ZR200/300: HDR-Art-video & superwideangle stitching
Guy Parsons wrote:
WJMWJM wrote: [super wide angle] You even wrote it yourself before in this thread, 2 months ago....;))
Ah, that's aeons ago. Anyway, even then I was asking about how it all worked.
Strangely it's 15mm and 19mm, suggesting neither 24 nor 28mm lens, but 26mm?
Page 83 of the ZR1000 manual says 14mm and 18mm but may end up something else according to conditions.
Yep, different image size ratio's, indeed.
(but one would expect that Casio went for the largest bragging factor, not nuances like this (unless some poor testing soul started calculating from scratch again, of course)
(I have done that myself too, in sensor/focal-lenght context, comparing the 21mm of Tryx with WB210, just by calculation....not a satisfying endeavour, I can tell you)
(think I posted some of that in the Tryx thread, months ago)
(I am too lazy to do some better analysis with true pictures and angles outlined on a test-board....8-))
Portrait orientation is needed to get as many pixels as possible in the vertical direction.
Yes, but I want landscape to get as much angle in horizontal direction....;))
The portrait orientation is needed to get the frame height of the (Wide 2) 14mm or (Wide 1) 18mm equivalent. It's a bit unclear as to the sort of sweep needed to get the result. They just say "follow the instructions that you see on the monitor". I guess multiple passes are needed.
(you can have the pixels, I just want the angle!....:))
Well, you get the angle of 14mm or 18mm equivalent.
There is no sensible reason why it could not work just as well in landscape mode, other than the instructions on-screen.
Probably not used because every shot would always need multiple sweeps.
Hmm....at first I though that his would make a minimum of sense; 2 rows instead of 3, for portrait versus landscape, or vice versa....but that's not the difference....yet I do get a few more errors halfway during the proces in landscape-orientation/portrait-result, versus portrait-orientation/landscape-result (like the on-screen instructions might want you to).
(but that is also under indoor/artificial light conditions, perhaps outside it gets easier, with more contrast and lower ISO/noise....)
If you need extra frame width as in 16:9 ratio or wider with the proper 24mm frame height
Hmm....haven't checked variations in settings of size & ratio yet, in this superwideangle stitching mode....might not allow anything else than full size/16MP, just like HDR-Art-Video is locked as well.
<jump in time>
Ah no, not locked, all picture sizes/resolutions/ratio's available.
(or better) then take a careful panorama set at full resolution (1 row or more rows) and join later in post process with any decent edit program.
For decent stitching I'd better start with individual frames anyway....;))
Again taking panorama sets should always use the portrait orientation to get best vertical resolution and to make for easier edge crops. The usual sweep panorama mode (page 86) is limited to images based on 1920x1080 pixels so again it's better to sweep using the camera in portrait orientation to get 1920 pixels frame height.
If only that didn't limit the panorama to 180 degrees, instead of 360 in landscape orientation....that's one of my main pet-peeves against all Sony's too (both NEX & A), only 90 and 180 degrees respectively.
(actually, both Tryx and ZR200 do more than 360 degrees, mostly....up to 180 degrees extra)
(still not sure what really triggers/substitutes the 'end', sometimes I imagine it is data-size (straight into JPEG, so boring/homogenous structures take less memory than complex/irregular), sometimes I think it tries to recognize the end by rough image details (and fails, and runs on, until memory does limit things))
Btw, it's not as if I wasn't satisfied with the poor 120 degrees in my analog days, with Horizon 202 & Noblex, nor did the +360 degree of the Spinshot (hello Lomographians!) convince me it was worth pursuing that way, but once you tried a +360 degree with a Tryx, you won't settle easily for something less, definitely not half of it.
(and no, post-processing is way much less fun also, just like post-processing HDR(-Art) is)
(even apart from the additional images cq memory-storage)
|Post ( )||Posted by||When|
|Nov 22, 2012|
|Nov 24, 2012|
|Nov 26, 2012|
|Nov 26, 2012|
|Nov 26, 2012|
|Nov 27, 2012|
|Nov 27, 2012|