Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Gigapan & Canon G9 examples

Expand Messages
  • Terry Thrift
    Nice. Thankyou. Did you process the images at all or just run them through the Gigapan stitcher? How did you set up the focus on the G9? -Terry-
    Message 1 of 61 , Sep 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Nice. Thankyou.

      Did you process the images at all or just run them through the Gigapan
      stitcher?

      How did you set up the focus on the G9?

      -Terry-



      On Sep 1, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Bernhard Vogl wrote:

      > For anyone who is interested: i have uploaded some example panoramas
      > using the Canon G9 and Gigapan Hard- and Software.
      > The G9 lens is very good with only a small amount of vignetting and
      > distorsion. 210mm at the long end are sufficient for "near" subjects
      > (e.g. city/street views), but i think i still will buy the tele
      > converter as otherwise i won't be able to capture detailed scenic
      > views that are farther away than ~1km.
      >
      > The examples are stitched with the Gigapan stitcher. The stitcher
      > can handle alignment very well but has no good vignetting correction
      > and blending of moving objects...
      >
      > Wien, Haus des Meeres:
      > http://www.gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?id=8302
      >
      > Wien, Copa Kagrana:
      > http://www.gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?id=8381
      >
      > Best regards
      > Bernhard
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
    • Sacha Griffin
      That should be obvious.. heh. Prime versus zoom. The problem, is 28 isn t really wide enough to be really useful for a lot of interior work, and composition
      Message 61 of 61 , Sep 23, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        That should be obvious.. heh.

        Prime versus zoom.

        The problem, is 28 isn't really wide enough to be really useful for a lot of
        interior work, and composition without zoom and difficult to say the least,
        since you often don't have placement luxury.

        As an exterior lens, I'm sure it's a great lens to have.

        I've always wondered how the MK2 stacks up against, the 10-22, since you
        aren't using the outer parts of the lens with the 10-22.





        Sacha Griffin

        Southern Digital Solutions LLC

        http://www.southern-digital.com

        http://www.seeit360.net

        404-551-4275







        From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Matthew Rogers
        Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:05 PM
        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Visible image degadation



        Well I've tested the 28 f1.8 and 28 f2.8 against the 16-35 MKI/MK2 and
        even the 28 f2.8 easily beats the 16-35 @28 for resolution and
        sharpness. The 28mm f1.8 kills it.

        Matt

        On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:50, Sacha Griffin wrote:

        > I thought the resolution displayed on the landscape was "decent".
        > The shot
        > was just a little fuzzy, most likely due to the obvious aberration
        > evident
        > all over the image.
        >
        > From what I've heard the 16-35 canon zoom, (canon, zoom, even wider)
        > is a
        > real hummer of a lens and a different beast altogether than this
        > cheapo
        > lens.
        >
        > The portrait was a good display of the highlight priority perhaps.
        >
        > The landscape wasn't a good example of anything really.
        >
        > Sacha Griffin
        >
        > Southern Digital Solutions LLC
        >
        > http://www.southern-digital.com
        >
        > http://www.seeit360.net
        >
        > 404-551-4275





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.