Advice on panorama software

Started Jan 28, 2013 | Questions thread
Richie Beans Regular Member • Posts: 309
Re: Same here, Autopano Pro

Usee wrote:

...especially because of the unsharp rock in the foreground, so that I would try to optimise the rock in the foreground a bit, due to it's relevance for the whole picture.

If You can handle my somehow nitpicking and sometimes harsh critic and allow me to show You the artifacts on Your example, I'll take the time to show the flaws in a few days.


in the (middle to right) background near the mountain tops are some uneven sharpness transitions visible - even in the 1600 pix view...

I've been highly entertained with the photographic community responses to my gigarez image and how it differs from the responses from the mountaineering community. It would seem that it is generally assumed that I took an escalator to the top a convenient viewpoint or was driving along a mountain road where I happened upon a clearing and saw this image, pulled over, and snapped this shot caring little for large, nearby rocks. As for the mountaineering community, none noticed the out of focus rocks and all were impressed by the lack of snow, the effort involved in getting there, and the image itself...pretty much in that order. It's been a useful lesson in contrasts!

I've since realized that gigapixel images are rarely taken in challenging situations, often taken from the tops of tall buildings, or just steps from a vehicle pull-out. Check the gigapan and X-rez sites for proof. As a matter of fact, simple photos of this mountain taken in winter are practically nonexistent on the internets, much less from this vantage.

The rock is an important element to the image because it protected me from the 40-50mph wind and booming gusts; moving out of it's shelter made shooting with a 250mm telephoto at f/11 impossible, even with large rocks holding down the tripod. The focusing artifacts are not, in fact, artifacts and I'm glad that Usee saw them. They are where the wind shook the camera enough to render that particular image just slightly out-of-focus. No matter how hard I tried, I could not correct those frames for motion-blur in PS. The "unnatural" sharpness that USee cites, however, is likely an artifact of seeing the image on a particular monitor at a particular size. At 100%, the original 2.5 Gb image looks quite natural!

Nevertheless, PS did an outstanding job in stitching these images together despite the challenges I threw at it. I even tried the different merge options to manually correct for the shooting morphology and in the end, letting the software run in Auto mode yielded the best results.

Edit: I will now take your Cigarillo, retreat behind my rock, and kill a new Bic lighter trying to light it!

 Richie Beans's gear list:Richie Beans's gear list
NEX5R +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow