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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Dec 2 8:11 AM
      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 2 of 17 , Dec 2 10:37 AM
        > 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 3 of 17 , Dec 2 12:44 PM
          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 4 of 17 , Dec 3 10:51 PM
            --- 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 5 of 17 , Dec 4 6:32 AM
              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 6 of 17 , Dec 4 11:04 AM
                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.