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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Field of view question

Expand Messages
  • Harry van der Wolf
    Not a straight answer, but a link to a website where you can calculate it yourself: check So for a 14 mm rectilinear
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Not a straight answer, but a link to a website where you can calculate it
      yourself:
      check <http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/angle.htm>

      So for a 14 mm rectilinear in portrait mode, you have a hfov of 81 degrees
      (remember: in portrait mode) and with 30% overlap (approx. 50 degrees hfov),
      you would need 7+, preferably 8 images around. Probably 2 rows.
      one shot for nadir and zenith with 2 horizontal rows in portrait?
      2x2 shots for nadir and zenith with 1 horizontal row in portrait?

      You could also take a look at this tutorial video by Bo Lorentzen of a
      modified Canon A60 with a "screw up" wide angle lense.
      <
      http://revver.com/video/59840/photograph-spherical-panoramas-with-canon-a-series/
      >


      Harry


      2009/3/31 Keith Martin <keith@...>

      > I've just been asked how the field of view compares between a Nikkor
      > 14-24 f2.8 fx lens and a 16mm fisheye. This is on a full-frame
      > camera, the Nikon D3.
      >
      > This guy is trying out his first panos, but he's using that 14-24mm
      > wideangle rectilinear lens. Assuming he uses it at 14mm, how many
      > shots around is he likely to need, and how much work would it be to
      > make a spherical pano?
      >
      > k
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Hans Nyberg
      ... The easiest way to find out is to use some dummy images. Just make a set of grey files in any size 2/3 proportions. Load them in PTGui, set the lens and
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
        >
        > I've just been asked how the field of view compares between a Nikkor
        > 14-24 f2.8 fx lens and a 16mm fisheye. This is on a full-frame
        > camera, the Nikon D3.
        >
        > This guy is trying out his first panos, but he's using that 14-24mm
        > wideangle rectilinear lens. Assuming he uses it at 14mm, how many
        > shots around is he likely to need, and how much work would it be to
        > make a spherical pano?
        >

        The easiest way to find out is to use some dummy images.

        Just make a set of grey files in any size 2/3 proportions.
        Load them in PTGui, set the lens and arrange them.

        For the 14mm recti I would use 8 at -20 + 4 at +45
        You can get along with 6 around but 6+4 is awkward unless you have a rotator with easy change for 6 and 4

        You can also do 6+6 at +-30 and 1 zenith

        Hans
      • Erik Krause
        ... Since the 16mm fisheye uses a different mapping it covers a far larger FoV than the rectilinear lens. The basic math is explained on
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Keith Martin wrote:

          > I've just been asked how the field of view compares between a Nikkor
          > 14-24 f2.8 fx lens and a 16mm fisheye. This is on a full-frame
          > camera, the Nikon D3.

          Since the 16mm fisheye uses a different mapping it covers a far larger
          FoV than the rectilinear lens. The basic math is explained on
          http://wiki.panotools.org/Fisheye_Projection a caclulator for both
          fisheye and rectlininear lenses can e found on
          http://www.frankvanderpol.nl/fov_pan_calc.htm

          --
          Erik Krause
          http://www.erik-krause.de
        • Mark D. Fink
          I frequently shoot with a Sigma 14mm on a 1.6X crop camera, and do three rows of eight; one row at +60 degrees, one at 0 degrees, and one at -60 degrees. That
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I frequently shoot with a Sigma 14mm on a 1.6X crop camera, and do three
            rows of eight; one row at +60 degrees, one at 0 degrees, and one at -60
            degrees. That is a little overkill, but gives plenty of overlap. I then
            shoot one extra nadir with the tripod moved out of the way.

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
            > Behalf Of Keith Martin
            > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:05 PM
            > To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Field of view question
            >
            > I've just been asked how the field of view compares between a Nikkor
            > 14-24 f2.8 fx lens and a 16mm fisheye. This is on a full-frame
            > camera, the Nikon D3.
            >
            > This guy is trying out his first panos, but he's using that 14-24mm
            > wideangle rectilinear lens. Assuming he uses it at 14mm, how many
            > shots around is he likely to need, and how much work would it be to
            > make a spherical pano?
            >
            > k
          • crane@ukonline.co.uk
            ... I found best thing was to look through viewfinder. mick ... This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Quoting "Mark D. Fink" <markdfink@...>:

              > I frequently shoot with a Sigma 14mm on a 1.6X crop camera, and do three
              > rows of eight; one row at +60 degrees, one at 0 degrees, and one at -60
              > degrees. That is a little overkill, but gives plenty of overlap. I then
              > shoot one extra nadir with the tripod moved out of the way.

              > > I've just been asked how the field of view compares between a Nikkor
              > > 14-24 f2.8 fx lens and a 16mm fisheye. This is on a full-frame
              > > camera, the Nikon D3.

              I found best thing was to look through viewfinder.
              mick

              ----------------------------------------------
              This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
            • Scott Highton
              The 14-24 Nikkor can be used at its widest focal length (14mm) just like a traditional Nikkor 14mm. In portrait orientation, it has a fov(y) of 104° and a
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                The 14-24 Nikkor can be used at its widest focal length (14mm) just
                like a traditional Nikkor 14mm.

                In portrait orientation, it has a fov(y) of 104° and a fov(x) of 82°.
                Six shots (one every 60°) provides adequate overlap for stitching a
                360° panorama. Tilting the camera upward 45° and downward 45° for two
                additional rows would add the multi-row coverage needed for a full
                cubic or spherical panorama (360°x180°).

                The zoom Nikkor 14-24mm is a very nice lens (I've used it on the D3),
                but is somewhat expensive and heavy (it does balance nicely on the D3,
                though). At 14mm, it also has noticeable barrel distortion, which not
                all stitching applications handle well. I've found that PTGUI does a
                fine job stitching these images, but other stitchers MAY require you
                to run the source images through Nikon's View NX or Capture software
                to remove the barrel distortion before stitching.


                For a details on choosing a VR lens, including information about this
                14-24mm Nikkor, check out the Technical Notes on the VR Photography
                web site. In particular, see:

                http://vrphotography.com/data/pages/techtutorials/technotes/panolenschoice.html

                Regards,




                Scott Highton
                Author, Virtual Reality Photography
                Web: http://www.vrphotography.com
              • Keith Martin
                ... Exactly, hence the question. :-) Thanks for the fov_pan_calc link, that is interesting and looks like it has everything... although I have to say that it
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sometime around 31/3/09 (at 20:41 +0200) Erik Krause said:

                  >Since the 16mm fisheye uses a different mapping it covers a far larger
                  >FoV than the rectilinear lens.

                  Exactly, hence the question. :-) Thanks for the fov_pan_calc link,
                  that is interesting and looks like it has everything... although I
                  have to say that it is presented in a rather dauntingly (dare I say
                  unhelpfully?) technical manner! Heh- I guess that's the nature of the
                  subject, eh?

                  Harry's post and link to the imaginatorium.org page was also useful;
                  I think a couple of rows of 8 around will be the next thing for this
                  chap to try, then see how much z & n space is left.

                  Thanks all!

                  k
                • Keith Martin
                  Superb detail, thanks Scott. k
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Superb detail, thanks Scott.

                    k
                  • Carl von Einem
                    I use my 12 mm rectilinear lens (Voigtländer Heliar, now on a very nice Zeiss-Ikon SW) like this: 6x -20°, 4x +45°, plus zenith and nadir shots However the
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I use my 12 mm rectilinear lens (Voigtländer Heliar, now on a very nice
                      Zeiss-Ikon SW) like this:
                      6x -20°, 4x +45°, plus zenith and nadir shots
                      However the 14 mm is closer to my 15 mm which I use rarely (for no real
                      reason).

                      Another comparable rectilinear lens is the 43 mm of my Mamiya 7II which
                      is comparable to 20 or 21 mm (different w/h ratio). With that lens I
                      shoot 7x -35°, 7x 25°, zenith and nadir. BTW my rotator has seven click
                      stops :-)

                      8 clicks around / 2 rows would easily work with a 14 mm lens. Plus z&n.

                      The easiest way to find a good "matrix" of shots that has enough overlap
                      is to use dummy images in hugin or ptgui. I also have a habit of trying
                      to start with the lower row in a way so it doesn't include my rotator.
                      Less work to mask unwanted details... just calculate enough overlap for
                      the upper row and start shooting. Hey, the D3 is a DSLR! =8-)

                      Carl


                      Posted by: "Harry van der Wolf"
                      >
                      > check <http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/angle.htm>
                      >
                      > So for a 14 mm rectilinear in portrait mode, you have a hfov of 81 degrees
                      > (remember: in portrait mode) and with 30% overlap (approx. 50 degrees hfov),
                      > you would need 7+, preferably 8 images around. Probably 2 rows.
                      > one shot for nadir and zenith with 2 horizontal rows in portrait?
                      > 2x2 shots for nadir and zenith with 1 horizontal row in portrait?
                      >
                      > 2009/3/31 Keith Martin <keith@...>
                      >
                      >> > I've just been asked how the field of view compares between a Nikkor
                      >> > 14-24 f2.8 fx lens and a 16mm fisheye. This is on a full-frame
                      >> > camera, the Nikon D3.
                      >> >
                      >> > This guy is trying out his first panos, but he's using that 14-24mm
                      >> > wideangle rectilinear lens. Assuming he uses it at 14mm, how many
                      >> > shots around is he likely to need, and how much work would it be to
                      >> > make a spherical pano?
                    • Klaus Hilsenbeck
                      ... You may have a look at this lens database (unfortunately discontinued): http://vrwave.com This is a source I like very much. (should be continued by
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 31, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I've just been asked how the field of view compares between a Nikkor
                        > 14-24 f2.8 fx lens and a 16mm fisheye......
                        > ..... how many shots around is he likely to need,
                        > and how much work would it be to make a spherical pano?

                        You may have a look at this lens database (unfortunately discontinued):
                        http://vrwave.com
                        This is a source I like very much.
                        (should be continued by somebody ....)

                        Salu2,
                        Klaus

                        http://www.panocanarias.com
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.