Panorama software (Which do you use)

mark.thomas.7 RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:58 am, Scott W <biph... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 1:12 pm, PixelPix <m... RemoveThis @pixelpix.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 9:05 am, mark.thoma... RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Jan 4, 8:55 am, Father McKenzie <father_mcken... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the results.
>>>>> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch
>>>>> at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the
>>>>> dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and
>>>>> won't let you level it out.
>>>>> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
>>>>> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
>>>>> looking flat.
>>>>> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
>>>>> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
>>>> I also use PTGUI and am very impressed, even though I haven't yet
>>>> added Enblend/Smartblend (which does the not-cut-in-half thing).
>>> You gotta get them Mark.
>> I agree, Smartblend is a must have plugin, Endblend does not see to
>> work as well.
>>
>> Scott
>
> ok, alright, I give in!! Have just installed smartblend, and..
>
> Hey, it works! (O; I've only done a couple of test runs, but it has
> done a remarkably good job - eg the half-bus vanished perfectly in my
> example, and it seems to have cleaned up a couple of other tiny seam
> errors. T
>
> There'll be nothing left for me to do, at this rate....

Have you also found a program that takes the next lot of photos for you
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"Father McKenzie" <father_mckenzie.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5u57fuF1g6utpU1@mid.individual.net...
> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the
> results.
> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch at
> all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the dark
> WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and won't
> let you level it out.
> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo looking
> flat.
>
> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.

Autostich works for me.

And I do some big panos and print them like this one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2319/2162008230_37828a8830_o.jpg
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

On Jan 3, 7:10 pm, Father McKenzie <father_mcken....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> D-Mac wrote:
> > "Father McKenzie" <father_mcken....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5u57fuF1g6utpU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the
> >> results.
> >> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch at
> >> all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the dark
> >> WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line.  Autopano seems to curve the horizon and won't
> >> let you level it out.
> >> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
> >> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo looking
> >> flat.
>
> >> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
> >> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
>
> > There are two versions of PTGUI. The  "Pro" version is in My opinion, the
> > only one worth having.
>
> > Having said that... I use Corel PhotoPaint to manually assemble my complex
> > panoramas. Many of which are opportunistic in that I didn't take a tripod or
> > pano head with me and later decided the photos needed to be destined for big
> > prints. Photo Paint gives me much more control in fixing errors like wave
> > mismatches that no automatic program can ever hope to do.
>
> > Here are some examples of a simple and 2 complex panoramas I assembled by
> > hand using Corel Photo Paint which is way easier to use for this task than
> > Photoshop.
>
> > Parts from the bottom example have been posted and commented on before. The
> > only person in these groups who has actually seen a print of it is Colin D
> > from New Zealand whom I sent a print of the right hand portion. About 3 feet
> > wide as I recall.
>
> What examples?
>
>
>
> > I guess the trolls dogging my every post and accusing everyone from the Dali
> > Lama to the drover's dog of being me will take this opportunity to rag me
> > again. with taunts "Bullshit it can't be done" and "Oh look, I found an
> > artefact".
>
> > The difference between them and me is that I do it for a living, they just
> > dream about doing it.
>
> > So father...
> > By all means use Ptgui. It's a toy program good enough for many people. Keep
> > in mind that if you can't fix the nodal point of the lens or you shoot
> > moving objects (waves, birds, cars etc) as part of a pano, you won't get
> > much joy from any automated program.
>
> It may be a toy program but is does the job for me and millions of other
> users.

It is in fact one of the best stitching programs out there, but D-Mac
is very unlikely to have every really used all its features, D-Mac
lives life pretty much clueless.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

mark.thomas.7.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:46 am, "D-Mac" <o....DeleteThis@the.groups> wrote:
>> There are two versions of PTGUI. The "Pro" version is in My opinion, the
>> only one worth having.
> The Pro version supports HDR merge/stitch, vignette correction, and
> global exposure/colour correction, iirc. Other than that they are
> identical. I've not used any of those functions yet so can't comment.
>
>> Here are some examples of a simple and 2 complex panoramas I assembled by
>> hand using Corel Photo Paint which is way easier to use for this task than
>> Photoshop.
>>
>> Parts from the bottom example...
>
> ???? Mmm. Those 'examples' are proof positive!
>
> Hint to Doug, if he still hasn't got it - SOMEONE FORGOT TO POST THE
> LINK.
>
>> The
>> only person in these groups who has actually seen a print of it is Colin D
>> from New Zealand whom I sent a print of the right hand portion. About 3 feet
>> wide as I recall.
>
> How positively strange. Here:
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/40e6244692d7982a
> Douglas refers to the print he sent Colin in the following (typically
> enraged and somewhat incomprehensible) way:
>
>> Almost as bad as someone claiming they can enlarge pictures in the face
>> of a few wankers who say it can't be done and that someone sending a
>> certain NewZealand Ex-Pro a sample to prove it can... Followed by
>> months of silence from him, isn't it?
>
> In other words, Douglas was claiming that image was a straight
> enlargement demonstration. There is no mention whatsoever of it being
> a stitched panorama. If it was a stitched image, it is hard to see
> how that wouldn't be cheating...
>
> Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
> *another* image? I'm sure he can clarify this...
>
> Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.
>
I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
blowup from a 20D. I was not able from looking at the print, to know
whether it was cropped or not, or stitched. I saw no indication of
stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
was involved.

As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

Father McKenzie wrote:
> mark.thomas.7 DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 9:58 am, Scott W <biph... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 1:12 pm, PixelPix <m... DeleteThis @pixelpix.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 4, 9:05 am, mark.thoma... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 4, 8:55 am, Father McKenzie <father_mcken... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the
>>>>>> results.
>>>>>> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't
>>>>>> stitch
>>>>>> at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It
>>>>>> does the
>>>>>> dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> won't let you level it out.
>>>>>> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
>>>>>> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
>>>>>> looking flat.
>>>>>> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
>>>>>> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
>>>>> I also use PTGUI and am very impressed, even though I haven't yet
>>>>> added Enblend/Smartblend (which does the not-cut-in-half thing).
>>>> You gotta get them Mark.
>>> I agree, Smartblend is a must have plugin, Endblend does not see to
>>> work as well.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>
>> ok, alright, I give in!! Have just installed smartblend, and..
>>
>> Hey, it works! (O; I've only done a couple of test runs, but it has
>> done a remarkably good job - eg the half-bus vanished perfectly in my
>> example, and it seems to have cleaned up a couple of other tiny seam
>> errors. T
>>
>> There'll be nothing left for me to do, at this rate....
>
> Have you also found a program that takes the next lot of photos for you

Robotic tripod that shoots a 360 pano, stitches then chooses a few nice
compositions based on rule of thirds & repeating rhythms... just set it
in a pretty location & get out of the way.
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

D-Mac wrote:

>
> Serious stuff needs rolled up sleeves and requires you to get down and dirty
> with a program you can add bits and pieces of images sometimes not related
> to the finished work ...when you get serious about it. I also use a GWS Fuji
> panorama camera when I can be bothered with film!
>
> Douglas
>
>


So thats a 6x9 camera then???
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"Paul Furman" <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:dagfj.1620$pA7.1361@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> mark.thomas.7.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 8:55 am, Father McKenzie <father_mcken....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the
>>> results.
>>> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch
>>> at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the
>>> dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and
>>> won't let you level it out.
>>> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
>>> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
>>> looking flat.
>>>
>>> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
>>> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
>>
>> I also use PTGUI and am very impressed,
>
> I believe that's also a good one for de-fishing fisheye lenses, no?
> Any other programs good for this?

Nikon's Capture.

--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"Father McKenzie" <father_mckenzie.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5u57fuF1g6utpU1@mid.individual.net...
> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the
> results.
> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch at
> all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the dark
> WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and won't
> let you level it out.
> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo looking
> flat.
>
> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.


I have used the Arcsoft product. Haven't tried it on my Vista machine. It
just did it's job without fuss, under WinXP. Although I had to arrange the
shots to be stitched. they have a free 15 day trial version.

http://www.arcsoft.com/products/panoramamaker/



--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

On Jan 4, 10:25 am, "D-Mac" <o....RemoveThis@the.groups> wrote:
> "Colin_D" <nos....RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:477de3b7$0$26024$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> > mark.thoma....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  rubbish snipped
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
> >> *another* image?  I'm sure he can clarify this...
>
> >> Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.
>
> > I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
> > blowup from a 20D.  I was not able from looking at the print, to know
> > whether it was cropped or not, or stitched.  I saw no indication of
> > stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
> > was involved.
>
> > As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.
>
> > Colin D.
>
> > --
>
> Hi Colin.
>
> It was indeed a 20D image and the one I sent you was most definitely
> 'cropped' from the panorama. I've been selling people sections of that
> picture, based on their boat or unit being in it, for several years. The NZ
> owners of the management rights to those units have parts of the picture on
> display in their office and on their business stationary. They frequently
> sell "suitcase" * varieties to visitors.
>
> It matters not to me if it is correctly described as a picture, artwork, a
> photograph, a montage or a 'piece'. For me it has been one of my most
> profitable images ever. Well and truly paying many times over the cost of
> the camera, lens and manfrotto 'pano head' I bought to take the picture in
> the first place.
>
> The print I sent you came off my old Sherpa I believe... A printer not known
> for it's sharpness but capable of true photographic output. Sometimes when I
> shell out for Epson inks, I wish I still had it!
>
> Quick and dirty 3:2 aspect ratio cropping instructions for Photoshop in 3
> easy steps:
>
> 1. Select crop tool.
> 2. In the dimension boxes that appear when you do ...define any dimension of
> the aspect ratio you seek. I.E. 6" x 4" or 24" x 36" and the resolution you
> want the print to be.
> 3. Drag the crop tool over the area you want to crop and click "OK".
> Like magic, you get a perfect aspect ratio crop!
>
> * Suitcase variety refers to a stretched canvas print able to be put in the
> bottom of most suit cases.

Whereas I am a big fan of stitched photos get cheaply get extra
resolution in this case sending Colin a print that was made from more
then one image stitched together as an example of your interpolation
programs seems at best misleading.

Clearly evenone was under the assumtion that the photo you send Colin
was from one image from a 20D.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"Father McKenzie" <father_mckenzie.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5u5tdmF1frse8U1@mid.individual.net...

Snipped...
>
>> Serious stuff needs rolled up sleeves and requires you to get down and
>> dirty with a program you can add bits and pieces of images sometimes not
>> related to the finished work ...when you get serious about it.
>
>
> Add stuff in? Doesn't it then change from photography to artwork?
>

From my understanding of the word "Photograph", no image taken with a
digital camera qualifies as one. The general consensus seems to be that
anything which starts out as a camera image is a "photo". This includes
panoramas which are created from many (several?) images.

I have for many years created "wall art". I have always promoted it as such.
They are derived from images originating from digital cameras. Whenever I
sell a Panorama photographs originating from my GWS 617, I promote it as a
photograph.

The separation between artwork and photograph is becoming more blurred every
day. If you use Photoshop to alter blend or join images from digital cameras
is the final result a photograph or artwork?

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"PixelPix" <mail DeleteThis @pixelpix.com.au> wrote in message
news:7cf3f433-a051-4deb-a0b2-a53404197416@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 11:46 am, "D-Mac" <o... DeleteThis @the.groups> wrote:
>
> Serious stuff needs rolled up sleeves and requires you to get down and
> dirty
> with a program you can add bits and pieces of images sometimes not related
> to the finished work ...when you get serious about it. I also use a GWS
> Fuji
> panorama camera when I can be bothered with film!
>
> Douglas

Based on those examples.... I'm convinced!! lol

There's no pleasing some people! First I get a flame for posting links to my
pictures with ads on the pages. Now you crack up because I didn't post a
link! LOL!

Here it is: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/stitched-panos.htm

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"Colin_D" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:477de3b7$0$26024$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> mark.thomas.7.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:

rubbish snipped
>>
>> Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
>> *another* image? I'm sure he can clarify this...
>>
>> Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.
>>
> I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
> blowup from a 20D. I was not able from looking at the print, to know
> whether it was cropped or not, or stitched. I saw no indication of
> stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
> was involved.
>
> As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.
>
> Colin D.
>
> --

Hi Colin.

It was indeed a 20D image and the one I sent you was most definitely
'cropped' from the panorama. I've been selling people sections of that
picture, based on their boat or unit being in it, for several years. The NZ
owners of the management rights to those units have parts of the picture on
display in their office and on their business stationary. They frequently
sell "suitcase" * varieties to visitors.

It matters not to me if it is correctly described as a picture, artwork, a
photograph, a montage or a 'piece'. For me it has been one of my most
profitable images ever. Well and truly paying many times over the cost of
the camera, lens and manfrotto 'pano head' I bought to take the picture in
the first place.

The print I sent you came off my old Sherpa I believe... A printer not known
for it's sharpness but capable of true photographic output. Sometimes when I
shell out for Epson inks, I wish I still had it!

Quick and dirty 3:2 aspect ratio cropping instructions for Photoshop in 3
easy steps:

1. Select crop tool.
2. In the dimension boxes that appear when you do ...define any dimension of
the aspect ratio you seek. I.E. 6" x 4" or 24" x 36" and the resolution you
want the print to be.
3. Drag the crop tool over the area you want to crop and click "OK".
Like magic, you get a perfect aspect ratio crop!

* Suitcase variety refers to a stretched canvas print able to be put in the
bottom of most suit cases.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"Rob." <mesa RemoveThis @mine.com.> wrote in message
news:477e0903$1_3@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> D-Mac wrote:
>
>>
>> Serious stuff needs rolled up sleeves and requires you to get down and
>> dirty with a program you can add bits and pieces of images sometimes not
>> related to the finished work ...when you get serious about it. I also use
>> a GWS Fuji panorama camera when I can be bothered with film!
>>
>> Douglas
>
>
> So thats a 6x9 camera then???

GWS 617 Rob.
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use)