Reading mode: Light Dark

10mm wide angle vs 24mm pano

Go to last post
gl2k

gl2k

Senior Member
Messages
3,232
Solutions
1
Reaction score
267
Location
Vienna, AT
Just out of curiosity I made this comparison shooting.
The pano is taken at 24mm with 5 vertical shots with approx. 30% overlapping.
The wide angle is taken @10mm.

As you can see there is little difference. If I had taken a little less overlapping it would have been almost identical in width. Absolutely no pp on poth images.

Maybe some of you are interested in such a comparison.



 
Nice stitch. Can you show a crop of one of the license plates? I am curious if the stitched pano has more detail when zoomed in. Thanks in advance.
 
The stitch would obviously have more detail in the full-size image, it has many more pixels to work with.
 
I would think so as well. However I used LR to zoom into both of the currently supplied images side by side, and they look pretty much identical imho. Certainly not enough to justify spending pp time compared to just using a wide angle.
squeamish said:
The stitch would obviously have more detail in the full-size image, it has many more pixels to work with.
Click to expand...
 
Everytime there's a discussion on panos I butt in and make the statement that there's no difference whether you use a wide-angle or a stitched panorama, EXCEPT for resolution. Nobody ever hears me.

For some people, "Its clear to see that the stitched one has less of the 'wideangle distortion' ", but this is just not true. Whether you use a wide angle, or stitch the scene out of hundreds (thousands?) of telephoto shots, the reality of what the lens is looking at does not change. Lenses do not distort the space-time continuum in weird ways.

The interesting thing is what happens to the depth of field. But how do we get into that discussion when we can't get past simple basics?
 
It seems like the 10mm shot has more depth, thus altering the "feel" of the image. I think I'd prefer the 10mm shot for the depth effect.
 
VividExposures said:
I would think so as well. However I used LR to zoom into both of the currently supplied images side by side, and they look pretty much identical imho. Certainly not enough to justify spending pp time compared to just using a wide angle.
Click to expand...
That's because they're both resized to the same final resolution.

If you take 4 12MP shots with 30% overlap you're going to end up with about 36MP of image.
 
As a guy who does lot of stitching I can see the difference quite clearly in the two photos. The 10mm photo has a compressed field while the stitched photo bring us closer to the field, more 3D look.

wide angle perspective definitely has its own visual effect, but for me I prefer the 3D look of the stitched photo.
 
rriveros said:
Everytime there's a discussion on panos I butt in and make the statement that there's no difference whether you use a wide-angle or a stitched panorama, EXCEPT for resolution. Nobody ever hears me.

For some people, "Its clear to see that the stitched one has less of the 'wideangle distortion' ", but this is just not true. Whether you use a wide angle, or stitch the scene out of hundreds (thousands?) of telephoto shots, the reality of what the lens is looking at does not change. Lenses do not distort the space-time continuum in weird ways.

The interesting thing is what happens to the depth of field. But how do we get into that discussion when we can't get past simple basics?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to say that it is you sir who can not get past the simple basics. Wide angle distortion is a well known effect prodused by lenses that keep lines straigt at extreme angles.

If the difference was only resolution there would be no discussion.

If you can look at these exampels and tell me you would get the same effect using stiched images shot at 24+mm I will be impressed :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeyvaldes/3420683390/in/pool-sigma12-24

http://www.flickr.com/photos/new-yorkled/3607954183/

The closer the subject is to the lens the more obvious the distortion gets, these are exaggerated examples but the distortion is the same in the pictures posted by the OP.

--

D300, D40, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 Nikkor 35mm f/1.8, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, Tamron 90mm f/2.8, Sigma 18-200 3.5-6.3 VR, Nikkor 18-55 3.5-5.6, SB-600

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sveinsvoll/
 
Since there is an ongoing discussion I straithened the stitich and resized them both. The difference is subtle but visible.

Open them in your image viewer and quickly switch back and forth between the two. Then you'll see the difference.

Dunno how much influence the stitching software has.

Look at my "follow up..." post. Maybe that sheds some more light on the whole stuff (???).



 
to match the 10 mm lens vertical coverage, I believe that you need a 15 mm focal length lens held vertically, otherwise a 2 row panorama is needed.
 
What about depth in the image? An UWA (say like the 14-24) lens used at the WA setting, will exaggerate depth between the front and rear subjects. I am not sure if the stitching will capture this. Will a stitch made from a 24mm lens, to get the entire FOV of a 14mm lens, have the same level of depth distortion? I don't think it will. Even though you will get the same FOV, you will not get the exaggerated depth from the stitch (as the 24mm will compress the perspective more than the 14mm). Some people choose an UWA lens for this very reason.

Cheers,
-------
Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net
 
It's also visible that the "straight" lines in the stiched image is, in fact, not straight. If the image is corected so that the lines end up straight in the final image the two images would look very much alike.
 
This is affected only by camera to subject distance. It's the distance only that affects the perspective.
nikonboi said:
What about depth in the image? An UWA (say like the 14-24) lens used at the WA setting, will exaggerate depth between the front and rear subjects. I am not sure if the stitching will capture this. Will a stitch made from a 24mm lens to get the whole FOV of a 14mm lens, have the same level of depth distortion?

Cheers,
-------
Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net
Click to expand...
 
Ok that's interesting. I was under the impression that the optical properties of an UWA lens, would tend to exaggerate perspective.

Cheers,
--------
Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net
 
gl2k said:
To present the final stitched image doesn't make any sense because the stitching program has a lot of influence on the final quality. I used Microsoft ICE.
Click to expand...
Does ICE require a lay-out selection as used by PS (ie, you must select auto, perspective, reposition only, etc)? In PS, these options significantly affect the pano. dave
 
esveinsvoll said:
I'm sorry to say that it is you sir who can not get past the simple basics. Wide angle distortion is a well known effect prodused by lenses that keep lines straigt at extreme angles.
Click to expand...
He did get past the basics and he is correct. The only difference you will see is caused by the stitching software and the imperfections in the wide angle
esveinsvoll said:
If you can look at these exampels and tell me you would get the same effect using stiched images shot at 24+mm I will be impressed :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeyvaldes/3420683390/in/pool-sigma12-24
Click to expand...
Of course you would
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top