Click click click... uff!

[Phoenix_Jackson]

First attempt of a panorama and was very exited.

I saw a couple of panoramic shots just to get some pointers but it makes me wonder how long does a panoramic shot normally go? I keep reading 360 degrees but in no way are those pictures 360 degrees. Then I heard 25 frames stitched is already "pushing it". So I tried click click clicking on this spot (one of the many places I've been dying to shoot at), within approximately 90 degrees with 22 frames. Again, I wonder how long can I stretch the view since this is the total of what I wanted to capture, if not just a little bit more.

Stitching is addicting! But there are 2 flaws that I think should have been avoided (if not more) and I ask you, good people, how to:

1. I notice a change in shade and I can't figure out whether it is a White Balance issue or my metering. I've been kicking myself when I realized the camera was in AWB-- when I got home.
2. Frame alignment. I'm using a ballhead but I did my best tightening everything except the center pole, as I pan by twisting the center pole and not touching the camera at all. I don't have a spirit level so I used the camera's own level. Everything was in good position on the first frame. It's the following ones that seem to go lower and lower. And I end up cropping a good portion of the final image, which took away some good parts.
-- as it is my first panoramic shot, and working on this image for hours, I can not tell if there are any more flaws 'cause the longer I stare at it, the more it seems to be blending. So please point out if you find any.

Was it too much to extend the view this wide? Did I use the wrong gear/have I used them the wrong way? Was the post-process good enough for this shot? And finally, is the scene as compelling as I view them off-camera (this is one of the spots that I really hope to get it right and have them proudly sent to my folks)?

Canon EOS 60D with Canon 50mm 1.8 II
Aperture = f/14
Exposure = 30 seconds
ISO = 100
Exposure Bias = 0
White Balance = Auto
Manual Mode

Thank you very much for taking your time on this post.

Edit: I was reading at the other section when I posted this without checking if it's in its proper place. I am very sorry.

[Doug Sundseth]

1) The color shift looks like an AWB issue. If you have the right software, you should be able to set a common WB in post before stitching. (This will be far easier if you shot in RAW than if you shot in .jpg.)

2) You're always going to lose some data at the tops and bottoms of photos when shooting a panorama. Exactly how much and where will depend on technique and panorama type. You need to shoot to take this into account. One of the better tips I've received is to shot panorama with the camera held in portrait orientation so that you have more crop space available to you.

Also, the wider you make the panorama, the more critical it is to align the camera correctly. Even a degree or two off from panning horizontally can result in a serious problem with a very wide and very short panorama like you have here.

The number of shots needed to create the panorama seems quite high and is related to the decision to use a short telephoto lens (note that a 50mm on that camera is equivalent to an 80mm lens on a 35mm film camera). With a wider lens, I would expect to be able to get 130° (or so, guessing at what you have here) with 4-6 shots. That said, what you built works, so I don't know that you need to change. But it would drive me nuts to wait for my computer to process that many photos.

As to the resulting photo, I think including the walkway on the bridge hurts your image. Since it is so visually dominant, it draws the viewer's attention away from the cityscape, and it's not very interesting to me. Taking the panorama from off of the bridge and including the bridge could work, Alternatively, if you had a more interesting foreground in the bridge part of the photo, that could work, too.

[Phoenix_Jackson]

Thank you very much for such an early reply.

I shoot with the biggest RAW whenever I can. This image was converted to TIFF then stitched, then the whole as JPEG. But I think I was too excited to stitch that I didn't notice the shift after the stitching the 10th frame. Today, I thought of individually fixing the WB in RAW but since the composition is a mistake, I'd rather take more notes and visit this scene again.
Stitching the first frames, I thought the bridge looked good. But seeing the whole image today, I see what you mean by how it takes the view away from the city. I was looking at it per 3rd segment then.

Adjusting the camera while panning. That alone makes me nervous. But it's doable. Panning while the camera's on portrait orientation though (with an addition of below), would take a lot more frames.

For my second take, if I add a human element to the bridge (doable), a higher point of view (doable), portrait orientation, and set the camera off the bridge (now this part is a little challenging for me 'cause I don't know how with the absence of a gorillapod or that movable center-pole), would you reckon it will work for the better? It's unfortunate that that walkway is the only place I could position myself into (and that's without asking the authorities even).

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Jackson

First attempt of a panorama and was very exited.

Welcome to the club. We'll get you the secret handshake later.

I saw a couple of panoramic shots just to get some pointers but it makes me wonder how long does a panoramic shot normally go? I keep reading 360 degrees but in no way are those pictures 360 degrees.

I do 360°x180° panos. With four shots. Handheld.


Interactive version (requires Flash).

But I'm using an 8mm circular fisheye lens that can cover 180° in a single shot. The focal length you use and the camera sensor format will have a lot to do with how many shots it takes to cover a specific field of view (see the calculators on Max Lyons's website). A lot of panos are not 180°, though. You can tell a 180° pano because the right and left edges will match.

Then I heard 25 frames stitched is already "pushing it".

Depends. But to me, 25 actually sounds kind of low. I've handheld and stitched a pano with a 60mm macro lens that was 27 member images [9x3 grid], and my software and little MacBook did just fine chugging through it. It took a while, but the machine never screamed in pain or anything. If you're using something like Canon's Photostitch, it might just be time to switch to a better stitcher, like Hugin or PTGui.

So I tried click click clicking on this spot (one of the many places I've been dying to shoot at), within approximately 90 degrees with 22 frames. Again, I wonder how long can I stretch the view since this is the total of what I wanted to capture, if not just a little bit more.

You could go all the way around in a circle if you want and capture the 360° if you wanted. But. It would probably have been easier and required fewer shots if you used an 18-55 kit lens set to 18mm, rather than a 50mm prime. Also, if you'd shot with the camera in portrait orientation, you'd have needed more shots, but gotten more vertical coverage. Shooting multiple rows and doing a grid can also help you with vertical coverage. And, if you have Photoshop CS5, you can always cheat and fill in blank corners with content-aware fill (around the 4:00 mark).

1. I notice a change in shade and I can't figure out whether it is a White Balance issue or my metering. I've been kicking myself when I realized the camera was in AWB-- when I got home.

As noted, shooting in RAW, and then setting a consistent white balance for the member images in post processing BEFORE you spit 'em out as TIFFs to stitch would have fixed this issue. My personal mantra with pano shooting is Manual Manual Manual. Manual exposure settings, manual (non-auto) white balance, and manual focus so my DoF doesn't shift between shots.

... I don't have a spirit level so I used the camera's own level. Everything was in good position on the first frame. It's the following ones that seem to go lower and lower. And I end up cropping a good portion of the final image, which took away some good parts.

This actually may not have so much to do with whether or camera is "level" but whether your camera is "tilted" (if you end up with a bowed pano, it's definitely a matter of tilt). You have to check your "pitch" as well as "roll". Most good stitching software, however, can help correct for both. But adding additional vertical coverage is another way to make sure you've got enough crop room to work with. You always want to cover more than you think you need for a pano.

[Phoenix_Jackson]

That's an honest 360 degree shot 'cause I can connect both ends and they'd match. But is there a way to get that distorted effect without fish-eye lens?

I positioned the camera from left, locked everything as tight as I can, with the grid up on my LCD screen, manual focus, fist chose a marker (in the first couple of frames I used the tower) and fixed it on one of the middle vertical lines within the grid. Then panning-per-next-line and shoot. When the tower was almost 1/3 to the left of the frame, I chose another marker to spot in the grid. I think I got too cautious this way but being it my first time, I was just worried about not being able to match the frames. I'll try 2 grids at a time, next time.

I tried Canon's stitch software but the positioning goes crazy that it made me think I messed up. I used GIMP with no grids and just manually stitching the frames, zooming in and out just to make sure the overlap is placed properly. I think this is why I didn't see the color shift earlier. But I've learned my lesson.

I want to go ambitious with this scene as I chose this to be my personal project. But it's the technical-how that's detering me. I want to cover more of the water and reflections (so I think placing the camera off the bridge would do... but I'm still figuring out how). I want the lens distortion on the bridge part (it's what I was hoping for in the first place really) but without a fish-eye, I might just be asking the impossible. I want more vertical view (and thanks for the link to give me good pointers) but I don't know if I should pan all the way from left to right, go back and raise the camera and pan again, or should I shoot up and down while panning. Which technique is better?

I'll be visiting this site tonight and I really want to get it right with lesser PP (manually stitching already gave my computer asthma).

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Jackson

That's an honest 360 degree shot 'cause I can connect both ends and they'd match.

If you mean my pano, yes. But it's also 360x180--I have full spherical coverage. You can look straight up and straight down when you're inside the pano (the interactive link). Most panos don't cover quite that much vertically, and are represented digitallyas a cylinder if you look at them in VR viewers. 360x180s tend to be represented digitally as six cube faces, so they're also known as cubics.

But is there a way to get that distorted effect without fish-eye lens?

Yes. The distortion isn't from the fisheye, but from the representation of the sphere. The mapping that image has is what's called equirectangular: it's like a map of the world, where the longitude and latitude are simply mapped as cartesian x,y coordinates. There's a TON of distortion around the poles. But the left and right edges wrap around and meet behind you, the top edge all becomes the pole above, and the bottom edge becomes the pole below.

Your pano, however, is not 360. I'd be seeing the walkway you're on on both the left and right sides...

I positioned the camera from left, locked everything as tight as I can, with the grid up on my LCD screen, manual focus, fist chose a marker (in the first couple of frames I used the tower) and fixed it on one of the middle vertical lines within the grid. Then panning-per-next-line and shoot. When the tower was almost 1/3 to the left of the frame, I chose another marker to spot in the grid. I think I got too cautious this way but being it my first time, I was just worried about not being able to match the frames. I'll try 2 grids at a time, next time.

This is the best way to figure stuff out--just keep plugging away at it. Practice makes perfect. Generally speaking, I've found that you don't have to be too exact. Just getting a third of the frame to overlap is fine, and shooting some extra coverage will help. Using a wider lens might help, too, making it simpler to track coverage. If you start to get really confused about whether or not you've rotated enough, just back up and shoot again. You can always discard unneeded shots later.

The tool I use when I need real precision on rotation and coverage is a Nodal Ninja pano head. These are actually pretty cheap vs. the competition, but may be more than you want to pay off the bat if you're still learning whether or not this is for you.

I tried Canon's stitch software but the positioning goes crazy that it made me think I messed up. I used GIMP with no grids and just manually stitching the frames, zooming in and out just to make sure the overlap is placed properly.

This works right now because you're using a 50mm lens. But if you use a wider lens, the images won't necessarily match as well. And you'll also have to deal with the seaming yourself.

I'd really recommend that you try out software that's specifically for stitching. Hugin is a cross-platform open source (read: free) package that's pretty much on the bleeding edge when it comes to panostitching. It also includes software to blend over seams and to fix distortion issues when stitching images together.

... I want to cover more of the water and reflections (so I think placing the camera off the bridge would do... but I'm still figuring out how).

Water can be problematic because water moves, and you still need time between frames. I've timed waves at the beach and gotten some interesting approximations, but you may need to learn how to do some post-processing tricks to get things to blend better.

I want the lens distortion on the bridge part (it's what I was hoping for in the first place really) but without a fish-eye, I might just be asking the impossible. I want more vertical view (and thanks for the link to give me good pointers) but I don't know if I should pan all the way from left to right, go back and raise the camera and pan again, or should I shoot up and down while panning. Which technique is better?

I tend to go by rows. It's how I read; it's easier for me to keep track. But I suppose if I learned to read Chinese or Japanese first, I'd be going by columns. Whatever works for you best is going to be the way you want to go. All that's really important, though, is making sure you have enough coverage.

Three more sites you might want to hit for some better advice and knowhow/tricks:

• Max Lyons
• Gigapan
• panoguide forums