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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Gigapan & Canon G9 examples

Expand Messages
  • Bernhard Vogl
    Hello Jook, ... I fear, the vignetting would still be visible in critical areas like perfect blue skies. You can see in the Haus des Meeres -panorama, that
    Message 1 of 61 , Sep 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Jook,
      > I see the vignetting pattern in the sky. Just a thought, would the
      > vignetting go away on the G9 lens if you set a "tighter" vfov for
      > more overlap.
      >
      I fear, the vignetting would still be visible in critical areas like
      perfect blue skies. You can see in the "Haus des Meeres"-panorama, that
      vignetting in this image is close to non-existant in a less critical sky.
      More important - i wouldn't be happy about more overlap as it would
      increase the number of images considerably. On Saturday on the flak
      tower, i had the problem that the clouds intermittently obscured the sun
      and i hat to find a shooting window in between - or worse: stop the
      robot until the clouds were gone. Every second you can spare with a
      stripped-down setup will sum up to several minutes which can decide
      between a successful and failed panorama...
      I agree with Terry, that de-vignetting would be the best option. Still
      if you have any findings about this subject, i'd be happy to hear about!

      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.