| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2007 12:51:52 PM · #1 |
| I know it's not necessarily something that is applicable to this site, but I would like to mess around with some panorama shots, but cannot find the Stitch Assist mode on my camera. I have a Canon Rebel XT and I've read the entire manual and looked through all my menu options that are buried, but can't find anything. Can anyone out there help me out please! |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 01:46:44 PM · #2 |
| On my non-dSLR Canon it's on the mode selector wheel, with an icon which looks like stacked frames (could be mistaken for a bracketing option). |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 01:48:31 PM · #3 |
The XT doesn't have any special mode for panoramics.
The way to do it, is to take the shots, preferably in manual exposure mode so the exposures don't vary, overlap them by at least 30% and either using a tripod or re-composing each time paying very close attention to a given line such as the horizon, then using the software that came with your camera (Canon's Photostitch) or Photoshop's Automate, Photomerge, assemble them.
The results work well.
Here's a shot done yesterday doing just that, using 4 individual images:
(note that there is a second link in the information
box on the left side to view it full-sized)
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:00:52 PM · #4 |
The best I've found was Autostitch.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:04:10 PM · #5 |
I would agree with  Brad and make these further suggestions:
1-Don't you EVER consider taking a panorama without a tripod unless you think you are so good that you can insure the horizon is absolutly perfectly level AND that you can eyeball the 30% overlap that Brad suggests without assistance. Most people can't.
2-ALWAYS use manual settings to maintain proper exposure matches for the stitching.
3-Don't use a polarizer on your panorama because it screws up exposure lighting matching by stitching software.
And even after you do all that you will still have to make "hand" corrections for both blend and lighting if you want an image worthy of printing.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:11:55 PM · #6 |
It seems like Photoshop does a pretty good stitching job. Does anybody use that alone and what are the major differences between using PSCS2 and other more specific software?
While a far, far cry from perfect this image,a composite of around 18-21 shots was done in PS. Even with passing clouds changing the light, every few frames, I was surprised how well it did.
Message edited by author 2007-05-07 14:16:20. |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:18:32 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It seems like Photoshop does a pretty good stitching job. Does anybody use that alone and what are the major differences between using PSCS2 and other more specific software? |
I hate Photoshops stitching software. It doesn't match the exposures correctly even give #2 in Steve's list of rules. I've also had issues where it incorrectly stacks images.
Autostitch doesn't even give you any interface to place the images. It's completely automatic and it's 100% accurate with any Pano I've done.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:27:43 PM · #8 |
| Thank you all for responding. I'm headed out this afternoon with my tripod to test it out a bit! |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:36:03 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It seems like Photoshop does a pretty good stitching job. Does anybody use that alone and what are the major differences between using PSCS2 and other more specific software? |
It depends on the definition of "pretty good." Normally, I won't accept any result where I can find the stitch line, when viewed on-screen at 100%. That's probably a really strict (some might say anal) definition, but there it is.
The lens you use for a pano will have a big impact on how well a pano stitches with a basic tool like Photoshop. Photoshop is not as sophisticated as dedicated stitching tools in "warping" images to match them despite lens distortion. You'll have better success with longer focal lengths where distortion is normally much less significant.
With dedicated stitchers, you also gain control over what projection is used (equirectangular, cylindrical, spherical). Dedicated stitchers also normally automate the choice of transitions. The best ones output in layered format so that stitch lines can be tweaked later.
I normally shoot my panos with focal lengths between 24 and 70mm (sometimes longer but not often). I normally want to see less than 1 pixel average deviation for control points, and not more than 2 pixels maximum deviation. With matching at this level, careful exposure/color matching and a little tweaking of the transition points, it is possible to construct panoramas that will confound the all but the very best "stitch-line hunters." |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:36:44 PM · #10 |
Another note to add:
Be wary of using a wide angle lens, as it will create distortion. On the XT, 35-50mm seems to be about ideal. Using the kit lens at 18mm with a polarizer makes for some interesting stitching...
Message edited by author 2007-05-07 14:44:36. |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:37:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It seems like Photoshop does a pretty good stitching job. Does anybody use that alone and what are the major differences between using PSCS2 and other more specific software?
While a far, far cry from perfect this image,a composite of around 18-21 shots was done in PS. Even with passing clouds changing the light, every few frames, I was surprised how well it did. |
There are two characteristics that make panorama stitching software "good"... Its ability to match objects from one image to the next and its ability to blend the lighting from one image to the next.
Photoshop CS2 is, BY FAR, the easiest software to use for stitching panoramas, but it is also, BY FAR, the worst.
You are better served to use 3rd party software if you are serious about making decent panoramas.
Message edited by author 2007-05-07 14:39:21.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 02:55:13 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
There are two characteristics that make panorama stitching software "good"... Its ability to match objects from one image to the next and its ability to blend the lighting from one image to the next.
Photoshop CS2 is, BY FAR, the easiest software to use for stitching panoramas, but it is also, BY FAR, the worst.
You are better served to use 3rd party software if you are serious about making decent panoramas. |
In this image you can see two/three lines or sky color variations. The Best/Good 3rd party software will correct that for me???
Also...it sounded like eug said "Autostitch doesn't even give you any interface to place the images. It's completely automatic and it's 100% accurate with any Pano I've done." Which I interpreted as, you load a set of images and the software "automatically" cranks out a pano?
I'm diggin on that...
I was just thinking of redoing that image so the timing of this discussion is perfect.
Message edited by author 2007-05-07 14:57:59. |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 03:16:22 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
In this image you can see two/three lines or sky color variations. The Best/Good 3rd party software will correct that for me??? |
Yup.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Also...it sounded like eug said "Autostitch doesn't even give you any interface to place the images. It's completely automatic and it's 100% accurate with any Pano I've done." Which I interpreted as, you load a set of images and the software "automatically" cranks out a pano?
I'm diggin on that... |
Yup.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I was just thinking of redoing that image so the timing of this discussion is perfect. |
What're you waiting for? ;)
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 03:22:13 PM · #14 |
I used PS CS2 to stitch 4 images together manually, and it wasn't that difficult. I worked on two at a time, putting them on seperate layers and aligning them, erasing this and that untill I got it looking right. Last week I did 13 images the same way for a friend, who had taken photos of a glacier on his trip to Canada. The funny thing is he used his G6 handheld..
You can view it here. The two lines in the middle are ropes on the ship, the pano is flawless. The orginal is 8880x1456.
Message edited by author 2007-05-07 15:28:05. |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 03:24:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by ignite:
I used PS CS2 to stitch 4 images together manually, and it wasn't that difficult. I worked on two at a time, putting them on seperate layers and aligning them, erasing this and that untill I got it looking right. Last week I did 13 images the same way for a friend, who had taken photos of a glacier on his trip to Canada. The funny thing is he used his G6 handheld.. |
How much time and effort did you put into that?
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 03:29:52 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by ignite:
I used PS CS2 to stitch 4 images together manually, and it wasn't that difficult. I worked on two at a time, putting them on seperate layers and aligning them, erasing this and that untill I got it looking right. Last week I did 13 images the same way for a friend, who had taken photos of a glacier on his trip to Canada. The funny thing is he used his G6 handheld.. |
How much time and effort did you put into that? |
It took me almost 3 hours, but it was fun. I wanted to get more practice with my Wacom, and see if my new laptop could handle it. All was fine. BTW, check out the link, I uploaded a resized version. |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 03:50:06 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
In this image you can see two/three lines or sky color variations. The Best/Good 3rd party software will correct that for me??? |
I will just say this...
I did extensive testing of a variety of autostitching software about a year and a half ago, including autostitch and PS CS2 and other commercial software products, and my conclusion was that as far as I could tell 'Hugin' did the best job.
Hugin is free but is also, BY FAR, that hardest to install properly and use. It uses the same engine that Autostitch uses, like almost everyone else including commercial software.
I don't recommend you try Hugin unless you are VERY sophisticated with computing software and willing to fight your way through installation issues and locating and installing the other associated free software that works with it. I guarantee you it will be unpleasant even if you are a software developer like me.
But if you are willing to go through all that AND willing to experiment with the incredible amount of settings it has then you will be able to correct most of the problem with your image.
Just be advised, you will ALWAYS have to do some "hand" correction work after stitching, but the amount you have to do will be less with Hugin than with other products.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 04:26:27 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
In this image you can see two/three lines or sky color variations. The Best/Good 3rd party software will correct that for me??? |
I will just say this...
I did extensive testing of a variety of autostitching software about a year and a half ago, including autostitch and PS CS2 and other commercial software products, and my conclusion was that as far as I could tell 'Hugin' did the best job.
Hugin is free but is also, BY FAR, that hardest to install properly and use. It uses the same engine that Autostitch uses, like almost everyone else including commercial software.
I don't recommend you try Hugin unless you are VERY sophisticated with computing software and willing to fight your way through installation issues and locating and installing the other associated free software that works with it. I guarantee you it will be unpleasant even if you are a software developer like me.
But if you are willing to go through all that AND willing to experiment with the incredible amount of settings it has then you will be able to correct most of the problem with your image.
Just be advised, you will ALWAYS have to do some "hand" correction work after stitching, but the amount you have to do will be less with Hugin than with other products. |
My experience with Hugin is completely the opposite. I had no trouble installing or running it. While it indeed has daunting amount of settings one can play with all day long, there's usually no need to worry about most of them. Selecting the lens' focal length, manually setting the control points, running simple position and distortion optimization and setting a few output options -none of which requires arcane knowledge in computer sciences- are usually all I do to get excellent panos. In my opinion, Hugin is simply the best pano software even though it has a bit of a learning curve. |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 04:36:44 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I did extensive testing of a variety of autostitching software about a year and a half ago, including autostitch and PS CS2 and other commercial software products, and my conclusion was that as far as I could tell 'Hugin' did the best job. |
Well Steve, you've piqued my interest enough to download and install Hugin. I've been using PTGUI/Panotools for so long that I can't remember what I used before (literally). I know I was still shooting with the Nikon 995 when I started using PTGUI, so that means at least 4 years. I guess it's about time I surveyed the current software again. |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 04:40:45 PM · #20 |
I got errors with autopnoa-SIFT, but the original Autopano is working fine.
I too got piqued by Steve's comments on Hugin. We'll see. The 'other' software doesn't seem that big a deal either.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 04:45:35 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I did extensive testing of a variety of autostitching software about a year and a half ago, including autostitch and PS CS2 and other commercial software products, and my conclusion was that as far as I could tell 'Hugin' did the best job. |
Well Steve, you've piqued my interest enough to download and install Hugin. I've been using PTGUI/Panotools for so long that I can't remember what I used before (literally). I know I was still shooting with the Nikon 995 when I started using PTGUI, so that means at least 4 years. I guess it's about time I surveyed the current software again. |
Fritz, just be advised there is more than one thing to download and install and that may not be all that clear when you do it. But I think it is better than PTGUI and also uses panotools which, though free, is still the best.
The component that automatically sets up all the control points which makes life much easier is one of those extra downloads, I believe.
When it gets you POed send me a PM and I will do what I can to help. :)
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 05:12:28 PM · #22 |
The Mac OS X version for Hugin starts with a warning about instability....that ain't encouraging.
I'd gladly pay a few dollars for a respectable program that's simple and works with Mac/Intel.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 05:31:15 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
The Mac OS X version for Hugin starts with a warning about instability....that ain't encouraging.
I'd gladly pay a few dollars for a respectable program that's simple and works with Mac/Intel. |
I neglected to mention all my testing was on wintel platforms. ;)
For the most part Mac is still better than wintel but I don't know if that is true with Hugin.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 05:41:00 PM · #24 |
Wow. That didn't come out well at all... Crisp sharp diagnol lines, no blending between images. WTH?
Message edited by author 2007-05-07 17:45:41.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2007 06:00:49 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Wow. That didn't come out well at all... Crisp sharp diagnol lines, no blending between images. WTH?
|
Tryptich Outtake?
Is that a Hugin? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:42:03 PM EDT.
