Panorama technique?

[Jason Kinsey]

I've never tried my hand at panoramas of images, but have found an area after the tornadoes here that would make an excellent subject. I've never photographed for a panorama or stitched them together in PS. Any general advice? I've got a level and a scale on my ball head, so I believe I have the equipment on that end to pull it off. I know there is a lot going into these images, thanks for any advice you could offer.

[Dan Brown]

Hi Jason. I would suggest shooting with the sun behind you, your camera set to manual everything, including AF. Overlap the images by about 1/4 frame or so. In PS, Automate, Photomerge, I use either Reposition only or Interactive layout. Reposition only allows you to manually erase from the layers in the piece when it opens in PS. Interactive Layout allows you to move the different images around a little before they are opened in PS. Most of the time I don't check "blend images together" because this sometimes deletes things that you don't want to delete. Then you can flatten the whole thing, crop to clean the edges up and then do any adjusting of light, cloning etc. It's fun, good luck!

[John Chardine]

Hi Jason- Dan has some excellent suggestions. The main thing is to experiment and have fun. You can get excellent results by handholding or you can mount the camera on a tripod to obtain your overlapping images. If you have objects in the foreground and background you may want to set yourself up to rotate the camera/lens at the nodal point of the lens. That way the foreground and background elements won't move in relation to each other as you pan. Really Right Stuff and other companies sell some great gear to allow you to mount your lens so that you can rotate around the nodal point of the lens. As I said you can hand-hold but a proper panorama set-up is the ultimate!

[Nick Palmieri]

In addition to the above suggestion. Don't use a polarizer, manually choose a white balance (any one will do), just don't use Auto, the conversion will be more difficult. Hold the camera vertically, this will allow you to include more FG and BG which you may lose in the stitch) and use a longer lens (like 70 - 200) not a wide angle. As much as HH is possible, tripod mounted will always be better. Good luck!

[Chris Ober]

If you really want to get serious with it, look in to buying or making a panoramic head.

http://xray.uky.edu/people_documents/Parkin/panohead/panohead.html

[WIlliam Maroldo]

I use Bridge and Photoshop CS5.
I think using a triopod causes problems, and you can easily end up with
an arc. I have better luck without a tripod. Photoshop (CS4-5) does an astounding job at stitching. Shoot hand held with a high enough shutter-speed, completely manually exposure , and do not adjust it after you start. Manual focusing works better, since the AF may focus on something not in the correct DOF.
Use a vertical camera orientation(as Nick pointed out). If you can, line up the horizon, shoreline, or something similar with appropriate horizontal marks in the viewfinder, and use these use as a guide as you sweep from left to right with about 10% overlap, being sure to keep the camera level. If you can use those viewfinder marks as a guide, you can move the camera up or down and use AF to focus on what should be in focus, lock focus, move back down to the VF reference line, and shoot.
Select the images in Bridge/then Tools/ Photoshop/photomerge/layout; auto and check; Blend Images Together. Then OK.
The vertical orientation is very helpful because you will need to crop the uneven top and bottom of the image. With horizontal you can end up cropping important parts of the scene.
I use a 24 MP camera, often with 8-12 images, and the final image can be over 100 inches long at 300ppi, and well over 1 GB file size.
I use 6GB RAM, Win7 64bit, Intel i5 processor,with PS CS5 64bit and I have no problems, other than taking quite a while, 5-10 minutes, for CS5 to stitch the panarama.
If any side of the image is 300,000 pixels or greater PS will save it as a .PSB (large document format). This is strictly based on image dimensions, and not on file size.
You may not have enough RAM, and this may be a good excuse to get more.
Hope this has been helpful. regards~Bill

[John Chardine]

Hi Bill- Good advice but I don't understand why you get better results HH than with a tripod. I can see getting "as good" results HH if you are really careful, but not better. Could you shed light on the reasons.

[Roger Clark]

My 2 cents.

If you want to do only a 1-line mosaic, the the idea of vertical mode is fine, but why limit your images? I often image with multiple rows and almost always horizontal.

The reason for horizontal is in the typical landscape scene (and many wildlife images) higher in the both the finished image and in each frame is further away. While I fix shutter speed and f/ratio, I let the autofocus point vary from frame to frame, so that as I move the view further away, the scene stays in focus. In portrait orientation, the near to far distance in the typical landscape image frame is greater, thus you need a slower aperture (higher f/ratio). to keep near to far in the depth of field. Horizontal orientation minimizes the near to far depth-of-field requirement in most cases.

Second, the idea of not using a polarizer: I use them all the time. Whether or not the polarizer will have effects depends on the field of view. Mosaics are not just for ultra wide angles.

Photoshop's psb file format is for file sizes over 4 gigabytes and is not dependent on the number of pixels. E.g. a 5000 x 5000 pixel image with many layers can get over 4 gigabytes in size and require psb format to save. (Note a 300,000 x 300,000 image would be 270 gigabytes at 8-bits per pixel, 3 colors.)


59-frame mosaic and article on mosaics (and I used a polarizer, camera horizontal):
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/large_mosaics/


other examples:
4-frame panorama, hand held:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa_2009/web/serengeti_c01.19.2009.img_0590-3.c-1000.html

When I have a telephoto on and the animal is too close, not a problem,
just do a mosaic:

Cheetah, 2 frame mosaic with 500 mm (camera horizontal):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa_2007/web/cheetah.c01.19.2007.JZ3F8148-9f-800.html

Zebra mother and colt: 4 frame mosaic with 500 mm lens (vertical mode):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa_2007/web/zebras.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0584-91d-800.html

(Mosaics of moving subjects can be a challenge.)

ultra-wide 18-frames sunset (camera horizontal):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/needles.sunset.c10.26.2009.img_0147-164.g-1000.html

[WIlliam Maroldo]

John, I said I "personally" get better results, and I think it is because with a tripod you have the curvature of the earth to deal with, and if you shoot hand help you can compensate for this with each shot. The problem is how photoshop deals with the arc by expanding the ends. The type of panoramas I typically shoot cover a great deal of distance from right to left (miles) and curvature is a big problem.

Roger; I'm sorry I added a zero, it should be 30,000 pixels on either the width or legnth. Nonetheless I can not find any reference to file size in the PSB file format desciptions, it is always dealing with document dimensions. The dimensions for previous PSB usage in earlier photoshop versions were lower.
I have come up with PSBs anytime I exceed 100 in (at 300ppi) in a paroramas meant for printing, which I, in error, translated to 300,000 pixels, when it should be 30,000. I just opened such a document in CS5 64bit, and resized the image. At 30,000 pixels it could be saved as a PSD, at 30,001 a PSB.
Where did you come up with PSB being for large file size images?
regards~Bill

[Jason Kinsey]

Thanks for the replies folks! There is a TON of good information here, and I'll read through it and try to devise my own plan of attack. Thanks again for your input, I appreciate it.

I noticed where several of you mentioned CS4 and CS5, have you ever experimented with CS3? Thanks.

[Dan Brown]

Thanks for the replies folks! There is a TON of good information here, and I'll read through it and try to devise my own plan of attack. Thanks again for your input, I appreciate it.

I noticed where several of you mentioned CS4 and CS5, have you ever experimented with CS3? Thanks.

I use CS3 and it seems to work fine. I don't know how CS3 stacks up against 4 and 5 though.

[John Chardine]

There is something to be said for using stand-alone software too. I know people how use Autopano Pro:

http://www.autopano.net/kolor/index.html

[Roger Clark]

John, I said I "personally" get better results, and I think it is because with a tripod you have the curvature of the earth to deal with,

No land-based imaging clearly shows the curvature of the earth. I think you are talking about curvature due to the projection of a spherical field of view of a wide angle lens or wide angle mosaic onto a flat image plane.

OK, I have to qualify the above. During a total linar eclipse, one can see and image the curved shadow of the earth on the moon.

If someone brings up the earth's shadow projected on the sky after sunset or before sunrise, the dominant curvature you see is a geometry effect, explained by a plane intersecting a cylinder at an angle (things you read on the internet about this being the curvature of the earth have not considered simple geometry).



and if you shoot hand help you can compensate for this with each shot. The problem is how photoshop deals with the arc by expanding the ends. The type of panoramas I typically shoot cover a great deal of distance from right to left (miles) and curvature is a big problem.

Roger; I'm sorry I added a zero, it should be 30,000 pixels on either the width or legnth. Nonetheless I can not find any reference to file size in the PSB file format desciptions, it is always dealing with document dimensions. The dimensions for previous PSB usage in earlier photoshop versions were lower.
I have come up with PSBs anytime I exceed 100 in (at 300ppi) in a paroramas meant for printing, which I, in error, translated to 300,000 pixels, when it should be 30,000. I just opened such a document in CS5 64bit, and resized the image. At 30,000 pixels it could be saved as a PSD, at 30,001 a PSB.
Where did you come up with PSB being for large file size images?
regards~Bill

See:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml/PhotoshopFileFormats.htm#50577409_pgfId-1056424

PSD supports files up to 30,000 by 30,000 pixels
PSB supports files up to 300,000 x 300,000 pixels

So, if you have an image 300,001 pixels in any dimension, photoshop can't handle it.

For file sizes, see:
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404439.html

File size capability for Photoshop CS4 and CS5:


PSD files: 2 GB
TIFF files: 4 GB

So I was wrong. PSD is 2 gig limit, not the 4 I said.

Note tiff is technically 4 gig limit but few applications can handle more than 2 (I recently ran into this when generating 70,000+ pixel images. And tiff is technically 64K pixel limit, but most applications can only do up to 32k. (I have an immediate application for a 98,280 pixel image--it's been a tough month of hitting these artificial limits.:eek:)

Roger

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Roger, You previosly wrote " Photoshop's psb file format is for file sizes over 4 gigabytes and is not dependent on the number of pixels. E.g. a 5000 x 5000 pixel image with many layers can get over 4 gigabytes in size and require psb format to save." Is this not incorrect? The link you site coincidentally was the same source of my information originally. I stated that PSB is based on document size and not file size, and that is the case.
Although what I observe as curvature when using a tripod may very well be to other causes, other than the 8" the earth surface curves per mile. The reason really doesn't matter. Not using a tripod and and leveling each image seperately helps, in my experience.
I found this at AudiKarma.org ;"The problem with those panoramas happens when you don't correct the lens distortion of each frame before you stitch them together. It's called 'barrel distortion' and is common in almost all zoom lenses. And very prevalent in point and shoots. So when the program stitches the ends of the pictures together it creates that curvature in the panorama." Also, concerning barrel distortion;
generate a number of carefully chosen rectilinear views and join them together. Sounds similar to what I was talking about.
regards~Bill

[Roger Clark]

Roger, You previosly wrote " Photoshop's psb file format is for file sizes over 4 gigabytes and is not dependent on the number of pixels. E.g. a 5000 x 5000 pixel image with many layers can get over 4 gigabytes in size and require psb format to save." Is this not incorrect?

It is not correct. Change the 4 to a 2 in both places above, then it will be correct.



The link you site coincidentally was the same source of my information originally. I stated that PSB is based on document size and not file size, and that is the case.

Try this:
Create a 18918 x 18918 pixel RGB image with 16 bits per pixel and saving it as psd. It works. Now try it with 18919 x 18919 RGB, 16 bits/pixel. Photoshop pops up a waring about file is greater than 2 gigabytes.

Now try 9460 x 9460 RGB 16-bits per pixel. I chose a complex image and upsize it and added some noise. Then duplicate the layer 3 times so you have 4 layers total. Now try saving. I tried it as psd and it worked for a while then came up with a message about file is greater than 2 gigabytes and it can not be saved.

The explanation on the web page and tests with real files show the limit to psd is 2 gigabytes (2^31 bytes), not a pixel size limit.




Although what I observe as curvature when using a tripod may very well be to other causes, other than the 8" the earth surface curves per mile. The reason really doesn't matter. Not using a tripod and and leveling each image seperately helps, in my experience.regards~Bill

With any wide angle lens or mosaic covering a wide angle, any subject with a straight line will project from the scene to the flat image plane as a curve unless the line goes through the optical axis (center of the image). This will be the case whether on a tripod or hand held. (A tilt-shift lens can compensate by moving the optical axis off center.)

The simplest example of this effect is to put on a wide angle lens and image a scene where the horizon is distant, If the horizon goes through the middle of the image, the horizon appears straight. If you place the horizon toward the bottom or top of the image it appears curved.

But with good mosaicing software, one can choose the projection that keeps the horizon straight regardless of the placement of the horizon. For example, the article I gave,
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/large_mosaics/
has the test image with the horizon at the 2/3 line but the horizon is straight. More images at: http://www.ptgui.com/gallery/
Here is an article about straightening a horizon in post processing:
http://www.ptgui.com/man/straighten.html

Roger

[Dave Mills]

I'm not a technical wizard but get excellent results shooting panoramas. I highly advise using a tripod and a leveling head. IMO handholding for panoramas is to be done under 1 condition and that is you don't have a tripod!

[Steven Kersting]

If you really want to get serious with it, look in to buying or making a panoramic head.

http://xray.uky.edu/people_documents/Parkin/panohead/panohead.html

I've had good results using just a long arca plate to locate the lens' entrance pupil with a standard ballhead and leveling the tripod (my one tripod has a bubble built in.)

[Roger Clark]

I've had good results using just a long arca plate to locate the lens' entrance pupil with a standard ballhead and leveling the tripod (my one tripod has a bubble built in.)

Excellent point Steve. I do this too. I call it the poor-photographer's pano head and saves a lot of weight.

For other not familiar with this method:

I have a ~6-inch arca-swiss plate with a clamp on one end. I mount the camera on the clamp, and then put the long plate in the clamp on the tripod head. Next slide the camera to the nodal point (usually near the iris diaphragm). The camera is mounted in landscape mode. I do mosaics in azimuth, then raise the view up and do the next row. As one move the view up, the scene generally is further away, so parallax is not a problem (at least in my experience with the mosaics I've done).

Roger

[Steven Kersting]

Excellent point Steve. I do this too. I call it the poor-photographer's pano head and saves a lot of weight.

For other not familiar with this method:

I have a ~6-inch arca-swiss plate with a clamp on one end. I mount the camera on the clamp, and then put the long plate in the clamp on the tripod head. Next slide the camera to the nodal point (usually near the iris diaphragm). The camera is mounted in landscape mode. I do mosaics in azimuth, then raise the view up and do the next row. As one move the view up, the scene generally is further away, so parallax is not a problem (at least in my experience with the mosaics I've done).

Roger

Isn't the purpose of finding the nodal point (entrance pupil) to eliminate parallax? Or are you saying you don't find you need to be that exact about it?

Generally for a Pano I find longer lenses work better as the point (to me) is to get more detail AND a wide view. All of my lenses beyond 70mm have rotatable feet which allows using this method in portrait view if desired. Wider lenses require landscape mode.

I generally keep longer Arca plates on the lenses anyways as it allows me to shift the balance point easier when using TC's/Flash/etc (also makes a nice handle). I do have a long plate for mounting directly to the camera body (no clamp) for lenses w/o feet.

[Roger Clark]

Isn't the purpose of finding the nodal point (entrance pupil) to eliminate parallax? Or are you saying you don't find you need to be that exact about it?

Hi Steve,
Yes, use of the nodal point is to minimize parallax. But parallax is greatest for the subjects closest to the camera. So the arc-swiss rail works by allowing one to put the nodal point in the azimuth axis. But it does not for the vertical axis. So the rail works (to minimize parallax) only if one does a single row mosaic, or if the rows above the first row have the scene far enough away that parallax effects are small.



Generally for a Pano I find longer lenses work better as the point (to me) is to get more detail AND a wide view. All of my lenses beyond 70mm have rotatable feet which allows using this method in portrait view if desired. Wider lenses require landscape mode.

I agree. I use the lens collar and the rail on it for my 70-200, for example. But for lenses that do not have a collar, I have the separate rail I can use.




I generally keep longer Arca plates on the lenses anyways as it allows me to shift the balance point easier when using TC's/Flash/etc (also makes a nice handle). I do have a long plate for mounting directly to the camera body (no clamp) for lenses w/o feet.

I keep a short rail on my camera, then it is a quick change to add the second rail (with its own clamp) if needed. I would rather not have to use allen wrenches in the field.

Roger

[Steven Kersting]

But it does not for the vertical axis. So the rail works (to minimize parallax) only if one does a single row mosaic, or if the rows above the first row have the scene far enough away that parallax effects are small.

I had never thought of vertical parallax.
Obviously, it would occur as the vantage point is now different, but it is something of a different animal I would think....Well, actually that would depend on "how" you are raising the view. Since the few occasions I've done much with Panos has been more along the lines of the Brenizer method I would simply adjust the vertical position of the camera/tripod and that would eliminate/change the "vertical parallax" characteristic. But I can see that with a far scene simply changing the camera height could have little/ no effect on what was actually captured and thus a vertical tilt of camera axis would work better but also induce/amplify the vertical parallax.



I keep a short rail on my camera, then it is a quick change to add the second rail (with its own clamp) if needed. I would rather not have to use allen wrenches in the field.

Roger

I generally have an R-strap anchor on my camera, no tools required to remove it. And I have replaced the allen screw for the long plate with a SS "thumb screw", no tools required to install it. (but you can't mount the camera body directly over clamp either).

I'm probably something of an oddity as I almost never use a tripod with shorter lenses (unless doing Macro and my macro lens has a foot) and I almost never mount my camera body to a tripod/monopod (lenses, yes).