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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Sigma 10-20 any experiance?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Nov 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 17 , Dec 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 17 , Dec 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 17 , Dec 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 17 , Dec 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 17 , Dec 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                > 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 7 of 17 , Dec 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 17 , Dec 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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 9 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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.