of words, I thought I'd post an illustrated example of CS3's new capabilities.

Here are four frames captured by just leveling the camera on my tripod and panning these four frames. It's not a great image, but rather chosen to show how well CS3 automatically handles a difficult stitch. Note that I converted raw images to these small jpegs and the quality of the raw stitch is incredible, though difficult to show on the web with these small jpegs. Also note that I did NO tweaking to the images before or after the stitch and no adjustment of the final stitch or seams; these are merged "as-shot":

1)
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album05/panoframe_1.jpg

2)
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album05/panoframe_2.jpg

3)
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album05/panoframe_3.jpg

4)
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album05/panoframe_4.jpg

>>>

[Jack Flesher]

(Part II)

Here is the dialog that pops up when you add the "open" files to photomerge:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album05/panoframe_dialog.jpg

Here is the finished automatic "sphreical" projection:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album05/Panoframe_spherical.jpg

Here is the finished automatic "perspective correct" projection:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album05/panoframe_perspective_correct.jpg

Here is a closer in crop of the seams -- frames 2 and 4 have the opacity dialed down to 80% so you can see the quality of the seam:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album05/panoframe_layers.jpg

Cheers,

[QT Luong]

what was the lens ?

[Jack Flesher]

Lens was Canon 45mm TSE at f8. Camera was a 5D.

[David Luttmann]

Thanks Jack. Looks like Photomerge has come a long way since CS. How does it compare to the Panoramatools GUI stitching software.

[Chris Strobel]

So is it now appropriate to start discussing image capturing and output with DSLR's here at this site?I too have a 5D, but usually hang out at FredMiranda.com or DPreview for such discussions.I've been coming here for a year now to be inspired and learn about large format photography with large format cameras and their wonderful ground glass, but lately some of these threads sound like DPreview threads.For someone like me whos relatively new to large format cameras, reading such threads on DSLR's is kinda depressing and sometimes makes me wonder if I made the right descision going LF.I'll keep pluggin along with my 4x5,8x10, and PMK, but I just needed to vent.

Chris

[QT Luong]

Yeah, to go with the times, we will expend the charter of the site to accept discussion of all imagery that has the resolution traditionally associated with LF film capture, that is, let say about 100MP (or a file size of 300MB).

[Chris Strobel]

I don't agree, but you da boss :) Will you be adding articles on DSLR techniques, camera choices, lenses, etc. as well?


Yeah, to go with the times, we will expend the charter of the site to accept discussion of all imagery that has the resolution traditionally associated with LF film capture, that is, let say about 100MP (or a file size of 300MB).

[mdd99]

Since the topic is stitching and it's in the Digital Processing category, the thread seems appropriate--especially since many of us no doubt would like to stitch 4x5 scans.

[Jack Flesher]

Thanks Jack. Looks like Photomerge has come a long way since CS. How does it compare to the Panoramatools GUI stitching software.

Personally, I find it much easier to use, a lot faster to complete the stitch (especially when you want the layers and masks avaialble to edit in Photoshop) AND the final stitch is better. I have not had to edit a seam yet.

Cheers,

[adrian tyler]

thanks very very much jack, i've been converted, i'm a believer!

[Sheldon N]

Jack -

Do you refocus the lens for each frame when you do a digital stitch?

I'm curious how CS3 handles the seams if you were doing a grid stitch with both near and far items and focused for each individual frame rather than once for the whole scene.

Wouldn't that work sort of like focus stacking - extending the depth of field capabilities without using movements? Similarly, if you don't refocus when shooting a grid, wouldn't you run into the same limited depth of field problems we have with 4x5 and no movements?

[PViapiano]

I'm not crazy about this appearing here either, but it would seem that if you must, you could stitch 2 4x5s together by just using shifts. I believe my Ebony 45s has about 60mm in each direction.

I've never tried this, but 4 years ago I used to create panos with my dSLR, a Canon D30, before I got into medium and large format analog photography.

Here's a link to 4 panos (http://home.pacbell.net/viapiano/gehry/may2003gallery.html) with the difficult-to-use German software, Pano Tools along with Max Lyons' add-on front end. It was fun to tweak and took a long time, but results were often deficient in one way or another. Max's site (http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html)has an incredible display of landscape pano shots which rival almost anything I've seen.

[PViapiano]

Sheldon...

Yes, you refocus for each shot...at least I used to, and you keep the same exposure setting for all shots. Otherwise you end up with skies that don't color match. The Pano Tools software had a setting for taking care of that, and I suppose the PSCS3 does as well.

[Rory_5244]

Just so that my large format brethren don't feel left out with all these digital feats of grandeur, here is a LF stitch example. Made from 4 4x5 Provia F slides and stitched together with Photoshop ELEMENTS 4. I have no shame. Arca camera with Fujinon 240 lens. Camera panned on an Arca B1 ballhead. File size over 1GB. I don't need no pipsqueak 5D. :p Ya, and the pic is obnoxiously huge too. :D

http://www.trinidaddreamscape.net/pichost/sdovp.jpg

[naturephoto1]

Hi Rory,

What is/would the final stitched "transparency" size be for the image. I can not see the entire image on the screen at one time.

Thanks.

Rich

[Rory_5244]

4x20" approx.

[Henry Ambrose]

Do not refocus for each shot. Not unless you plan on lots more hand work. The image size changes as the lens moves in relation to the film or sensor plane. Pick a focus that works then stop down enough to cover your needs for the entire scene.

As for "focus stacking" its gonna lead you down a dark, dark path.
Use your camera like a real man (or woman) and apply appropriate movements. :)
You know, like those old fashioned view camera thingys.

[Sheldon N]

Do not refocus for each shot. Not unless you plan on lots more hand work. The image size changes as the lens moves in relation to the film or sensor plane. Pick a focus that works then stop down enough to cover your needs for the entire scene.

As for "focus stacking" its gonna lead you down a dark, dark path.
Use your camera like a real man (or woman) and apply appropriate movements. :)
You know, like those old fashioned view camera thingys.

That was my impression too, that refocusing would lead to changing the effective focal length and very significant stitching difficulties. Perhaps CS3 is capable of dealing with this.

You know, if you can't refocus when stitching a traditional near-far scene, then the view camera is going to have significant advantages because of it's ability to tilt the focus plane cohesively for a single shot. It would be like having to shoot every image with no swing/tilt allowed and the resultant depth of field issues involved. Most SLR lenses don't even go to f/32 or f/45, so you may not be able to stop down and get enough depth of field.

[Jack Flesher]

FTR:

I did *not* refocus after each shot; I find that skies and brighter areas are essentially seamless after the stitch -- IOW I cannot see the seam in a sky unless I turn the layer off; I showed it here, under the "digital processing" subheading to illustrate the technique, which as shown can easily be applied to digital or traditional-scanned captures.

This thread isn't about film or digital being better, it is about sharing a technique...

Cheers,