Any software writer out there?!?!
I'd like to mix panoramas with
Roger D. Williams ha scritto:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:04:26 +0900, Wim Koornneef
> <wim.koornneef@... <mailto:wim.koornneef%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi, Wim!
> >> You mean you used two different cameras and lenses for the stereo
> >> pair? I have two cameras to use with my two different lenses, but
> >> thought this would be unusable for stereo panoramas.
> > At first I thought this too, people always talk about the need of two
> > equal setups but I had doubt if this was true so I did a test and I
> > found out that it is possible to work with 2 different cameras with
> > different lenses !
> > Test it for yourself:
> > Take a very sturdy tripod and a precise panohead, take a pano with each
> > camera+lens combination of a static and controlled scene (same
> light, no
> > movements in the scene etc.) and take more images then usually to get
> > approx. 50% overlap ( I shot 8 images with each camera+lens combination)
> > Be absolutely sure that you don't move the tripod when changing cameras
> > and make sure that each camera is mounted in the proper NPP. (I used a
> > NodalNinja5 panohead with stoppers on the swingarm rail and my wife
> > Margriet assisted me to hold the tripod in place).
> > Then stitch a totally and carefully optimized pano of each set of
> > images with the same equirectangular size.
> > Put them in Photoshop in layers and make a comparison at 100% pixel
> > level.
> > I promise you will be supprised by the small pixel shift between both
> > panos !
> Well yes, I promise to be surprised! This ignores the effects of quite
> different second-order lens distortion, so I suppose this must be
> negligable. Surprising! Although come to think of it, I used to shoot
> with both eyes open, one eye looking through the SLR with the zoom
> set to 1:1 and the other looking at the scene itself. This was a great
> help in framing for someone used to a bright-line finder, as I was,
> and the bonus was that I saw everything in 3D. I'll bet there was more
> difference between the two images my eyes were seeing than between
> two panoramas properly optimized.
> > The maximum shift between the panos I noted in my test was just 2
> > pixels...
> > Keep in mind that the left and right pixel shift in the anaglyphs (or
> > the colorcode3D) images is far more then a few pixels and that explains
> > why it is possible to use 2 different cameras with different lenses.
> I am encouraged. It means I can try taking some myself.
> > BTW, the method for using 2 cameras with different lenses is copyright
> > 2009 - Wim Koornneef - dmmdh productions !!
> > No just kidding, take your advantage and please feel free use the
> > :-))
> <Wry but appreciative grin!>
> >> Using a bar with two cameras necessarily means that both cannot be
> >> revolving about their non-parallax points. Do you find that greatly
> >> affects stitching, generating errors in the final panorama?
> > Yes, the out of NPP shooting gives a lot of problem when shooting and
> > stitching the "normal" way.
> > The solution is to shoot a lot more images then usual, how many "more"
> > depends on the distance to nearby objects.
> > When the distance is at least 1.5 meter 25 images for each camera will
> > do but when the distance is less then you have to take much more
> > In one of my tests I had to shoot 72 images to avoid errors close to
> > nadir but in this case the ceiling was only 70cm away from the
> > In practice I shoot 50 images around and use only 25 of them, when
> > needed (to much errors in one or more seems) I put one or more extra
> > images in the row to solve the error.
> > To output the panos as layers is the second best option that I like
> > avoid because it is a hell of a job to retouche errors in 2 panos in
> > such a way that there is no visible trace of it in the 3D output.
> This is depressing. I moved to fisheyes because I hate stitching
> multiple images, and four-around or six-around is about my limit. But
> I can believe you about the pain of retouching two panos for stereo
> vision. No thank you!
> I seem to remember something said about taking many photos on the way
> around the 360 degrees and using only a narrow, central, "slice" of
> each to make stitching more successful. And I suppose that a rotating
> slit camera (I have one, and used it exclusively for 360-degree
> panoramas until I learned to stitch them) is the ultimate in this
> respect. There might be a way to use a slow-panning movie to
> create a good-looking panorama even if it was not actually rotating
> around the NPP. The image might look quite good but of course the
> parallax effects would introduce some distortion into the things at
> first partially hidden and then gradually revealed as the camera
> turned. I can imagine it, but I'd like to see how it looks... And
> you would still need two cameras locked and turning together. You
> couldn't have the same camera turning about two different centers
> of rotation--the left and right images would be interchanged at
> the 180-degree point! Ha, ha!!
> Roger W.
> Work: www.adex-japan.com
IUAV università degli studi, Venezia
Dr. Luca Vascon
tel . (+39) 041.2571262, e-mail vascon@...
laboratorio multimedia Facoltà di Design e Arti, DADI
Magazzino 7 ex Ligabue, Dorsoduro 1827 30123 Venezia