Reading mode: Light Dark

F505V, NYC Pano (250KB)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Hartmann
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
A

Alan Hartmann

Guest
Exposure data: F4.8 1/500 sec ISO 100 FL 75mm, polarizer
7 shots (tripod, no pano head)
Stitched with trial version of Panorama Factory

Each shot level adjusted prior to stitching (is this advisable, or better to perform adjustments on resulting image?)

Original was 7000x1400, this version has been very slightly rotated, cropped and resampled to 1244 x266, with unsharp mask applied:



Points of interest from left to right:

Jersey City, Midtown Manhattan (Empire State Building), Financial District (World Trade Center) with Ellis Island in the foreground, Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn, Statue of Liberty. Taken from Liberty State Park, only about 10-15 minutes from Newark Airport. (If you find yourself stuck at Newark Airport for a few hours, consider taking a taxi!)

This was my first experience with Panorama Factory, and it seems like a very powerful program. In all likelihood I'll make the purchase ($35 I think). With the "automatic fine tuning", it produced a fraction more than two World Trade Center towers, but manual fine tuning was pretty easy to figure out from reading the manual and experimenting. I didn't see any way to control the JPG quality level on output, although there is a TIFF option. Any other recommendations for a pano program?

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Alan
 
Howdy!

Did you lock the exposure? It looks like there are frames with a higher and with a lower amount of contrast. There are also frames with darker and lighter skies. Exposure lock makes sure every frame is shot using the same exposure variables.

I would recommend changing levels after you've stiched all frames. Indeed, doing so before stiching can lead to the differences I just described above. I you didn't use exposure lock, you could use levels (and other image manipulation) to try to minimise the differences from frame to frame, if any. That's a tough job, though.

Panorama Factory is a popular tool, I know some other posters are using it. There are some alternatives, however - even freeware. You can even do it all yourself in eg. Photoshop, but that's a lot of work.

HTH, gr. Michel
Alan Hartmann said:
Exposure data: F4.8 1/500 sec ISO 100 FL 75mm, polarizer
7 shots (tripod, no pano head)
Stitched with trial version of Panorama Factory
Each shot level adjusted prior to stitching (is this advisable, or
better to perform adjustments on resulting image?)

Original was 7000x1400, this version has been very slightly
rotated, cropped and resampled to 1244 x266, with unsharp mask
applied:



Points of interest from left to right:

Jersey City, Midtown Manhattan (Empire State Building), Financial
District (World Trade Center) with Ellis Island in the foreground,
Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn, Statue of Liberty. Taken from Liberty
State Park, only about 10-15 minutes from Newark Airport. (If you
find yourself stuck at Newark Airport for a few hours, consider
taking a taxi!)

This was my first experience with Panorama Factory, and it seems
like a very powerful program. In all likelihood I'll make the
purchase ($35 I think). With the "automatic fine tuning", it
produced a fraction more than two World Trade Center towers, but
manual fine tuning was pretty easy to figure out from reading the
manual and experimenting. I didn't see any way to control the JPG
quality level on output, although there is a TIFF option. Any
other recommendations for a pano program?

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Alan
Click to expand...
 
Michel said:
Howdy!

Did you lock the exposure? It looks like there are frames with a
higher and with a lower amount of contrast. There are also frames
with darker and lighter skies. Exposure lock makes sure every frame
is shot using the same exposure variables.
Click to expand...
The F505V doesn't have a lock, but I insured the exposure was the same on all frames by panning back to the initial frame, and half-pressing the shutter. The contrast difference may be partly due to the cloud cover -- Liberty Island (at least I think that's the name of the island the Statue is on) appears quite dark because of the clouds.
Michel26604 said:
I would recommend changing levels after you've stiched all frames.
Indeed, doing so before stiching can lead to the differences I just
described above. I you didn't use exposure lock, you could use
levels (and other image manipulation) to try to minimise the
differences from frame to frame, if any. That's a tough job, though.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, I'm going to try it again with the originals.
Michel26604 said:
Panorama Factory is a popular tool, I know some other posters are
using it. There are some alternatives, however - even freeware. You
can even do it all yourself in eg. Photoshop, but that's a lot of
work.

HTH, gr. Michel
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback!

Alan
 
I like it. I woudl like it better is the picture was larger.
I understand you had to cropped it for the web.
But IMHO I think you cropped down to much.

Bill
Alan Hartmann said:
Exposure data: F4.8 1/500 sec ISO 100 FL 75mm, polarizer
7 shots (tripod, no pano head)
Stitched with trial version of Panorama Factory
Each shot level adjusted prior to stitching (is this advisable, or
better to perform adjustments on resulting image?)

Original was 7000x1400, this version has been very slightly
rotated, cropped and resampled to 1244 x266, with unsharp mask
applied:



Points of interest from left to right:

Jersey City, Midtown Manhattan (Empire State Building), Financial
District (World Trade Center) with Ellis Island in the foreground,
Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn, Statue of Liberty. Taken from Liberty
State Park, only about 10-15 minutes from Newark Airport. (If you
find yourself stuck at Newark Airport for a few hours, consider
taking a taxi!)

This was my first experience with Panorama Factory, and it seems
like a very powerful program. In all likelihood I'll make the
purchase ($35 I think). With the "automatic fine tuning", it
produced a fraction more than two World Trade Center towers, but
manual fine tuning was pretty easy to figure out from reading the
manual and experimenting. I didn't see any way to control the JPG
quality level on output, although there is a TIFF option. Any
other recommendations for a pano program?

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Alan
Click to expand...
 
Very well done ! Did you use a tripod with panhead ? Or, hand held ?
Alan Hartmann said:
Exposure data: F4.8 1/500 sec ISO 100 FL 75mm, polarizer
7 shots (tripod, no pano head)
Stitched with trial version of Panorama Factory
Each shot level adjusted prior to stitching (is this advisable, or
better to perform adjustments on resulting image?)

Original was 7000x1400, this version has been very slightly
rotated, cropped and resampled to 1244 x266, with unsharp mask
applied:

http://www.zing.com/picture/pda90948a653979a211363f6b31c4f21c/fe68120e.jpg.orig.jpg

Points of interest from left to right:

Jersey City, Midtown Manhattan (Empire State Building), Financial
District (World Trade Center) with Ellis Island in the foreground,
Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn, Statue of Liberty. Taken from Liberty
State Park, only about 10-15 minutes from Newark Airport. (If you
find yourself stuck at Newark Airport for a few hours, consider
taking a taxi!)

This was my first experience with Panorama Factory, and it seems
like a very powerful program. In all likelihood I'll make the
purchase ($35 I think). With the "automatic fine tuning", it
produced a fraction more than two World Trade Center towers, but
manual fine tuning was pretty easy to figure out from reading the
manual and experimenting. I didn't see any way to control the JPG
quality level on output, although there is a TIFF option. Any
other recommendations for a pano program?

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Alan
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

It is noteworthy that it is better not using polarizer lens while making panorama. The effect of PL is relevant to the sun's position. The PL would make the sky and explorsure across wide distance appear difference colour and brightness.
Alan Hartmann said:
Michel said:
Howdy!

Did you lock the exposure? It looks like there are frames with a
higher and with a lower amount of contrast. There are also frames
with darker and lighter skies. Exposure lock makes sure every frame
is shot using the same exposure variables.
Click to expand...
The F505V doesn't have a lock, but I insured the exposure was the
same on all frames by panning back to the initial frame, and
half-pressing the shutter. The contrast difference may be partly
due to the cloud cover -- Liberty Island (at least I think that's
the name of the island the Statue is on) appears quite dark because
of the clouds.
Member said:
I would recommend changing levels after you've stiched all frames.
Indeed, doing so before stiching can lead to the differences I just
described above. I you didn't use exposure lock, you could use
levels (and other image manipulation) to try to minimise the
differences from frame to frame, if any. That's a tough job, though.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, I'm going to try it again with the originals.
Member said:
Panorama Factory is a popular tool, I know some other posters are
using it. There are some alternatives, however - even freeware. You
can even do it all yourself in eg. Photoshop, but that's a lot of
work.

HTH, gr. Michel
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback!

Alan
Click to expand...
 
That turned out real nice. Great subject. Nice clear day too. There's so much variance in lighting across the pan, that adjusting levels on each individual image wouldn't have much effect. Especially with auto levels. Normally, you wouldn't want to do any image adjustment until they're all stitched.

I posted one early this morning and it quickly got pushed to the rear. It's a quick six shot stitch in the redwoods. Best, as with yours, to view it in a new window. The scrolling loses the overal effect.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1005&page=2&message=1169352
 
lai said:
Hi,
It is noteworthy that it is better not using polarizer lens while
making panorama. The effect of PL is relevant to the sun's
position. The PL would make the sky and explorsure across wide
distance appear difference colour and brightness.
Click to expand...
Lai & Michel:

This is an excellent point -- the difference in sky color is quite noticeable between the left and right sides of the picture. I think between the polarizer effect and the cloud cover, the end result will never look very uniform. I did try restitching with the originals, and the result is quite similar, so I'm not even going to repost. I think instead I will plan another visit and reshoot without the PL.

Thanks for your comments.

Alan
laitalk said:
Alan Hartmann said:
Michel said:
Howdy!

Did you lock the exposure? It looks like there are frames with a
higher and with a lower amount of contrast. There are also frames
with darker and lighter skies. Exposure lock makes sure every frame
is shot using the same exposure variables.
Click to expand...
The F505V doesn't have a lock, but I insured the exposure was the
same on all frames by panning back to the initial frame, and
half-pressing the shutter. The contrast difference may be partly
due to the cloud cover -- Liberty Island (at least I think that's
the name of the island the Statue is on) appears quite dark because
of the clouds.
laitalk said:
I would recommend changing levels after you've stiched all frames.
Indeed, doing so before stiching can lead to the differences I just
described above. I you didn't use exposure lock, you could use
levels (and other image manipulation) to try to minimise the
differences from frame to frame, if any. That's a tough job, though.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, I'm going to try it again with the originals.
laitalk said:
Panorama Factory is a popular tool, I know some other posters are
using it. There are some alternatives, however - even freeware. You
can even do it all yourself in eg. Photoshop, but that's a lot of
work.

HTH, gr. Michel
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback!

Alan
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
William C said:
I like it. I woudl like it better is the picture was larger.
I understand you had to cropped it for the web.
But IMHO I think you cropped down to much.

Bill
Click to expand...
Bill:

I'm not sure I'm following you. I didn't really crop very much, just a bit of Jersey City and the immediate foreground on the left, and a bit of Brooklyn on the right. Actually, I was thinking there might still be too much water and sky. OTOH, if you're referring to the downsampling causing lack of detail, then yeah, you're right on. If I only had broadband -- and everyone else did too -- I'd have posted a larger image.

Alan
 
Pondria said:
Very well done ! Did you use a tripod with panhead ? Or, hand held ?
Click to expand...
Thanks! Tripod, no pano head. I enjoy doing panos, but obviously I still need to refine the technique a bit...

Alan
 
Rob Patterson said:
That turned out real nice.
Click to expand...
Coming as it does from one of the great Pano Masters, I take that as a compliment!
Member said:
Great subject. Nice clear day too.
There's so much variance in lighting across the pan, that adjusting
levels on each individual image wouldn't have much effect.
Especially with auto levels. Normally, you wouldn't want to do any
image adjustment until they're all stitched.
Click to expand...
Noted. I think Lai's comment about the polarizer is a good point.
Member said:
I posted one early this morning and it quickly got pushed to the
rear. It's a quick six shot stitch in the redwoods. Best, as with
yours, to view it in a new window. The scrolling loses the overal
effect.
Click to expand...
I saw it earlier, its great. I always enjoy your posts, especially the panos..

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Alan
 
Member said:
Noted. I think Lai's comment about the polarizer is a good point.
Click to expand...
I agree. I hadn't read that reply. I immediately noticed the difference in lighting across the pan but I don't feel it adversely affects the image. Some of those darker areas could be the effect of cloud shadows. I'd pass it off to "artistic license" and print the thing. Maybe do a contrast mask to even out the contrast.
 
Nice work Alan,

I like taking panoramics, but my efforts have not been as good as yours or some of the others I have seen posted here...

I attempted a pano from the window of a Delta Jet overhead New York.

I used a pocket-sized Fuji 4700 on automatic exposure, at 33,000 feet, through the multi-paned jet window, at 360 knots.

Here is how it turned out... 12 panels stitched with Adobe photoshop.
http://earthshadows.com/nyc_pano2.html

royalld
Alan Hartmann said:
Exposure data: F4.8 1/500 sec ISO 100 FL 75mm, polarizer
7 shots (tripod, no pano head)
Stitched with trial version of Panorama Factory
Each shot level adjusted prior to stitching (is this advisable, or
better to perform adjustments on resulting image?)

Original was 7000x1400, this version has been very slightly
rotated, cropped and resampled to 1244 x266, with unsharp mask
applied:



Points of interest from left to right:

Jersey City, Midtown Manhattan (Empire State Building), Financial
District (World Trade Center) with Ellis Island in the foreground,
Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn, Statue of Liberty. Taken from Liberty
State Park, only about 10-15 minutes from Newark Airport. (If you
find yourself stuck at Newark Airport for a few hours, consider
taking a taxi!)

This was my first experience with Panorama Factory, and it seems
like a very powerful program. In all likelihood I'll make the
purchase ($35 I think). With the "automatic fine tuning", it
produced a fraction more than two World Trade Center towers, but
manual fine tuning was pretty easy to figure out from reading the
manual and experimenting. I didn't see any way to control the JPG
quality level on output, although there is a TIFF option. Any
other recommendations for a pano program?

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Alan
Click to expand...
 
Alan

Since I have switch to a Cable Modem I have forgotten
that. Thanks for kicking me in the a## to remind me
of that point. Please post another one. But what is
going to be your next subject?

Bill
Alan Hartmann said:
William C said:
I like it. I woudl like it better is the picture was larger.
I understand you had to cropped it for the web.
But IMHO I think you cropped down to much.

Bill
Click to expand...
Bill:

I'm not sure I'm following you. I didn't really crop very much,
just a bit of Jersey City and the immediate foreground on the left,
and a bit of Brooklyn on the right. Actually, I was thinking there
might still be too much water and sky. OTOH, if you're referring
to the downsampling causing lack of detail, then yeah, you're right
on. If I only had broadband -- and everyone else did too -- I'd
have posted a larger image.

Alan
Click to expand...
 
William C said:
Alan

Since I have switch to a Cable Modem
Click to expand...
Sure, rub it in :-)

It's very frustrating to live in a just a touch over the DSL limit, and where the cable company only has one-way cable. Almost enough to make me want to move... Almost bought into the Starband 2-way satellite, but I'm hearing a lot of discontent about that product too.
Member said:
I have forgotten
that. Thanks for kicking me in the a## to remind me
of that point. Please post another one. But what is
going to be your next subject?
Click to expand...
Will attempt an upload of one of the larger images tonight.
Member said:
Bill
Alan Hartmann said:
William C said:
I like it. I woudl like it better is the picture was larger.
I understand you had to cropped it for the web.
But IMHO I think you cropped down to much.

Bill
Click to expand...
Bill:

I'm not sure I'm following you. I didn't really crop very much,
just a bit of Jersey City and the immediate foreground on the left,
and a bit of Brooklyn on the right. Actually, I was thinking there
might still be too much water and sky. OTOH, if you're referring
to the downsampling causing lack of detail, then yeah, you're right
on. If I only had broadband -- and everyone else did too -- I'd
have posted a larger image.

Alan
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hello Alan,

Very nice work. I really like all of the different contrasting images. Please let us know when you have some more of your work!!

Take care,

Craig
 
Here's mine, taken from Weehawken (sp? I'm from St. Louis).
Canon D30.



I like yours better :)

Jim
Alan Hartmann said:
Exposure data: F4.8 1/500 sec ISO 100 FL 75mm, polarizer
7 shots (tripod, no pano head)
Stitched with trial version of Panorama Factory
Each shot level adjusted prior to stitching (is this advisable, or
better to perform adjustments on resulting image?)

Original was 7000x1400, this version has been very slightly
rotated, cropped and resampled to 1244 x266, with unsharp mask
applied:



Points of interest from left to right:

Jersey City, Midtown Manhattan (Empire State Building), Financial
District (World Trade Center) with Ellis Island in the foreground,
Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn, Statue of Liberty. Taken from Liberty
State Park, only about 10-15 minutes from Newark Airport. (If you
find yourself stuck at Newark Airport for a few hours, consider
taking a taxi!)

This was my first experience with Panorama Factory, and it seems
like a very powerful program. In all likelihood I'll make the
purchase ($35 I think). With the "automatic fine tuning", it
produced a fraction more than two World Trade Center towers, but
manual fine tuning was pretty easy to figure out from reading the
manual and experimenting. I didn't see any way to control the JPG
quality level on output, although there is a TIFF option. Any
other recommendations for a pano program?

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Alan
Click to expand...
 
Jim

Nice. Did you notice that at your camera angle you only
capture one of the towers in the World Trade Center.

Bill
 
Alan,

Great shot! I've not had very good luck with pano's to date, but will keep trying. I noticed that about 1/3 or so from the left side of the photo, the buildings in the skyline look like they're not in focus? (From about the crane, to the Empire State bldg) Or could this be from the 'stitching' process? I noticed it in the revised, larger posting.

Ken
Alan Hartmann said:
Here's the revised pano. This one uses the original shots (not the
ones I level adjusted). It's cropped wider, and resampled to 50%
the original size.

Large image file -- 1.6 MB (and ImageStation isn't always very fast
anyway :-()

http://www.zing.com/picture/p6d14528a6d49a74b18a720f1a59680f7/fe6716d2.jpg.orig.jpg

Alan
Click to expand...
 
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