| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2006 06:44:23 PM · #751 |
OK, fracman, my first results with PTSticher are in. Luminosity blending is actually better than yours, but there is still a tiny bit of blend bluring on the pole, not as much as before. I'll find out why next.
All I did in this first run was to switch from running "nano" to running "PTStitcher" and entering the PTStitcher specific parameters you gave me. I wanted to see what the real differnce was between nano and PTSticher. Conclusion: Nano sucks compared to PTStitcher! ;)
Now I'll go on to address that other parameter differences.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2006 06:50:26 PM · #752 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Could you PLEASE tell me EVERYTHING that is needed, what versions I should have and how it should be configured. I know you had to muddled through the Hugin installation yourself so must have sage advise to give. :) |
To be perfectly honest, I don't know what all I installed any more. I've created a zip file with enblend.exe, ptstitcher.exe, ptoptimizer.exe, autopano.exe, and panoglview.exe. It can be downloaded from here. Since I'm technically not supposed to distribute, I'll pull the archive off tomorrow, but this should be enough to find out what all you need.
Jon
Message edited by author 2006-11-14 16:21:39. |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 06:57:18 PM · #753 |
Hi guys. I've been [quietly] following this thread, and I think I finally learned a bit how to work with layer masks, in particular the method to get more details using two different processed images.
I am wondering if you guys would just take a look at this image:
and let me know if it looks allright at all. In the original RAW, the dark areas to the left are almost black, but if I adjust exposure to get some detail there, most of the rest of the image (especially the water parts) get really blown out. I wonder if this looks OK to you guys?
Added: and please, don't hold back. I'm really, really trying to improve my photography.
Message edited by author 2006-06-02 18:59:46. |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 07:16:58 PM · #754 |
Originally posted by ursula:
let me know if it looks allright at all. |
Sheesh! Today's been a bad day for my wallet. I looked at stdavidson's portfolio earlier and decided a trip to Arizona was a good idea, and now I see this shot and I'm gonna have to hit Yellowstone too!
Seriously, though, I liked the shot. The water doesn't seem blown out at all, and there's still some detail in the dark stripe in the background. The picture follows the rule of thirds nicely, has a clear focal point, and the way the lines work, they tend to keep your eyes on that high-detail spray (nice effect, btw).
The only things that I'd consider changing are the overall color cast (it looks slightly yellow on my screen) and maybe playing with the sky a bit, it seem slightly muddy to me, but both of those are nitpicky things, so ignore them at will :-) |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 07:20:04 PM · #755 |
Originally posted by fracman:
and I'm gonna have to hit Yellowstone too!
....
The only things that I'd consider changing are the overall color cast (it looks slightly yellow on my screen) and maybe playing with the sky a bit, it seem slightly muddy to me, but both of those are nitpicky things, so ignore them at will :-) |
Thank you! Much appreciated. A trip to Yellowstone is well worth the time/money/whatever - to me it's the most beautiful place in the world, I just love it there.
--------------
Added:
Is this better?
Message edited by author 2006-06-02 19:34:48. |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 07:22:00 PM · #756 |
I've just started slowly working through this thread. It's amazing. I'm not sure I'll be able to catch up, but I am excited to use some of the techniques here.
Eric |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 07:38:45 PM · #757 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Is this better?
|
Well, now I'm not sure. On the one hand, the yellow cast is gone, and that appears to have helped with the sky. On the other hand, taking out the yellow reduced the amount of saturation in the pool itself. I'm rocking back and forth between the two, and am having a hard time deciding which I like better.
Perhaps one of the PP gurus will pop in here and help us remove the yellow from everywhere but in the pool... |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 07:45:17 PM · #758 |
Wow, thank you! I think I might know how to do that. How is this?
 |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 07:49:18 PM · #759 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Wow, thank you! I think I might know how to do that. How is this?
|
Yep, that's got it! |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 07:50:50 PM · #760 |
| Thanks a big bunch! I really appreciate the input. |
|
|
|
06/02/2006 09:11:51 PM · #761 |
OK... Ran Hugin with fracman's settings then did some post processing.
There is absolutely no merge mismatches and I did not do anything for luminosity blending. In other words, I treated this just like a regular picture out of camera. You can see there is some luminosity blend boundaries brought out in post, but that would be easy to fix in a "real" pano. LOL!
Be advise this file is a 700k:
//www.pbase.com/azleader/image/61204288
|
|
|
|
06/02/2006 09:22:46 PM · #762 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Wow, thank you! I think I might know how to do that. How is this?
|
Very nicely done image. You originally mentioned layer masks but did not say how you actually applied them. So how did you use layer masks?
The sharpness of this image is exceptional on the geyser and pool. That really makes this image special. What sharpening technique did you use to get such crisp sharpness?
I'm still bummed I did not get to meet up with you to take pictures when you were down this way. :( Oh well... next time!
Btw... I really like this picture of the Mintons: 
I know exactly where you took that one. It is one of the places that I'd hoped to take pictures with you guys. I'm jealous that it is better than the pictures I've taken there. It also has perfect sharpening and color.
We have got to take pictures together sometime so I can steal all your great ideas. LOL!
Message edited by author 2006-06-03 05:36:33.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 01:20:31 AM · #763 |
Ok this is a little off topic but...I actually feel that this image works stronger not as a pano but as a "standard" rectangular landscape. I gave it a quick go and here's what I came up with after some levels adjustment, conversion to B/W, and cropping.
Personally I like this composition much better after the crop.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 01:34:22 AM · #764 |
| At the risk of sounding really lazy for not doing it myself, is there any way we can get a table of contents? It takes a rather long time to scroll through all of the posts to get to where you want to be. |
|
|
|
06/03/2006 01:43:11 AM · #765 |
Here's a great example of where you would be able to use gradients to even out a sky. I'm not sure if you like the sky the way it is right now, but I went ahead and messed with it to see what I could come up with:
Not perfect, of course, but just a quick go.
Hopefully this demonstration will "convert" you to using gradients more often ;)
Message edited by author 2006-06-03 01:45:18.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 02:54:31 AM · #766 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Ok this is a little off topic but...I actually feel that this image works stronger not as a pano but as a "standard" rectangular landscape. I gave it a quick go and here's what I came up with after some levels adjustment, conversion to B/W, and cropping.
Personally I like this composition much better after the crop. |
Personally, I like the image better with your crop to. :) And if any landscape cries out to be B&W, Mt St. Helens is it. LOL!
Btw, this place is very, very close to the exact spot where youthful volcanologist David Johnston was standing 26 years ago when he radioed these famous last words, "Vancouver, Vancouver... this is it!". His body and all his equipment was vaporized without a trace a few seconds later. It is called Johnston Ridge now.
Immediately in front of the log is a sheer cliff of more than a 1,000 foot drop. That must have been quite a last sight for him. On the plus side, as a result of his death, robotic and remote sensing equipment was developed so that volcanlogists can now make their measurements with greatly reduced risk to their own lives.
My primary interest in panos is not to make panoramas, per se, but to make "standard" aspected images of high pixel densities that can be printed very large while retaining fine detail. What you did is what I will to do with my panos.
This small 5 image set is used here for illustrative purposes only and to gain experience learning different panorama stitching software. I purposely left it at the largest crop possible and without post processing so I could compare how much usable image I could get out of each software package and see how well each did. Notice there are 7 different "raw" unretouched versions of this same scene at the bottom of my panorama page, one for each software trial:
//www.pbase.com/azleader/panos
My "real" intended pano of St Helens is another panorama set of images with a lot more pictures in it, but that one is impractical to be used for purposes of this discussion. However, that larger panorama does not have the lovely foreground log in it that can be used, as you have, to make a very nice composition. :)
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 03:06:47 AM · #767 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Here's a great example of where you would be able to use gradients to even out a sky. I'm not sure if you like the sky the way it is right now, but I went ahead and messed with it to see what I could come up with:
Not perfect, of course, but just a quick go.
Hopefully this demonstration will "convert" you to using gradients more often ;) |
You have done a good job with the sky.
If there is one thing I have learned from this landscape discussion, it is that people use gradients a lot. I've rarely used them myself because things like that seemed artificial to me. But, as can be seen here, gradients are very effective when used properly. I will start using them more. Like in this image I often have a saved sky selection in my landscapes. It would be easy to create a gradient layer with an attached "sky only" layer mask for this purpose.
Thanks for showing me. :)
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 05:14:23 AM · #768 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Not perfect, of course, but just a quick go.
Hopefully this demonstration will "convert" you to using gradients more often ;) |
OK... In honor of your suggestion I added a gradient to my panorama...
Goal: Make a better balanced sky yet retain its natural qualities.
Here is the result:
//www.pbase.com/azleader/image/61217163
Post:
1-Load sky selection
2-Add new blank layer for gradient
3-Add layer mask to new layer (doing that makes a "sky only" mask)
4-Use eydropper to select "natural" color from existing sky
5-On new blank layer draw with gradient tool to just below the skyline.
6-Select layer mask and paint with black on right side to reduce gradient effect there for a little better balance
You will notice that by masking out everything but the sky that there is no unnatural blue color added below the sky when I drew the gradient and no blue on the distant mountains on the far left. I also made the gradient small enough to leave white on the far left so that the lighting on the distant mountains and in the sky near them was consistant.
I toyed with the gradient a lot and thought about masking to have a halo around the mountain just to show you I could do it, but decided against it. I'll save that stuff for DPC Challenge entries. LOL!
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 09:12:55 AM · #769 |
Originally posted by xuan768:
At the risk of sounding really lazy for not doing it myself, is there any way we can get a table of contents? It takes a rather long time to scroll through all of the posts to get to where you want to be. |
I haven't figured out any way to link to individual posts, so I don't see how a TOC is possible, sorry.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 09:18:37 AM · #770 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
OK... In honor of your suggestion I added a gradient to my panorama...
Goal: Make a better balanced sky yet retain its natural qualities.
Post:
1-Load sky selection
2-Add new blank layer for gradient
3-Add layer mask to new layer (doing that makes a "sky only" mask)
4-Use eydropper to select "natural" color from existing sky
5-On new blank layer draw with gradient tool to just below the skyline.
6-Select layer mask and paint with black on right side to reduce gradient effect there for a little better balance
You will notice that by masking out everything but the sky that there is no unnatural blue color added below the sky when I drew the gradient and no blue on the distant mountains on the far left. I also made the gradient small enough to leave white on the far left so that the lighting on the distant mountains and in the sky near them was consistant.
I toyed with the gradient a lot and thought about masking to have a halo around the mountain just to show you I could do it, but decided against it. I'll save that stuff for DPC Challenge entries. LOL! |
You've done a nice job with this gradient. As far as "proving you can do halos" goes, they are a flaw, not an asset, 90% of the time. I certainly don't do them intentionally. Regarding your "select and mask and paint with black" approach, I find that if I set the gradient layer in "multiply" mode I usually don't have to...
R.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 09:23:08 AM · #771 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Hi guys. I've been [quietly] following this thread, and I think I finally learned a bit how to work with layer masks, in particular the method to get more details using two different processed images. |
The image looks very nice indeed, and version 3 is the best of the versions, yes. The steam is especially well-rendered. What exactly do you mean by "getting more details using two different processed images"?
Are you referring to the merging of two different RAW exposures (HDR merging) or are you referring to the "contrast masking" we have worked with so much in here? While I know we have mentioned HDR in passing, I don't think we've actually "worked" with it in this thread, unless I'm forgetting something (always a possibility). Can we see an unaltered original on this shot? A jpg straight from RAW?
R.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 10:32:59 AM · #772 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
OK... In honor of your suggestion I added a gradient to my panorama...
Goal: Make a better balanced sky yet retain its natural qualities.
Post:
...
6-Select layer mask and paint with black on right side to reduce gradient effect there for a little better balance |
... As far as "proving you can do halos" goes, they are a flaw, not an asset, 90% of the time. I certainly don't do them intentionally. Regarding your "select and mask and paint with black" approach, I find that if I set the gradient layer in "multiply" mode I usually don't have to... |
I like 'multiply' because it intensifies a sky giving it a polarizer filter look and is much more dramatic. In this case I still have to do something more to balance out the sky in a natural way which was my original goal. It is simply easier to mask out the effect of the gradient on the right side for balance than it would be to add more blue to the left side to balance it if I used 'multiply'.
When playing with the gradient I tried drawing it at a bunch of different angles and directions to see if I could balance the sky that way but no matter what I tried I could not. It always was unbalanced. Maybe I was not doing it right. Anyway, that is why I resorted to masking the right side sky. :)
I'm with you about haloing. I don't like seeing it at all on images and we see it unintentionally crop up in many submissions every challenge. I would use haloing on the mountain only as an artistic effect to draw more attention to it and not allow it anywhere else. It would be unnatural, of course, but then the purpose would have changed.
Message edited by author 2006-06-03 10:34:28.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 10:50:59 AM · #773 |
Here's your large original from the pbase gallery, loaded in PS, sky selected, and gradient applied in normal mode. Took me 30 seconds to do, literally. Not other manipulations required. The sky could easily be made more even top-to-bottom by extending the gradient further down, but that wouldn't be natural to my eye. My point here is, where does the need to manipulate one corner come in? The gradient blue was selected from the upper right portion of the sky, so it's now even from left to right. It's not even from top to bottom reading left to right, but it can't naturally be anyway, given how wide it is...
R.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 01:18:09 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's your large original from the pbase gallery, loaded in PS, sky selected, and gradient applied in normal mode. Took me 30 seconds to do, literally. |
I think it is because you extended your gradient downward less than I did but I don't know for sure. In essence, I spent an additional 30 seconds painting out the right side. ;)
I've probably only used a gradient 5 or 6 times before so am not as adept at using them as you guys that do them all the time. :)
|
|
|
|
06/03/2006 01:18:21 PM · #775 |
Personal comments on panorama stitching software
Here are my observations based on my experience with panorama software. I am by no means an expert but I am very much interested in the process.
I've tried out and cross compared Photomerge (CS2), Hugin, Autostitch, Panorama Factory, PTGui and Autopano Pro and maybe another one or two. There are a lot more other ones out there I did not try. There are free and commercial versions of stitching software. Most use modified versions of Panotools which is open source code released into the public domain. Some products have their own merging and luminosity blending programs and they are not all that bad.
In general the strength of commercial products seem to be luminosity and color blending. Panorama Factory gave the best looking results but that is because it adds its own minor post processing and sharpening to make it look better. With the exception of Hugin the freeware and shareware software does not do as good a job as commercial ones do.
Photomerge (CS2) not recommended
Though it is built into the new versions of Photoshop and is both visually and conceptually the easiest to use and requires the least amount of knowledge on the part of the user, it has TERRIBLE luminosity and color blending. It is so bad that it completely offsets any of it's benefits. Believe me, I know. I've used it more than any of the others and wasted a lot of time fixing those problems!
Merge defects
For simple one row panoramas most of the products do a relatively decent job. My limited earlier experiences with multi-row panoramas indicates it is an issue no matter what software you use.
The good news is that most of the merge mismatches you will have to fix are in the overlap areas of pictures so if it is to hard to fix with quick cloning you will be able to cut and paste from one of your original pictures. That technique is surprisingly easy to apply when fixing merge mismatches.
For the casual panorama builder
Autostitch is free, has few parameters to enter and does a reasonable job of luminosity blending. It was developed as a demonstration software by the guys from the U of British Columbia that invented panorama stitching software. Panotools, which most sofware products still use, originated from their work.
For the serious panorama builder
The choices are tougher. It depends on cost, ease of use and the learning curve. It is remarkable the range of learning curve that is required to use pano stitching software. It ranges from practically none to more than you'd ever dreamed you'd need to know.
No matter what, you will have to learn things you probably really don't care to understand but have to in order to build panoramas.
If you don't mind purchasing software and want it to be easy to use then I'd go with a commercial product and I would download their trial versions and work with them first before spending money. For example, Panorama Factory has nice output but it requires you to set control points by hand to build the merge. That is a royal pain to have to do and they do not provide an automated method and it will not let you do anything else until it is satisfied you have the points right. That sucks.
Autopano Pro or PTGui might be good purchased choices. If you are cheap then just use Autostitch and do touchup work with the output.
Hugin - A special case
I've read that Hugin, which is free, will provide as good of results as any commercial product. However, the preview function will only tell you if the panorama is a jumbled mess or not. and Hugin is BY FAR the hardest to download and install and is BY FAR the most difficult and confusing for the user to learn and use. In most cases you will have to actually build the panorama first to find out if it is really any good or not and it can take quite a while. Fortunately you can save panorama projects that preserve your work.
I would never have figured it all out without fracman's help.
All negatives aside, I'll use Hugin.
It has much more flexibility than any other product I tried and I could (eventually) get very high quality output once I got a better understanding of the parameters. I particularly like that it has a good autogeneration function for setting merge control points AND it has a super good manual override that allows you to add your own control points if the autogenerator does not do as good a job as you would like.
I'm past most of the learning curve and installation issues now and that makes a big difference. However, if they fixed the luminosity and color blending in Photoshop's Photomerge software I'd go back to that in a heartbeat. :)
|
|
