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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] X-Mas Window Shopping

Expand Messages
  • Rookie2
    Thanks for you feedback. The zenith puzzles me too. I did take a separate zenith shot. What I did was to use PTAdjust/extract with roll=-90 to patch the nadir,
    Message 1 of 21 , Jan 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for you feedback.
      The zenith puzzles me too. I did take a separate zenith shot. What I did was
      to use PTAdjust/extract with roll=-90 to patch the nadir, then used the same
      plug-in but with roll=90 after patching the nadir. But I got the strange
      zenith at the same time.
      The street poor cloning is though completely my ignorance as I wanted to
      remove a ghost half car very fast an impatiently. "carelessness brought its
      own punishment"

      Thank you for your time and the valuable critiques.

      Regards,
      MH


      panostar wrote:
      >
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >> ANY comments would be welcome, even if you just say you hate it,
      >
      > Oh, ok if you insist... Actually, the panorama is quite good, though
      > rather noisy as you say. I think you chose a good time to take it, so
      > the lighting is well balanced. The zenith is poor though. I assume
      > you took a separate zenith shot so it's not immediately clear what's
      > gone wrong there. You should be able to tidy it up by patching or
      > cloning that area. There's also what looks like an edited area of the
      > road where maybe a ghost or something has been removed - not quite
      > invisibly.
      >
      > John
      >
      >
      >

      --
      View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/X-Mas-Window-Shopping-tf2925518.html#a8184181
      Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
    • Rookie2
      I checked the EXIF info again and it showed that I had ISO=250 so I lied a little but it wan definitely not 400. 1/15 s @ f/8 was the image taken. and yes the
      Message 2 of 21 , Jan 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I checked the EXIF info again and it showed that I had ISO=250 so I lied a
        little but it wan definitely not 400.
        1/15 s @ f/8 was the image taken.
        and yes the final image is run through Neat Image, the original image is
        much much grainier.
        Worth to mention that for get the windows usable the rest of the image was
        under exposed by at least 2 to 4 stops and I have tried to get those when
        converting from RAW. I suppose that had been the reason for so much noise.

        Regards,
        /MH


        ptgroup wrote:
        >
        > Hm- I am using a Nikon D80 and this image looks more like an ISO 400- or
        > more to me.
        > Did you try to clean it for example with Neat Image ?
        > It helps a lot when ISO nois is the issue.
        > Ciao
        > Mike
        >
        > -------------------------
        >
        > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
        > Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im
        > Auftrag von John Houghton
        > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Januar 2007 18:31
        > An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
        > Betreff: [PanoToolsNG] Re: X-Mas Window Shopping
        >
        >
        > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > ANY comments would be welcome, even if you just say you hate it,
        >
        > Oh, ok if you insist... Actually, the panorama is quite good, though
        > rather noisy as you say. I think you chose a good time to take it, so
        > the lighting is well balanced. The zenith is poor though. I assume
        > you took a separate zenith shot so it's not immediately clear what's
        > gone wrong there. You should be able to tidy it up by patching or
        > cloning that area. There's also what looks like an edited area of the
        > road where maybe a ghost or something has been removed - not quite
        > invisibly.
        >
        > John
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >

        --
        View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/X-Mas-Window-Shopping-tf2925518.html#a8184297
        Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
      • Rookie2
        Thank you for your time and feedback. For the nadir I just cloned the area around the tripod head build the tiles under, obviously not a very good technique. I
        Message 3 of 21 , Jan 5, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you for your time and feedback.
          For the nadir I just cloned the area around the tripod head build the tiles
          under, obviously not a very good technique. I have to use Hans' technique or
          try the MinSize parameter.

          The zenith is a mystery though, I did use a separate zenith shot, for
          cloning the nadir I used ptadjut plug-in in PS with extract and a roll=-90,
          after cloning I used the same plug-in and only changed -90 to 90 and the
          zenith got weird.

          Thanks, you have been very helpfull,
          /MH


          Jim Watters wrote:
          >
          > I don't see any issues with stitching, or choice of lighting.
          > The nadir and zenith could be improved.
          > For the nadir If you are using smartblend use the parameter - MinSize 32
          > http://www.nabble.com/Smartblend-Zenith---blending-to-a-point-tf2784477.html#a7864034
          >
          > The zenith would be improved with a separate image. In low light it is
          > best to use Hans technique
          > http://www.panoramas.dk/quicktime/qtvr/nadir.html
          >
          > Cloning looks like where the biggest issue is. The blending of the
          > cloned areas show a different texture. Some of this would be removed by
          > using a noise remover before stitching. use a smaller feather size.
          > see also
          > http://wiki.panotools.org/Zenith_and_Nadir_editing_overview#Patching_techniques
          >
          > A logo semitransparent or solid would help hide most of the imperfections.
          >
          > Otherwise, very well done, you captured the moment.
          >
          > Jim
          >
          >> Please advise on how I can get this better (lighting, stitching, ...).
          >> This is my 4th or 5th 360x180 pano and the first one in crowd and I
          >> really
          >> need your help to improve.
          >>
          >> http://hem.bredband.net/b530695/
          >>
          >> Many thanks,
          >> /MH
          >>
          >
          > --
          > Jim Watters
          >
          > jwatters @ photocreations . ca
          > http://photocreations.ca
          >
          >
          >

          --
          View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/X-Mas-Window-Shopping-tf2925518.html#a8184476
          Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
        • John Houghton
          ... Maybe you should try nadir/zenith patching using either cubic tiles generated with Pano2QTVR or by extracting views with PTEditor. John
          Message 4 of 21 , Jan 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...> wrote:
            >
            > What I did was to use PTAdjust/extract with roll=-90 to patch the
            > nadir, then used the same plug-in but with roll=90 after patching
            > the nadir. But I got the strange zenith at the same time.

            Maybe you should try nadir/zenith patching using either cubic tiles
            generated with Pano2QTVR or by extracting views with PTEditor.

            John
          • Jim Watters
            ... It may be an issue with fast transform and *roll* =-90 would need to experiment to know for sure. I find extracting normal rectangular images for editing.
            Message 5 of 21 , Jan 5, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              John Houghton wrote:
              > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...> wrote:
              >
              >> What I did was to use PTAdjust/extract with roll=-90 to patch the
              >> nadir, then used the same plug-in but with roll=90 after patching
              >> the nadir. But I got the strange zenith at the same time.
              >>
              >
              > Maybe you should try nadir/zenith patching using either cubic tiles
              > generated with Pano2QTVR or by extracting views with PTEditor.
              >
              > John
              >
              It may be an issue with fast transform and *roll* =-90
              would need to experiment to know for sure.

              I find extracting normal rectangular images for editing. This is how
              they are going to be viewed. It also helps to make sure that lines are
              straight when they should be.

              I believe it has more to do this blending options.

              --
              Jim Watters

              jwatters @ photocreations . ca
              http://photocreations.ca
            • Pat Swovelin
              ... If you re using PTGui you should be outputting to Photoshop, blended with layers. Then instead of cloning the car away you can merely paint it out on the
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Rookie2 wrote:
                > Thanks for your feedback.
                > The zenith puzzles me too. I did take a separate zenith shot. What I
                > did was
                > to use PTAdjust/extract with roll=-90 to patch the nadir, then used
                > the same
                > plug-in but with roll=90 after patching the nadir. But I got the strange
                > zenith at the same time.
                > The street poor cloning is though completely my ignorance as I wanted to
                > remove a ghost half car very fast an impatiently. "carelessness
                > brought its
                > own punishment"

                If you're using PTGui you should be outputting to Photoshop, blended
                with layers. Then instead of cloning the car away you can merely paint
                it out on the layer mask. I have a tutorial on that technique if you
                need it.

                > Thank you for your time and the valuable critiques.
                >
                > Regards,
                > MH
                >
                >
                > panostar wrote:
                >> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...> wrote:
                >>>
                >>> ANY comments would be welcome, even if you just say you hate it,
                >> Oh, ok if you insist... Actually, the panorama is quite good, though
                >> rather noisy as you say. I think you chose a good time to take it, so
                >> the lighting is well balanced. The zenith is poor though. I assume
                >> you took a separate zenith shot so it's not immediately clear what's
                >> gone wrong there. You should be able to tidy it up by patching or
                >> cloning that area. There's also what looks like an edited area of the
                >> road where maybe a ghost or something has been removed - not quite
                >> invisibly.
                >>
                >> John




                Pat Swovelin
                Cool Guy @ Large
              • Roger Howard
                ... Generally speaking, it s preferable in digital to over, rather than underexpose - some people say expose to the right . Rather than going into detail
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Fri, January 5, 2007 11:29 am, Rookie2 wrote:
                  >
                  > I checked the EXIF info again and it showed that I had ISO=250 so I lied a
                  > little but it wan definitely not 400.
                  > 1/15 s @ f/8 was the image taken.
                  > and yes the final image is run through Neat Image, the original image is
                  > much much grainier.
                  > Worth to mention that for get the windows usable the rest of the image was
                  > under exposed by at least 2 to 4 stops and I have tried to get those when
                  > converting from RAW. I suppose that had been the reason for so much noise.

                  Generally speaking, it's preferable in digital to over, rather than
                  underexpose - some people say "expose to the right". Rather than going
                  into detail here, I'll just say that it's easier to maintain reasonable
                  noise levels by exposing for your shadows-midtones and then recovering the
                  highlights than it is the other way around (exposing for highlights and
                  then trying to recover shadow detail), and then provide you this link as a
                  decent overview of the reasoning:

                  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

                  Of course, exposing for your shadows-midtones means longer exposure times,
                  so there may be other reasons you ignore this advice - for instance, if
                  you're shooting handheld you may have no other choice. But as a general
                  rule of thumb, don't expose for the brightest light source in your scene
                  or you'll end up with the rest of the scene noisier than necessary.

                  As with all things photo, there are roughly a billion variables at play,
                  and any of which may make my advice useless or flat out wrong :)
                • Ian Wood
                  ... Make sure you run any noise reduction *before* stitching, as the NR algorithms are expecting to see noise as is from the sensor, not after it s been
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jan 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 5 Jan 2007, at 19:29, Rookie2 wrote:

                    > and yes the final image is run through Neat Image, the original
                    > image is
                    > much much grainier.

                    Make sure you run any noise reduction *before* stitching, as the NR
                    algorithms are expecting to see noise 'as is' from the sensor, not
                    after it's been remapped wildly.

                    > Worth to mention that for get the windows usable the rest of the
                    > image was
                    > under exposed by at least 2 to 4 stops and I have tried to get
                    > those when
                    > converting from RAW. I suppose that had been the reason for so much
                    > noise.

                    It certainly won't help the shadow noise. :-( Personally, I could
                    live with the panorama being darker and/or the windows being a bit
                    more washed out. Nice and atmospheric, though.

                    Ian
                  • Bjørn K Nilssen
                    ... A very good point :) I just tried to use NeatImage on a stitched image, and it definitely did not work as expected! -- Bjørn K Nilssen -
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jan 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 5 Jan 2007 at 22:44, Ian Wood wrote:

                      >
                      > On 5 Jan 2007, at 19:29, Rookie2 wrote:
                      >
                      > > and yes the final image is run through Neat Image, the original
                      > > image is
                      > > much much grainier.
                      >
                      > Make sure you run any noise reduction *before* stitching, as the NR
                      > algorithms are expecting to see noise 'as is' from the sensor, not
                      > after it's been remapped wildly.

                      A very good point :)
                      I just tried to use NeatImage on a stitched image, and it definitely did not work as
                      expected!
                      --
                      Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                    • Rookie2
                      I tested Pano2QTVR convert to cubic and then convert to equirectangular alternative first but of some reason the sharpness of the image after converting the 6
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jan 6, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I tested Pano2QTVR convert to cubic and then convert to equirectangular
                        alternative first but of some reason the sharpness of the image after
                        converting the 6 cubes back to equirectangular was deteriorated
                        considerably. Almsot as if I had used a very unsharp toy camera lens or took
                        the images way out of focus.
                        Then I opted for the Adjust plug-in option instead.

                        MH


                        panostar wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >> What I did was to use PTAdjust/extract with roll=-90 to patch the
                        >> nadir, then used the same plug-in but with roll=90 after patching
                        >> the nadir. But I got the strange zenith at the same time.
                        >
                        > Maybe you should try nadir/zenith patching using either cubic tiles
                        > generated with Pano2QTVR or by extracting views with PTEditor.
                        >
                        > John
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        --
                        View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/X-Mas-Window-Shopping-tf2925518.html#a8193163
                        Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                      • John Houghton
                        ... While I use PTEditor myself, I just did a test with Pano2QTVR (V1.2.10) using tiff files throughout, and selecting the spline32 interpolator. The
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jan 6, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I tested Pano2QTVR convert to cubic and then convert to
                          > equirectangular alternative first but of some reason the sharpness of
                          > the image after converting the 6 cubes back to equirectangular was
                          > deteriorated considerably.

                          While I use PTEditor myself, I just did a test with Pano2QTVR (V1.2.10)
                          using tiff files throughout, and selecting the spline32 interpolator.
                          The equirectangular file size was 6000x3000 and tile size 1910.
                          Comparing the original equirectangular file with the reconstituted
                          version, I found only the tiniest of differences when viewed at 100% -
                          nothing of any consequence at all. I still prefer PTEditor, but cannot
                          fault Pano2QTVR.

                          John
                        • Rookie2
                          Many many thanks to all the people eith the valuable critiques and tips. You have been very helpful and now I have made a second try. The result can be seen
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jan 7, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Many many thanks to all the people eith the valuable critiques and tips. You
                            have been very helpful and now I have made a second try. The result can be
                            seen at:

                            http://hem.bredband.net/b530695/NK2.html

                            The differences are the followings:

                            Roger Howard tip to underexpose less: This one was taken at the same time
                            and same spot but I had used a shutter speed of 1/8 sec instead of 1/15.
                            Roger Howard had suggested it would give higher Dynamic Range.
                            Ian Wood suggestion: I also ran all the images through Noiseware before
                            stitching.
                            Jam Watters tip: I did not try to clone the nadir and just put a mirror ball
                            there (with Peter Nyfeler's PS action)
                            This one didn't have the ghost car in the street so that problem was solved
                            automatically.
                            The Zenith problem did not accure at all.


                            What do you think about this one?
                            How can this one become better?

                            Thanks,
                            MH

                            --
                            View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/X-Mas-Window-Shopping-tf2925518.html#a8205040
                            Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                          • John Houghton
                            ... This version is a lot better than the previous one. The noise has been largely dealt with and the zenith is now clean. The nadir is really the only
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jan 7, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > What do you think about this one?
                              > How can this one become better?

                              This version is a lot better than the previous one. The noise has
                              been largely dealt with and the zenith is now clean. The nadir is
                              really the only problem area. I don't find the mirror ball awfully
                              convincing. It really only works on a flat surface and here, the
                              dark drop shadow all the way round just doesn't look right. I think
                              it would be better to clone floor tiles to eliminate the tripod and
                              tripod shadow.

                              As an exercise, I just tried to create a more life-like mirror ball
                              in one of my own panoramas - with moderate success. I decided the
                              equirectangular image used to create the mirror ball should already
                              contain any shadow around the position to be occupied by the ball, as
                              that ought to be reflected in the ball. This is what I ended up with:

                              http://tinyurl.com/ym2glm

                              John
                            • Rookie2
                              Well, I can t say against. I have tried to fix that by removing the dark shadow around and clone away the shadows from the tripod. How does it look now? Is
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jan 7, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Well, I can't say against.
                                I have tried to fix that by removing the dark shadow around and clone away
                                the shadows from the tripod.
                                How does it look now? Is this still bad?

                                Thanks,
                                /MH



                                panostar wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...>
                                > wrote:
                                >>
                                >> What do you think about this one?
                                >> How can this one become better?
                                >
                                > This version is a lot better than the previous one. The noise has
                                > been largely dealt with and the zenith is now clean. The nadir is
                                > really the only problem area. I don't find the mirror ball awfully
                                > convincing. It really only works on a flat surface and here, the
                                > dark drop shadow all the way round just doesn't look right. I think
                                > it would be better to clone floor tiles to eliminate the tripod and
                                > tripod shadow.
                                >
                                > As an exercise, I just tried to create a more life-like mirror ball
                                > in one of my own panoramas - with moderate success. I decided the
                                > equirectangular image used to create the mirror ball should already
                                > contain any shadow around the position to be occupied by the ball, as
                                > that ought to be reflected in the ball. This is what I ended up with:
                                >
                                > http://tinyurl.com/ym2glm
                                >
                                > John
                                >
                                >
                                >

                                --
                                View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/X-Mas-Window-Shopping-tf2925518.html#a8209412
                                Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                              • John Houghton
                                ... I think you have done a good job tidying up the shadows etc. The mirror ball looks better too, but I would still prefer to see the paving stones instead
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jan 8, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rookie2 <mahmood_hamidi@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > How does it look now? Is this still bad?

                                  I think you have done a good job tidying up the shadows etc. The
                                  mirror ball looks better too, but I would still prefer to see the
                                  paving stones instead of a ball. The ball would have been ok had the
                                  tripod been located centrally between the bike stands, but the
                                  composition is poor as it stands. Just my opinion, of course.

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