stitching 4x5s on a Mac

[Frank Petronio]

I've been growing frustrated by wide angle lenses - not so much their distortion, but by their POV with looming foregrounds, tiny distant backgrounds, etc. I've owned a Noblex, which is better but not a complete answer. What I think I really like best is stitching several 4x5s shot with "normal" lenses. So far I've only used Photoshop, working carefully, and avoiding difficult subjects like overlapping brick walls. But has anyone found anything better than doing it by "hand"? Especially a Mac OSX solution?

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I don't think the problem is the POV of the wide angle lenses. If you stitch together two 4X5s taken with a 150mm lens it is the same as cropping a panorama from an 8X10 taken with a 150mm lens - which is a very wide angle lens. I think the view you want is on the ground glass with a 90mm lens. It just happens to be a 6X12cm slice out of me middle. That might not leave you with enough negative to enlarge to your chosen print size but the framing possibilities are there.

[Al W]

I agree with Edward.

[Sam Crater]

To answer your question, there are a large number of panorama stitching packages, and any of them are probably better than just using Photoshop. Look at www.panoguide.com for a start. I've stitched 4x5s using Panavue Image Assembler. Like the other programs I've tried, it can be made to work well with enough effort.

[Ellis Vener]

you likely already know this, but shifting only the back standard and not the lens will help a lot

[Darin Cozine]

Edward, Stitchng two 4x5's together will give a slightly different look than a 4x10 or 6x12 image. Remember that when making 2 4x5's you rotate the camera.

[Sam Crater]

Exactly. Stitching images taken by rotating the camera using panorama software will yield the same cylindrical projection as a noblex, and can produce horizontal angles of view beyond the < 120 degrees possible with rectilinear perspective.

[Mark Muse]

Frank, Photoshop CS (8) for Mac OS X has automatic stitching built in. I have used it once or twice for putting together an image that was too large to scan in one piece. It worked pretty well.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I stand corrected. I read several as two because I could never imagine going wider than that. I don't think it is possible to get the same angle of view as 3 4X5s stitched with a single frame. Anyone got a 150mm lens that will cover 11X14?

[Doug Dolde]

I've been doing this some with my Arca Swiss. +/- 50mm back shift does the trick. I can't get 1:3 (unless I crop some) but more like 1:2.25. If I could shift a bit more there's still enough space for a wider image. Here's one done with an Apo Symmar 210mm. Near John Day Oregon. This is a bit rough...will likely get them drum scanned later. I use Panavue Image Assembler. Handles large 16 bit files and very automatic. I had to dodge the sides due to light fall off.

http://www.painted-with-light.com/NEW_WORK/stitch.jpg

[Scott Davis]

I did one of a river valley, shot 3 vertical 4x5's, for a 5x12, with a 150mm. I did rotate the camera. The image worked out wonderfully, and I have it hanging on my wall at home as a tryptich in Palladium. I have it in my gallery on APUG, if you want to see...
http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=13137&cat=500&ppuser=6785
I intentionally left the gaps created by the film borders in, but it gives you the idea.

[Marko]

Scott,

Apug galleries are available to subscribers only. Any way you could post it for the rest of us to see?

[Frank Petronio]

careful, showing scans could get you booted from APUG

[CXC]

I wish Noblex would make a camera with a much less short lens, to shoot stuff a little further away.

[QT Luong]

Realviz makes a great stitcher that works both on the Mac and PC (disclaimer: the company was started by my grad school office mate, however I never got any free software).

[Sanders McNew]

Frank, greetings. :-)

It's not so simple as the preceding posts suggest. The pivot point is everything -- you can't simply turn the camera and shoot and expect the two frames to connect well.

F+H used to sell a Rolleiflex TLR pivot mount for making panoramas from multiple 6x6 Rolleiflex frames. It is an ingenious piece of equipment, because the designers calculated the proper pivot point -- basically, a point near the lens iris -- for a Rollei TLR's lens set and built it into the mount. Obviously a Rolleiflex is not a 4x5 but considering the Rollei panorama head will help you think about how to do this with any camera. If you visit this URL and scroll down, you can see the panorama head, and how it shifts the pivot point to a place below the lens:

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/rolleiflex_acc/rolleiflex_acc-2.htm

And here is a sample image I found on the web taken with a Rolleiflex on a Panorama head:

http://westfordcomp.com/classics/rolleiflex/quabbinoctober05/hopbridgepan.jpg

It's not to say that a workable approximation can't be accomplished by manipulating digital files. But if you want to get it right on the negatives (for those dinosaurs among us still printing in a darkoom) you have to understand the lenses you're using and how they behave through the arc of the panorama you're trying to shoot. Otherwise, you are going to end up with the perspective mismatches you've already encountered.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

[Doug Dolde]

I tried and hated Realviz. If I was stiitching on a Mac I'd probably try to get an Intel Mac and boot to XP so I could keep using Panavue.

[Jack Brady]

Greetings,

I’ve become fascinated with pano images as well. I’m finding that the search for the ideal stitching software ranks up there with a search for the Holy Grail.

I’m shooting 4x5 and Hasselblad H1 black and white, scanning on my Howtek 8,000 in 16 bit gray tiff. Usually scan at 4K for 4x5 and 8K res for the H1 negs. I then drop to 2K working res in CS2.

I have PC’s and a Mac G-5 with 8GB of RAM. At this point, I’ve given up on finding a Mac solution. I have CS2 on both PC’s and MAC but find the Merge tool to be totally unacceptable – crashes due to the files size I’m working with. And manually stitching the images and dealing with the overlay areas in CS2 is more than I’m wanting to put up with.

I’ve downloaded several Mac based stitching programs but find they all have serious limitations – typically inability to handle a large file size. One that held promise from the recommendations I found on various web sites was RealViz Stitcher. However, it has not been able to stitch 9 images of 2K res together without crashing. And another annoying issue with it is that all images MUST be the exact image width and height for it to load them – not a single pixel difference on either the X or Y axis!

I’m now trying out PTGui on the PC. It’s showing some promise and it’s a very reasonably priced program – I’m testing the demo version right now. Have to put in an additional drive on the PC I’m testing it on as it does most of it’s stitching work in cache and it looks like it will need near 150GB of drive cache just to stitch my test images.

Yes, I know I’m asking a lot from any stitching routine, but this is the extreme of what I want to do and why settle for less that doing it right.

In short, if you have a PC, give PTGui a try - here's the site:
http://www.ptgui.com/download.html

If you find something on the Mac that does the job, please let us all know.

[bglick]

A few different questions going on here....

First is Panoramic image capture....

1) Multi image capture... as mentioned, you must use the lens nodal point to acquire the images. This can be discovered on any lens. If shooting infinity, its not an issue. If you have a good pan head and can shoot around the nodal point on both the horizontal and vertical axis (vertial stitching also) then results are mostly dependent upon the scene....how still is the subject, any changing light?

2) Muli image capture... with using rear shift, as Ellis mentioned. This I find the most pleasing of all methods, as typically its only a few shots. With my 6x17 back, the most I need to stitch is 2 shots and no stitching per say is required, simply overlay the two images.

3) Rotational camera....to avoid the fixed lens issue as you describe on the Noblex, I have a Seitz 220VR roundshot. A remarkable camera, but it does NOT capture a scene in the same fashion as the 6x17 back with rear shift. Its just the nature of optics.... sometimes this is not an issue, sometimes it is.... so again, subject matter is an important consideration. Lots of things to consider with these cameras.... long exposures if light is low, 10 - 30 minutes is not unusual with low light and small slit.... compression or expansion of moving subjects...irregual capture of certain moving subjects... but the image on film is easily scanned and used in most cases...specially for QVTR

Now there is the post capture issues...

1. Multi image capture.... as another poster mentioned above, lots of tools, lots of work....the work load is a result fo the images not aligning squarely, as you are simulating a rotating camera, but not in one continuous motion....

2. multi capture with shifting back...the easiest of the bunch, no stitching, just over lay in PS. A 4x5 3 shot shift will yield a 4 x 13, not a bad aspect ratio... and not to many shots...so less can go wrong when shooting, such as light changing and wind....

3. Rotational camera.... the easiest of them all, assuming the subject matter is appropiate. But this and #1 above is produces the same looking image....i.e. its NOT what you see when standing in the scene.... Only #2 above looks like what you see with the naked eye....

Hope this sheds some light on the subject...

[Ted Harris]

I'm not sure I see how the rotating camera solves any 'problems' created by a rotating lens. I ma not an expert for sure. I rented a Seitz Roundshot for a week several years ago when deciding which pano camera to finally purchase. IIRC it was the 220VR and I remember I was using a Nikon PC shift lens. Basically I hated it. Loathed it. Despised it. I drove me crazy. I sent it back and bought a Noblex 150 F which paid for itself on two jobs. Any way interested in hearing the differences and advantages of the Roundshot.

Whichever swing, lens or camera, approach you take I believe is an elegant solution most of the time but there are scenes that become very difficult to correctly render (or impossible) with either camera.

[Jim collum]

or forget about the stitching part, and still use your 4x5


http://www.jcollum.com/fm/wave2.jpg


This was a 190 degree pano with a 210mm lens (betterlight, pano adapter, no IR filter)

jim

[bglick]

[QUOTE=Ted Harris]I'm not sure I see how the rotating camera solves any 'problems' created by a rotating lens.

Ted, the only 'problem' the rotating camera solves, vs. multi shot system that revolves around the nodal point, is the fact you don't have to stitch the images together, make sense?

[Ted Harris]

bg, my question was rotating camera v. rotting lens ... e.g. seitz v. noblex assuming you are aftr the same final imagr size e.g. 6x12 or 6x17. I do realize you can set the Roundshot for any size you like up to 360 degrees.

[phil sweeney]

or forget about the stitching part, and still use your 4x5
This was a 190 degree pano with a 210mm lens (betterlight, pano adapter, no IR filter)
jim

:cool: 226
excellent

[bglick]

Ted, there is no difference between rotational camera and rotating lens only, (noblex vs. Seitz) the image will appear the same with the same fl, same film size, etc. The Seitz simply has more capability, such as faster shutter speeds since film and lens moves in opposite directions. Lens movements, interchangeable slit sizes (not sure if Nobles allows such)... anyway, I hope that is a more clear response to your question.

the first issue one should deal with when picking a Panoramic capture method is..... how real do want the subject to appear on film? As the rotating captured image is often completly different then the view camera pan, with or without shifting the rear standard.