Re: [PanoToolsNG] Gigapan & Canon G9 examples
- Terry Thrift schrieb:
> lol. "assisted MF"Yes that's correct!
> That sure is an odd feature. ie. a camera assisting someone with
> manual focus.
> Thanks for the warning.
> Would I disable that by setting "safety MF" in the menu to OFF?
> losing settings due to power saving mode. ouch!Yes i do. The Gigapan uses a standard servo motor which actuates the
> I wonder if storing the shot settings in "C1" or "C2" would work
> around it.
> Might have to power the camera off and back on to load them.
> But that goes pretty quickly.
> I'll try it out.
> Are you using image stabilization when mounted on the gigapan?
camera shutter. This _can_ lead to slight movement of the arm where the
camera is mounted.
Actually, this type of shutter triggering was something i also used for
my "motorhead" robot, but i set it up for indirect operation via cable
release. (i could tell some funny stories about finding the right way to
actuate the shutter - the very first attempt was a coil which generated
that high magnetic fields that the camera's exposure meter didn't
function any more...).
> What did you use to process the RAW files?I didn't use RAW files. My cards are 8GB which is too small to shoot
> Maybe the vignetting could be removed there?
Gigapixels in RAW mode.
I could de-vignette the images with PTLens before feeding them to the
Stitcher. That's an idea i could try. Nevertheless, i'd still love to
use Stitchers like PTGui/Hugin/APP because of
- photometric alignment
- more sophisticated de-vignetting
- various blending methods (smartblend)
> I replaced my sd800 with a G9.Whithout seeing the images, i would assume it was a slow shutter speed.
> The first gigapan-o that I tried with it was not as sharp as I expected.
> So I need to go through the settings a bit more carefully and try again.
> It might have just been a slow shutter.
At least what i can tell from some of my AE pano experiments resulted in
blurred images, only in the shady areas of the panorama....
- 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.
Southern Digital Solutions LLC
From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Matthew Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:05 PM
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.
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
> 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
> 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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]