RE: [PanoToolsNG] Field of view question
- Quoting "Mark D. Fink" <markdfink@...>:
> I frequently shoot with a Sigma 14mm on a 1.6X crop camera, and do threeI found best thing was to look through viewfinder.
> 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.
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
- 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:
Author, Virtual Reality Photography
- Sometime around 31/3/09 (at 20:41 +0200) Erik Krause said:
>Since the 16mm fisheye uses a different mapping it covers a far largerExactly, hence the question. :-) Thanks for the fov_pan_calc link,
>FoV than the rectilinear lens.
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
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.
- 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
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
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-)
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?
- --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
>You may have a look at this lens database (unfortunately discontinued):
> 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?
This is a source I like very much.
(should be continued by somebody ....)