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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Gigapan & Canon G9 examples

Expand Messages
  • Bernhard Vogl
    ... Yes that s correct! ... Yes i do. The Gigapan uses a standard servo motor which actuates the camera shutter. This _can_ lead to slight movement of the arm
    Message 1 of 61 , Sep 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Terry Thrift schrieb:
      > lol. "assisted MF"
      > 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?
      >
      Yes that's correct!
      > losing settings due to power saving mode. ouch!
      > 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?
      >
      Yes i do. The Gigapan uses a standard servo motor which actuates the
      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?
      > Maybe the vignetting could be removed there?
      >
      I didn't use RAW files. My cards are 8GB which is too small to shoot
      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.
      > 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.
      >
      Whithout seeing the images, i would assume it was a slow shutter speed.
      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....

      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.