On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 at 23:22, pedro_silva58 wrote:
> i appreciate your efforts in getting this right. i agree that
> subtracting half the vertical fov, while not _always_ necessary, is
> the right way to do it, and is safer.
> on the other hand... how many images you need, depends on overlap
> (yes, of course ;-) ). i understood your example to be an
> illustrative example only. if you regularly shoot for only 20%
> overlap you are a braver man than i am.
I regularly use 25% but I did shoot panoramas with as less as 5%
overlap (well, not completely intentional I must admit ;-) I
occasionally use my Zenitar with a 5-around workflow which gives
However, even if you use 25% my example would result in 12 images if
you calculate with the image center tilted up to 60° and hence leave
holes. And the problem gets worse if you use a wider angle lens:
given 40°x60° FoV, 60° tilt up and 30% overlap you get 7 images if
you calculate with the image center. The lower edge will be 30° above
the horizon needing 312° total Fov but with 7 images you only get
Same for 60°x80° and 30% overlap: tilted up 60° you need 5 images for
30° overlap which results in 300° coverage where you need 339°.
Resources, not only for panorama creation: