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

Re: Sigma 10-20 any experiance?

Expand Messages
  • p_gatehouse
    Hi Roger Thanks for the comments much appreciated. I haven t yet come across any problems with colour aberration as I shoot mostly at f11. How many shots do
    Message 1 of 17 , Nov 30, 2006
      Hi Roger

      Thanks for the comments much appreciated. I haven't yet come across
      any problems with colour aberration as I shoot mostly at f11. How
      many shots do you take on your 11-18?

      Pieter
      >
      > A very impressive first posting. I have the Tamron 11-18, and am
      > wondering whether to try a similar 4, 6, 4 set. I also use the
      > Nodal Ninja 3. Your excellent result encourages me to try. How
      > did you remove the colour aberration in the corners? or do you
      > shoot at apertures where this is not a problem?
      >
      > Roger W.
      >
      > --
      > Work: www.adex-japan.com
      > Play: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
      >
    • Roger D. Williams
      ... Thanks for the reply, Pieter. I haven t used my Tamron 11-18 for panoramas at all. I use it for normal wide-angle photography. But seeing your results
      Message 2 of 17 , Nov 30, 2006
        On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:30:31 +0900, p_gatehouse <pete@...> wrote:

        > Hi Roger
        >
        > Thanks for the comments much appreciated. I haven't yet come across
        > any problems with colour aberration as I shoot mostly at f11. How
        > many shots do you take on your 11-18?
        >
        > Pieter

        Thanks for the reply, Pieter. I haven't used my Tamron 11-18 for
        panoramas at all. I use it for normal wide-angle photography. But
        seeing your results encourages me to try. Maybe this weekend? If
        so, I will try your own 4, 6, 4 set. The Tamron serves me very
        well, but it does suffer from chromatic aberration. This can be
        easily removed if I am shooting RAW but is a bit of a pain if I
        am shooting JPEG. It has the compensating advantage of almost no
        vignetting, so I would expect no problems with uneven skies...

        What angles do you point the camera UP and DOWN for the four
        shots? And I assume you shoot in landscape orientation, right?

        Roger W.

        --
        Work: www.adex-japan.com
        Play: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
      • mdgrosse
        Hi I have a Sigma 10-20 (with Nikon D80) and also used it to shoot a panorama (http://mdgrosse.net/PanoramaNacht.mov). I often get those green spots in the
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 1, 2006
          Hi
          I have a Sigma 10-20 (with Nikon D80) and also used it to shoot a
          panorama (http://mdgrosse.net/PanoramaNacht.mov). I often get those
          green spots in the image (http://mdgrosse.net/DSC_0088_small.jpg ,
          http://mdgrosse.net/DSC_0090_small.jpg). I am very new to photography
          so I don't know if this is normal and how the spots are called :-) .

          Apart from that the lens is great.

          regards
          Michael

          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans-Dieter Teschner"
          <hd_pano@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi,
          >
          > does anybody in the list has experiance with the Sigma 10-20mm?
          >
          > regards
          > Hans-Dieter
          >
        • Bert Vierstra
          ... UFOs :) Seems like lens flare to me..... -- best regards, Bert Vierstra http://www.360rage.com/ http://www.bali3d.com/
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 1, 2006
            On 12/1/06, mdgrosse <adv@...> wrote:
            > Hi
            > I have a Sigma 10-20 (with Nikon D80) and also used it to shoot a
            > panorama (http://mdgrosse.net/PanoramaNacht.mov). I often get those
            > green spots in the image (http://mdgrosse.net/DSC_0088_small.jpg ,
            > http://mdgrosse.net/DSC_0090_small.jpg). I am very new to photography
            > so I don't know if this is normal and how the spots are called :-) .


            UFOs :)

            Seems like lens flare to me.....

            --
            best regards,

            Bert Vierstra

            http://www.360rage.com/
            http://www.bali3d.com/
          • dtonnes
            It would be interesting to see a comparison between this lens at 10mm and a defished image from a Nikkor 10.5mm. ...And does anybody know how it compares to
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 1, 2006
              It would be interesting to see a comparison between this lens at 10mm
              and a defished image from a Nikkor 10.5mm.

              ...And does anybody know how it compares to the Canon and Tamron wide
              zooms?
            • Sacha Griffin
              For sphericals a 10mm rectilinear is overkill because it can t not be displayed at full resolution conveniently over the net. This is also true with the 10.5,
              Message 6 of 17 , Dec 2, 2006
                For sphericals a 10mm rectilinear is overkill because it can't not be
                displayed at full resolution conveniently over the net.
                This is also true with the 10.5, however the 10.5 is more convenient to
                shoot with (less shots, less moving subject issues).

                On my site the "Carter Center" was done with a 10-22 canon and the "Martin
                Luther King Center" was done with the 10.5
                I'd say the rectilinear is useful if you also want really big prints
                however. Still the 10.5 should also give you a big print 33 x 17 with no
                upsampling.

                As for the sigma 10-20 I think most agree the canon is sharper, has more
                contrast, & less distortion than the canon.. Plus it's slower.

                http://seeit360.net


                Sacha Griffin
                Southern Digital Solutions LLC
                www.southern-digital.com
                www.seeit360.net
                www.ezphotosafe.com
                404-551-4275
                404-731-7798

                -----Original Message-----
                From: dtonnes [mailto:dave@...]
                Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:59 AM
                To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Sigma 10-20 any experiance?


                It would be interesting to see a comparison between this lens at 10mm
                and a defished image from a Nikkor 10.5mm.

                ...And does anybody know how it compares to the Canon and Tamron wide
                zooms?



                --

                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Tim Hatch
                ... Which one is sharper and has less distortion? Tim
                Message 7 of 17 , Dec 2, 2006
                  > As for the sigma 10-20 I think most agree the canon is sharper, has
                  > more
                  > contrast, & less distortion than the canon.. Plus it's slower.

                  Which one is sharper and has less distortion?

                  Tim
                • Sacha Griffin
                  That was a bit confusing wasn t it? The canon ties or is better in all respects than the sigma. I love my canon lens. I take more photos with it than all my
                  Message 8 of 17 , Dec 2, 2006
                    That was a bit confusing wasn't it?

                    The canon ties or is better in all respects than the sigma.
                    I love my canon lens. I take more photos with it than all my other lenses
                    combined... And if you manual focus and have a good enough eye to do that,
                    the sharpness you can get is incredible. Additionally, when focusing the
                    rear element moves, not the front. I "believe" this is the cause for having
                    the same nodal point at 22mm as it does at 10mm.

                    Sacha Griffin
                    Southern Digital Solutions LLC
                    www.southern-digital.com
                    www.seeit360.net
                    www.ezphotosafe.com
                    404-551-4275
                    404-731-7798

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Tim Hatch [mailto:tim@...]
                    Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 1:38 PM
                    To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Sigma 10-20 any experiance?

                    > As for the sigma 10-20 I think most agree the canon is sharper, has
                    > more
                    > contrast, & less distortion than the canon.. Plus it's slower.

                    Which one is sharper and has less distortion?

                    Tim


                    --

                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • yertletertle
                    ... Is this really true anymore? I shoot partial 360 s at 18mm on a 1.5 crop DSLR, and at full resolution (14kpix wide), I can obtain quite reasonable file
                    Message 9 of 17 , Dec 3, 2006
                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin" <sachagriffin@...> wrote:

                      > For sphericals a 10mm rectilinear is overkill because it can't not be
                      > displayed at full resolution conveniently over the net.
                      > This is also true with the 10.5, however the 10.5 is more convenient to
                      > shoot with (less shots, less moving subject issues).

                      Is this really true anymore? I shoot partial 360's at 18mm on a 1.5 crop DSLR, and at full
                      resolution (14kpix wide), I can obtain quite reasonable file sizes -- around 6MB (with
                      grayscale fast-start preview). Here's an example of a contrast-blended (4EV range)
                      360x65 I just completed, at full resolution, with mid-quality JPEG cube face compression:

                      http://turtle.as.arizona.edu/movie/pima_canyon

                      Granted this is smaller in size than the equivalent 360x180 would be (thanks to a couple
                      of blank cube faces), but surely at 10mm a ~4-5MB full-res pano is easily possible (from
                      the roughly 9000x4500 native resolution equirect). Viewer performance is good to
                      excellent on files of this size and even modest current hardware (such as my lowly PB G4).
                      And I find the ability to zoom a bit further compelling.

                      Here's another way to look at it. Monitors are large these days (even laptop screens).
                      Here's a table of the maximum zoom (minimum field of view) in degrees which is possible
                      before you being upsampling pixels (aka inventing data) in a full-screen view, vs. the
                      target equirectangular size:

                      screen width:
                      equ. size 1024 1280 1600 2048
                      ==============================
                      3000x 123 154 192 246
                      5000x 74 92 115 147
                      8000x 46 58 72 92
                      10000x 37 46 58 74

                      To me, if you zoom out to much more than 80deg, the perspective stretch starts to
                      become noticeable and you lose the feeling of being embedded in the scene. So this
                      would mean for large monitors, you need 8000x4000 or above. And if you want the
                      ability to zoom in to say 40deg for a close look without too much up-resing, you'd want to
                      go higher still. Even at 10000x5000, with only a modest 60deg initial field of view you
                      aren't "wasting" pixels for people with 1600 pixel wide monitors and above (more and
                      more common).

                      In an era when people routinely download 5MB music files, 40MB TV shows, etc., is 2MB
                      really still a useful metric as an upper limit beyond which no one should tread? And even
                      if it is, will it be a year from now, two years from now, or more?

                      That said, there are of course other reasons to increase the target pixel-scale from 1.5
                      arcmin/pixel to >5 arcmin/pixel (primarily fewer shots == fewer troublesome seams), but
                      is "overkill" really the primary issue any more? I should also mention difficulty in
                      manipulating ~40MPix images during the pano creation workflow, etc.

                      One other thought: the human eye can resolve roughly 1 arcmin details, so to me 1
                      arcmin/pixel in a spherical is a natural match, yielding about as much spatial detail as you
                      could have seen had you been standing there (discounting of course about a factor of
                      10^4-10^6 in contrast perception -- it's hard to match the eye there). You can of course
                      go much higher: Max's gigapixel images are down to a few arcsec/pixel, offering far, far
                      more detail than you could have seen had you been on the scene. But for truly attempting
                      to recreate the feeling and nuance of a location, I believe 1armin/pixel is a useful goal.
                      This corresponds roughly to 20k wide equirects.

                      JD
                    • Sacha Griffin
                      These are all good arguments. Things I ve noticed that have influenced my decisions... 1. When shooting 10mm rectanlinear sphericals in areas of high detail
                      Message 10 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
                        These are all good arguments.
                        Things I've noticed that have influenced my decisions...
                        1. When shooting 10mm rectanlinear sphericals in areas of high detail (ie
                        grass), its REALLY difficult to compress down under 7MB without downsampling
                        and downsampling. The amount of detail even at the same resolution you would
                        take with a fisheye like the sigma f4 is astounding creating a larger file
                        at the same resolution.

                        2. People don't zoom. It's hard enough to get them to read any instructions
                        on the screen for anything. It's quite amazing and disheartening.

                        It also depending on the subject. I like the clarity in your shot, am not
                        ignorant about zooming, and enjoy the scene. If you did this as a complete
                        sphere you'd either need to downsample or living with slow delivery issues.
                        For areas, where you are delivering photography for the clients of your
                        clients and know you are dealing with people that most likely won't zoom or
                        even click and drag despite every blinking instruction... creating sharp 360
                        photography downsampled and compressed to 2-3 MB seems perfect to do the
                        job.


                        Sacha Griffin
                        Southern Digital Solutions LLC
                        www.southern-digital.com
                        www.seeit360.net
                        www.ezphotosafe.com
                        404-551-4275
                        404-731-7798

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: yertletertle [mailto:jdsmith@...]
                        Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:52 AM
                        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Sigma 10-20 any experiance?

                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin" <sachagriffin@...>
                        wrote:

                        > For sphericals a 10mm rectilinear is overkill because it can't not be
                        > displayed at full resolution conveniently over the net.
                        > This is also true with the 10.5, however the 10.5 is more convenient to
                        > shoot with (less shots, less moving subject issues).

                        Is this really true anymore? I shoot partial 360's at 18mm on a 1.5 crop
                        DSLR, and at full
                        resolution (14kpix wide), I can obtain quite reasonable file sizes -- around
                        6MB (with
                        grayscale fast-start preview). Here's an example of a contrast-blended (4EV
                        range)
                        360x65 I just completed, at full resolution, with mid-quality JPEG cube face
                        compression:

                        http://turtle.as.arizona.edu/movie/pima_canyon

                        Granted this is smaller in size than the equivalent 360x180 would be (thanks
                        to a couple
                        of blank cube faces), but surely at 10mm a ~4-5MB full-res pano is easily
                        possible (from
                        the roughly 9000x4500 native resolution equirect). Viewer performance is
                        good to
                        excellent on files of this size and even modest current hardware (such as my
                        lowly PB G4).
                        And I find the ability to zoom a bit further compelling.

                        Here's another way to look at it. Monitors are large these days (even
                        laptop screens).
                        Here's a table of the maximum zoom (minimum field of view) in degrees which
                        is possible
                        before you being upsampling pixels (aka inventing data) in a full-screen
                        view, vs. the
                        target equirectangular size:

                        screen width:
                        equ. size 1024 1280 1600 2048
                        ==============================
                        3000x 123 154 192 246
                        5000x 74 92 115 147
                        8000x 46 58 72 92
                        10000x 37 46 58 74

                        To me, if you zoom out to much more than 80deg, the perspective stretch
                        starts to
                        become noticeable and you lose the feeling of being embedded in the scene.
                        So this
                        would mean for large monitors, you need 8000x4000 or above. And if you
                        want the
                        ability to zoom in to say 40deg for a close look without too much up-resing,
                        you'd want to
                        go higher still. Even at 10000x5000, with only a modest 60deg initial
                        field of view you
                        aren't "wasting" pixels for people with 1600 pixel wide monitors and above
                        (more and
                        more common).

                        In an era when people routinely download 5MB music files, 40MB TV shows,
                        etc., is 2MB
                        really still a useful metric as an upper limit beyond which no one should
                        tread? And even
                        if it is, will it be a year from now, two years from now, or more?

                        That said, there are of course other reasons to increase the target
                        pixel-scale from 1.5
                        arcmin/pixel to >5 arcmin/pixel (primarily fewer shots == fewer troublesome
                        seams), but
                        is "overkill" really the primary issue any more? I should also mention
                        difficulty in
                        manipulating ~40MPix images during the pano creation workflow, etc.

                        One other thought: the human eye can resolve roughly 1 arcmin details, so to
                        me 1
                        arcmin/pixel in a spherical is a natural match, yielding about as much
                        spatial detail as you
                        could have seen had you been standing there (discounting of course about a
                        factor of
                        10^4-10^6 in contrast perception -- it's hard to match the eye there). You
                        can of course
                        go much higher: Max's gigapixel images are down to a few arcsec/pixel,
                        offering far, far
                        more detail than you could have seen had you been on the scene. But for
                        truly attempting
                        to recreate the feeling and nuance of a location, I believe 1armin/pixel is
                        a useful goal.
                        This corresponds roughly to 20k wide equirects.

                        JD



                        --

                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • JD Smith
                        ... Yes, I can see that being an issue. However, with a screen width of 1600 pixels, all you must do is to set the initial zoom field of view to 60 degrees
                        Message 11 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
                          On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:32:58 -0500, Sacha Griffin wrote:

                          > These are all good arguments.
                          > Things I've noticed that have influenced my decisions...
                          > 1. When shooting 10mm rectanlinear sphericals in areas of high detail (ie
                          > grass), its REALLY difficult to compress down under 7MB without downsampling
                          > and downsampling. The amount of detail even at the same resolution you would
                          > take with a fisheye like the sigma f4 is astounding creating a larger file
                          > at the same resolution.
                          >
                          > 2. People don't zoom. It's hard enough to get them to read any instructions
                          > on the screen for anything. It's quite amazing and disheartening.

                          Yes, I can see that being an issue. However, with a screen width of
                          1600 pixels, all you must do is to set the initial zoom field of view
                          to 60 degrees (hardly "zoomed in"), and you will properly sample *all*
                          the detail in a 10000x5000 pano without any more zooming required. In
                          the fullscreen era, some of the old maxims aren't as useful.

                          > It also depending on the subject. I like the clarity in your shot, am not
                          > ignorant about zooming, and enjoy the scene. If you did this as a complete
                          > sphere you'd either need to downsample or living with slow delivery issues.
                          > For areas, where you are delivering photography for the clients of your
                          > clients and know you are dealing with people that most likely won't zoom or
                          > even click and drag despite every blinking instruction... creating sharp 360
                          > photography downsampled and compressed to 2-3 MB seems perfect to do the
                          > job.

                          I agree that for a full sphere this would probably have been about
                          twice as large, but a full sphere shot at 10mm (instead of 18mm) would
                          be about the same or even a bit smaller (5MB, say).

                          When delivering hundreds of sphericals is your business, every byte
                          counts, and it may indeed be overkill to go beyond 5000x2500, or for
                          that matter to use full screen display. But that is based more on
                          business decisions than technical decisions. It's perfectly possible
                          with today's technology to target ~2 arcmin/pixel (twice the "ideal" 1
                          arcmin/pixel I mentioned) without wasting pixels, and without
                          requiring the user to zoom in. In fact, I would hazard a guess that
                          in the pano I posted, you were already interpolating pixels on your
                          screen when you loaded it (primarily because I start reasonably zoomed
                          in). Going forward, this will only become easier (as
                          bandwidth/processor/graphics cards improve), and more pressing (as
                          monitors grow in size and pixel density).

                          An interesting side-question is whether and when it will be "easy" to
                          acquire panos at the mythical 1 arcmin/pixel. The answer comes in
                          considering the pixel pitch of digital camera sensors going forward.
                          The maximum pixel pitch of a DSLR today is roughly 180 pixels/mm
                          (5.5um pixels). Smaller pixels suffer greater noise (limited by
                          photon noise, so no way around it), and out-resolve the image circle
                          delivered by even very good lenses, especially at small apertures,
                          where diffraction dominates. Here's an interesting take:

                          http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pixel-count.shtml

                          So, at 180 pixels/mm, to obtain the "ideal" target resolution of 1
                          arcmin/pixel, you must shoot at:

                          f = 1 arcmin/pixel / 180 pixels/mm * (1 radian/(60*57.3 arcmin)) = 19mm

                          On a full-frame sensor, shooting at 19mm offers about 65 degrees of
                          view in portrait orientation. Shooting a full sphere will thus
                          require two or three rows, and at least 6-8 images around (and many
                          more on a 1.5x cropped sensor camera).

                          So it seems even with advances in cameras and detectors, the only way
                          to resolve 1 arcmin/pixel in the future in a system with single row
                          full 360s is to use a camera with a much larger sensors (physically),
                          say 70mm x 50mm. This type of sensor is pretty much guaranteed never
                          to show up in a consumer or mainstream pro system, simply because it
                          would make the entire camera much too large. Here's a 39MPix digital
                          back with 6.8um pixels at 50mm x 36mm. Note how large it is:

                          http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/P%2045.aspx

                          JD
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.