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

Poor borders?

Expand Messages
  • Bjørn K Nilssen
    Lucas verdict on Raynox DCR-CF185PRO as CRAP with very poor borders (
    Message 1 of 28 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Lucas verdict on Raynox DCR-CF185PRO as CRAP with very poor borders (<< quote: Raynox
      quality seems not SO high to me... 185pro has very poor borders!!
      well, to sauy it all.. CRAP!>>) made me think - Is that really true? Is it just me that
      thinks the Raynox works great because I haven't seen truly great borders? I never see any
      of the source images for your panos, and I don't know personally any panographers that I
      could compare source images with, to see if my originals are really that much worse than
      what you get on your dSLRs with Sigmaa, Peleng, Nikon etc?

      I just uploaded 2 images shot with Raynox on C-7070WZ, with different zooms, directly
      from the camera, with EXIF included.
      The last one is the darker frame from a 2-shot "HDR", with the zoom I usually use
      nowadays for 6 x 3k panos. I don't really see any problems with the borders...

      They are at
      http://bknilssen.no/images/P8123094.JPG and
      http://bknilssen.no/images/P3297092.JPG
      both are about 3.5MB

      I would love to see some of your original source images too (maybe especially from
      Luca?).
      Maybe when I see really great borders I will finally see the light, and move to dSLR like
      most of you? But I still really like my Oly/Raynox a lot... I guess my dSLR setup would
      be an Olympus E-330 with a ZD 8mm FF fisheye, but then I would also need a 7-14mm
      (expensive, but great lens) for higher res, and maybe also an 11-22mm.

      Convince me!
      --
      Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
    • Bjørn K Nilssen
      ... Still no great borders to look at ... ;) While I m waiting for you to post links to what a great lens can do with borders I had a peek at those shots from
      Message 2 of 28 , May 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1 May 2007 at 13:32, Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:

        > Lucas verdict on Raynox DCR-CF185PRO as CRAP with very poor borders (<< quote: Raynox
        > quality seems not SO high to me... 185pro has very poor borders!!
        > well, to sauy it all.. CRAP!>>) made me think - Is that really true? Is it just me that
        > thinks the Raynox works great because I haven't seen truly great borders? I never see any
        > of the source images for your panos, and I don't know personally any panographers that I
        > could compare source images with, to see if my originals are really that much worse than
        > what you get on your dSLRs with Sigmaa, Peleng, Nikon etc?
        >
        > I just uploaded 2 images shot with Raynox on C-7070WZ, with different zooms, directly
        > from the camera, with EXIF included.
        > The last one is the darker frame from a 2-shot "HDR", with the zoom I usually use
        > nowadays for 6 x 3k panos. I don't really see any problems with the borders...
        >
        > They are at
        > http://bknilssen.no/images/P8123094.JPG and
        > http://bknilssen.no/images/P3297092.JPG
        > both are about 3.5MB
        >
        > I would love to see some of your original source images too (maybe especially from
        > Luca?).
        > Maybe when I see really great borders I will finally see the light, and move to dSLR like
        > most of you? But I still really like my Oly/Raynox a lot... I guess my dSLR setup would
        > be an Olympus E-330 with a ZD 8mm FF fisheye, but then I would also need a 7-14mm
        > (expensive, but great lens) for higher res, and maybe also an 11-22mm.

        Still no great borders to look at ... ;)

        While I'm waiting for you to post links to what a great lens can do with borders I had a
        peek at those shots from a 5D/10.5mm Nikon that John H posted a link to recently, at
        http://fromparis.com/tests/test4_canon_5d_nikon_10_5mm_set/nikon_10_5mm_canon_5d.zip
        Are those considered to have great borders?
        They sure have much less noise than mine (which is not suprising), but they are quite
        soft/unsharp around the circle/border (and have some CA,) which was more surprising. If
        those are typical of the 5D/10.5mm combo I'm not convinced that it's time for me to move
        on towards the dSLR realm (and back to SLRs after 8 years of digitals)).
        --
        Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
      • Bjørn K Nilssen
        On 2 May 2007 at 16:43, Bjørn K Nilssen wrote: I don t know why there are no replies to this post. Maybe you thought I was asking a rethorical question? Well,
        Message 3 of 28 , May 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2 May 2007 at 16:43, Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:

          I don't know why there are no replies to this post.
          Maybe you thought I was asking a rethorical question? Well, I was not.
          I sincerely want to see some original fisheye shots done with different dSLR lenses so
          that I can compare with my own "crappy" Raynox lens to see what's wrong with "my
          borders", and to see if I could get better panos with a dSLR (I don't really mind some
          noise, which I know I will get less of if I move to dSLR ;).
          In my search for "great borders" I found a NEF sample file from the Agnos site, shot with
          D100 and Sigma 8mm (?) at http://www.agnos.com/dati/doc_c/frari/DSC_0001.zip
          To me it looks like it is quite soft (particularly at the circular borders) and shows
          both CA and vignetting? What am I missing here?


          > > Lucas verdict on Raynox DCR-CF185PRO as CRAP with very poor borders (<< quote: Raynox
          > > quality seems not SO high to me... 185pro has very poor borders!!
          > > well, to sauy it all.. CRAP!>>) made me think - Is that really true? Is it just me that
          > > thinks the Raynox works great because I haven't seen truly great borders? I never see any
          > > of the source images for your panos, and I don't know personally any panographers that I
          > > could compare source images with, to see if my originals are really that much worse than
          > > what you get on your dSLRs with Sigmaa, Peleng, Nikon etc?
          > >
          > > I just uploaded 2 images shot with Raynox on C-7070WZ, with different zooms, directly
          > > from the camera, with EXIF included.
          > > The last one is the darker frame from a 2-shot "HDR", with the zoom I usually use
          > > nowadays for 6 x 3k panos. I don't really see any problems with the borders...
          > >
          > > They are at
          > > http://bknilssen.no/images/P8123094.JPG and
          > > http://bknilssen.no/images/P3297092.JPG
          > > both are about 3.5MB
          > >
          > > I would love to see some of your original source images too (maybe especially from
          > > Luca?).
          > > Maybe when I see really great borders I will finally see the light, and move to dSLR like
          > > most of you? But I still really like my Oly/Raynox a lot... I guess my dSLR setup would
          > > be an Olympus E-330 with a ZD 8mm FF fisheye, but then I would also need a 7-14mm
          > > (expensive, but great lens) for higher res, and maybe also an 11-22mm.
          >
          > Still no great borders to look at ... ;)
          >
          > While I'm waiting for you to post links to what a great lens can do with borders I had a
          > peek at those shots from a 5D/10.5mm Nikon that John H posted a link to recently, at
          > http://fromparis.com/tests/test4_canon_5d_nikon_10_5mm_set/nikon_10_5mm_canon_5d.zip
          > Are those considered to have great borders?
          > They sure have much less noise than mine (which is not suprising), but they are quite
          > soft/unsharp around the circle/border (and have some CA,) which was more surprising. If
          > those are typical of the 5D/10.5mm combo I'm not convinced that it's time for me to move
          > on towards the dSLR realm (and back to SLRs after 8 years of digitals)).
          > --
          > Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >

          --
          Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
        • erik leeman
          If you are also interested in what a Canon EOS 5D can do with a Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, there are examples of rough 360 degree stitches and single shots in
          Message 4 of 28 , May 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            If you are also interested in what a Canon EOS 5D can do with a Sigma
            15mm f/2.8 fisheye, there are examples of rough 360 degree stitches and
            single shots in my Flickr stream:

            http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/

            Of course this is a full-frame combination so the extreme edges of the
            imagecircle as projected by the lens are not visible in the frame.
          • ptgroup
            Björn: I can send you images from Nikon D80 and Sigma 8 & Nikon 10. Where to send to ?? (My Sigma has a bad frontlense though- I am waitingto get it fixed at
            Message 5 of 28 , May 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Björn:
              I can send you images from Nikon D80 and Sigma 8 & Nikon 10.
              Where to send to ??
              (My Sigma has a bad frontlense though- I am waitingto get it fixed at Sigma Germany - waiting for 6 week
              now but still the spareparts is in Japan.)
              Ciao
              Mike

              -------------------------
              -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
              Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Bjørn K Nilssen
              Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2007 14:35
              An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
              Betreff: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Poor borders?


              On 2 May 2007 at 16:43, Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:

              I don't know why there are no replies to this post.
              Maybe you thought I was asking a rethorical question? Well, I was not.
              I sincerely want to see some original fisheye shots done with different dSLR lenses so
              that I can compare with my own "crappy" Raynox lens to see what's wrong with "my
              borders", and to see if I could get better panos with a dSLR (I don't really mind some
              noise, which I know I will get less of if I move to dSLR ;).
              In my search for "great borders" I found a NEF sample file from the Agnos site, shot with
              D100 and Sigma 8mm (?) at http://www.agnos.com/dati/doc_c/frari/DSC_0001.zip
              To me it looks like it is quite soft (particularly at the circular borders) and shows
              both CA and vignetting? What am I missing here?

              > > Lucas verdict on Raynox DCR-CF185PRO as CRAP with very poor borders (<< quote: Raynox
              > > quality seems not SO high to me... 185pro has very poor borders!!
              > > well, to sauy it all.. CRAP!>>) made me think - Is that really true? Is it just me that
              > > thinks the Raynox works great because I haven't seen truly great borders? I never see any
              > > of the source images for your panos, and I don't know personally any panographers that I
              > > could compare source images with, to see if my originals are really that much worse than
              > > what you get on your dSLRs with Sigmaa, Peleng, Nikon etc?
              > >
              > > I just uploaded 2 images shot with Raynox on C-7070WZ, with different zooms, directly
              > > from the camera, with EXIF included.
              > > The last one is the darker frame from a 2-shot "HDR", with the zoom I usually use
              > > nowadays for 6 x 3k panos. I don't really see any problems with the borders...
              > >
              > > They are at
              > > http://bknilssen.no/images/P8123094.JPG and
              > > http://bknilssen.no/images/P3297092.JPG
              > > both are about 3.5MB
              > >
              > > I would love to see some of your original source images too (maybe especially from
              > > Luca?).
              > > Maybe when I see really great borders I will finally see the light, and move to dSLR like
              > > most of you? But I still really like my Oly/Raynox a lot... I guess my dSLR setup would
              > > be an Olympus E-330 with a ZD 8mm FF fisheye, but then I would also need a 7-14mm
              > > (expensive, but great lens) for higher res, and maybe also an 11-22mm.
              >
              > Still no great borders to look at ... ;)
              >
              > While I'm waiting for you to post links to what a great lens can do with borders I had a
              > peek at those shots from a 5D/10.5mm Nikon that John H posted a link to recently, at
              > http://fromparis.com/tests/test4_canon_5d_nikon_10_5mm_set/nikon_10_5mm_canon_5d.zip
              > Are those considered to have great borders?
              > They sure have much less noise than mine (which is not suprising), but they are quite
              > soft/unsharp around the circle/border (and have some CA,) which was more surprising. If
              > those are typical of the 5D/10.5mm combo I'm not convinced that it's time for me to move
              > on towards the dSLR realm (and back to SLRs after 8 years of digitals)).
              > --
              > Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >

              --
              Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mark D. Fink
              Hi Bjørn, My approach is, if you like the quality you are getting from your current setup, then that is all that really matters. It looks like you have some
              Message 6 of 28 , May 3, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Bjørn,



                My approach is, if you like the quality you are getting from your
                current setup, then that is all that really matters. It looks like you
                have some samples for comparison now. Much as I’d like to have you
                upgrade to a DSLR, (and maybe get a new client for the Pinnacle VR…), if
                your results are giving you the quality you need, then stick with your
                current equipment.



                Mark

                www.pinnacle-vr.com <http://www.pinnacle-vr.com/>

                www.northernlight.net <http://www.northernlight.net/>







                -----Original Message-----
                From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]
                On Behalf Of Bjørn K Nilssen
                Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:35 AM
                To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Poor borders?



                On 2 May 2007 at 16:43, Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:

                I don't know why there are no replies to this post.
                Maybe you thought I was asking a rethorical question? Well, I was not.
                I sincerely want to see some original fisheye shots done with different
                dSLR lenses so
                that I can compare with my own "crappy" Raynox lens to see what's wrong
                with "my
                borders", and to see if I could get better panos with a dSLR (I don't
                really mind some
                noise, which I know I will get less of if I move to dSLR ;).
                In my search for "great borders" I found a NEF sample file from the
                Agnos site, shot with
                D100 and Sigma 8mm (?) at http://www.agnos.
                <http://www.agnos.com/dati/doc_c/frari/DSC_0001.zip>
                com/dati/doc_c/frari/DSC_0001.zip
                To me it looks like it is quite soft (particularly at the circular
                borders) and shows
                both CA and vignetting? What am I missing here?

                > > Lucas verdict on Raynox DCR-CF185PRO as CRAP with very poor borders
                (<< quote: Raynox
                > > quality seems not SO high to me... 185pro has very poor borders!!
                > > well, to sauy it all.. CRAP!>>) made me think - Is that really true?
                Is it just me that
                > > thinks the Raynox works great because I haven't seen truly great
                borders? I never see any
                > > of the source images for your panos, and I don't know personally any
                panographers that I
                > > could compare source images with, to see if my originals are really
                that much worse than
                > > what you get on your dSLRs with Sigmaa, Peleng, Nikon etc?
                > >
                > > I just uploaded 2 images shot with Raynox on C-7070WZ, with
                different zooms, directly
                > > from the camera, with EXIF included.
                > > The last one is the darker frame from a 2-shot "HDR", with the zoom
                I usually use
                > > nowadays for 6 x 3k panos. I don't really see any problems with the
                borders...
                > >
                > > They are at
                > > http://bknilssen. <http://bknilssen.no/images/P8123094.JPG>
                no/images/P8123094.JPG and
                > > http://bknilssen. <http://bknilssen.no/images/P3297092.JPG>
                no/images/P3297092.JPG
                > > both are about 3.5MB
                > >
                > > I would love to see some of your original source images too (maybe
                especially from
                > > Luca?).
                > > Maybe when I see really great borders I will finally see the light,
                and move to dSLR like
                > > most of you? But I still really like my Oly/Raynox a lot... I guess
                my dSLR setup would
                > > be an Olympus E-330 with a ZD 8mm FF fisheye, but then I would also
                need a 7-14mm
                > > (expensive, but great lens) for higher res, and maybe also an
                11-22mm.
                >
                > Still no great borders to look at ... ;)
                >
                > While I'm waiting for you to post links to what a great lens can do
                with borders I had a
                > peek at those shots from a 5D/10.5mm Nikon that John H posted a link
                to recently, at
                > http://fromparis.
                <http://fromparis.com/tests/test4_canon_5d_nikon_10_5mm_set/nikon_10_5mm
                _canon_5d.zip>
                com/tests/test4_canon_5d_nikon_10_5mm_set/nikon_10_5mm_canon_5d.zip
                > Are those considered to have great borders?
                > They sure have much less noise than mine (which is not suprising), but
                they are quite
                > soft/unsharp around the circle/border (and have some CA,) which was
                more surprising. If
                > those are typical of the 5D/10.5mm combo I'm not convinced that it's
                time for me to move
                > on towards the dSLR realm (and back to SLRs after 8 years of
                digitals)).
                > --
                > Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilsse <http://www.bknilssen.no> n.no -
                panoramas and 3D
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >

                --
                Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilsse <http://www.bknilssen.no> n.no -
                panoramas and 3D





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Bjørn K Nilssen
                ... Thanks. I had a look, but couldn t really find any raw fisheye shots. Maybe you have a direct link to one of them? -- Bjørn K Nilssen -
                Message 7 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 3 May 2007 at 13:12, erik leeman wrote:

                  > If you are also interested in what a Canon EOS 5D can do with a Sigma
                  > 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, there are examples of rough 360 degree stitches and
                  > single shots in my Flickr stream:
                  >
                  > http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/
                  >
                  > Of course this is a full-frame combination so the extreme edges of the
                  > imagecircle as projected by the lens are not visible in the frame.

                  Thanks.
                  I had a look, but couldn't really find any raw fisheye shots. Maybe you have a direct
                  link to one of them?

                  --
                  Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                • Bjørn K Nilssen
                  ... That would be great :) Just send them to my email address above. ... Maybe you have a shot from it before it went bad? -- Bjørn K Nilssen -
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 3 May 2007 at 15:13, ptgroup wrote:

                    > Björn:
                    > I can send you images from Nikon D80 and Sigma 8 & Nikon 10.
                    > Where to send to ??

                    That would be great :)
                    Just send them to my email address above.

                    > (My Sigma has a bad frontlense though- I am waitingto get it fixed at Sigma Germany - waiting for 6 week
                    > now but still the spareparts is in Japan.)

                    Maybe you have a shot from it before it went bad?
                    --
                    Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                  • ptgroup
                    Björn: I can send you RAW - where to send to ?? Ciao Mike ... Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Bjørn K
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Björn:
                      I can send you RAW - where to send to ??
                      Ciao
                      Mike
                      -------------------------
                      -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                      Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Bjørn K Nilssen
                      Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2007 19:53
                      An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                      Betreff: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Poor borders?


                      On 3 May 2007 at 13:12, erik leeman wrote:

                      > If you are also interested in what a Canon EOS 5D can do with a Sigma
                      > 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, there are examples of rough 360 degree stitches and
                      > single shots in my Flickr stream:
                      >
                      > http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/
                      >
                      > Of course this is a full-frame combination so the extreme edges of the
                      > imagecircle as projected by the lens are not visible in the frame.

                      Thanks.
                      I had a look, but couldn't really find any raw fisheye shots. Maybe you have a direct
                      link to one of them?

                      --
                      Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Bjørn K Nilssen
                      On 3 May 2007 at 11:46, Mark D. Fink wrote: Hi Mark ... Yes, I like the quality I get from C7070 with Raynox, and that s why I was surprised that Luca called
                      Message 10 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 3 May 2007 at 11:46, Mark D. Fink wrote:

                        Hi Mark
                        >
                        > My approach is, if you like the quality you are getting from your
                        > current setup, then that is all that really matters. It looks like you
                        > have some samples for comparison now. Much as I´d like to have you
                        > upgrade to a DSLR, (and maybe get a new client for the Pinnacle VR...), if
                        > your results are giving you the quality you need, then stick with your
                        > current equipment.

                        Yes, I like the quality I get from C7070 with Raynox, and that's why I was surprised that
                        Luca called that lens just crap with very poor borders. So far neither Luca nor anyone
                        else have commented on my two Raynox samples though, and tried to explain to me what is
                        wrong with them, apart from more noise han on 5D and D100. IMHO the borders (and image in
                        general) are sharper on Raynox, and also have less CA and vignetting than the two other
                        originals I have seen now..
                        So far it looks like that if you want me as customer you'll need to reconstruct your
                        panohead so that it can take non-dSLRs ;)
                        I have a NN3 now, and have to use 2 T-pieces on it because of the long and wide lens,
                        which works fine, but isn't extremely rigid, and won't allow me to shoot zenith at more
                        than 60 degrees (which is more than enough anyway..)..
                        .
                        --
                        Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                      • Sacha Griffin
                        I don’t think this thread needs to continue. You’re the only convinced that your raynox is the bees knees. Here we have two examples, Raynox Fisheye Java
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I don’t think this thread needs to continue. You’re the only convinced that
                          your raynox is the bees knees.



                          Here we have two examples, Raynox Fisheye Java Panorama from your site.

                          http://www.bknilssen.no/Vtur/Myren/Myrentur.html



                          Then we have the Nikon 10.5 Fisheye Panorama from my site.

                          http://tinyurl.com/3yjty7





                          There’s no comparison and I used the raynox180 for awhile and then sold it.

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

                          _____

                          From: Bjørn K Nilssen [mailto:bk@...]
                          Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:05 PM
                          To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Poor borders?



                          On 3 May 2007 at 11:46, Mark D. Fink wrote:

                          Hi Mark
                          >
                          > My approach is, if you like the quality you are getting from your
                          > current setup, then that is all that really matters. It looks like you
                          > have some samples for comparison now. Much as I´d like to have you
                          > upgrade to a DSLR, (and maybe get a new client for the Pinnacle VR...), if
                          > your results are giving you the quality you need, then stick with your
                          > current equipment.

                          Yes, I like the quality I get from C7070 with Raynox, and that's why I was
                          surprised that
                          Luca called that lens just crap with very poor borders. So far neither Luca
                          nor anyone
                          else have commented on my two Raynox samples though, and tried to explain to
                          me what is
                          wrong with them, apart from more noise han on 5D and D100. IMHO the borders
                          (and image in
                          general) are sharper on Raynox, and also have less CA and vignetting than
                          the two other
                          originals I have seen now..
                          So far it looks like that if you want me as customer you'll need to
                          reconstruct your
                          panohead so that it can take non-dSLRs ;)
                          I have a NN3 now, and have to use 2 T-pieces on it because of the long and
                          wide lens,
                          which works fine, but isn't extremely rigid, and won't allow me to shoot
                          zenith at more
                          than 60 degrees (which is more than enough anyway..)..
                          .
                          --
                          Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilsse <http://www.bknilssen.no> n.no -
                          panoramas and 3D





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bjørn K Nilssen
                          ... Great. Just send to my normal mail address as in the header: bk@bknilssen.no But jpg will do fine (if you have one). It s just for comparing sharpness,
                          Message 12 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 3 May 2007 at 19:56, ptgroup wrote:

                            > Björn:
                            > I can send you RAW - where to send to ??

                            Great. Just send to my normal mail address as in the header: bk@...
                            But jpg will do fine (if you have one). It's just for comparing sharpness, distortion, CA
                            and vignetting.
                            --
                            Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                          • Bjørn K Nilssen
                            ... Why is it that when I m asking (almost begging) to have a peek at your source images, for comparing, to see if I m missing something, that you feel the
                            Message 13 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 3 May 2007 at 14:34, Sacha Griffin wrote:

                              > I don´t think this thread needs to continue. You´re the only convinced that
                              > your raynox is the bees knees.
                              >
                              > Here we have two examples, Raynox Fisheye Java Panorama from your site.
                              >
                              > http://www.bknilssen.no/Vtur/Myren/Myrentur.html
                              >
                              > Then we have the Nikon 10.5 Fisheye Panorama from my site.
                              >
                              > http://tinyurl.com/3yjty7
                              >
                              > There´s no comparison and I used the raynox180 for awhile and then sold it.

                              >
                              > Sacha Griffin

                              Why is it that when I'm asking (almost begging) to have a peek at your source images, for
                              comparing, to see if I'm missing something, that you feel the need to turn this into a
                              competition (and even on finished panos)? I have never claimed neither that my highly
                              compressed (and resized to 4x2k) tour panos are better than your hires single pano, nor
                              that my Raynox CF185 (I've never even used the Raynox180) is better than your Nikon
                              10.5mm.
                              Why don't you rather mail me one of your source images for comparison?
                              Or take a look at the 2 images straight from the mem card shot with Raynox, and tell me
                              what is wrong with the quality of the lens.
                              Maybe it will open my eyes?
                              I am far from convinced that the Raynox has anything to do with any part of any insect,
                              but I find it quite strange that so many people (not only here) have so strong feelings
                              against it, most of them without even trying it.
                              But when a man like Luca, who I highly respect as a very enthusiastic, knowledgeable and
                              experienced panographer, uses such strong words as naming it 'crap' it made me think that
                              maybe my eyes was deceiving me, and that I (who have never had a fisheye before) was
                              working with much inferior source images than the rest of you.
                              BTW, before I bought the Raynox, a little more than a year ago, I was asking to see some
                              source images from different lenses, including the Raynox, because I was worried about
                              all the "horror stories" about it. I received nil (before I bought it), but bought it
                              anyway, and could never understand why so many people seems to hate it. I thouhgt it was
                              great from day one.

                              So far I have not received one single source image for comparing, but have found one NEF
                              from Sigma 8mm and 3 from 5D/10.5N that nobody claimed that were as good as possible from
                              those lenses.

                              BTW, nice bridge and pano, although it flickered a lot while panning (too sharp?). Have
                              you ever tried to make a tour with such big images in PurePlayer?
                              I tested a lot of different sizes, compressions and smoothing to find what worked best on
                              most computers, without degrading (which always happened after loading the second one if
                              they were any bigger). 4x2k seemed to me to be the optimal max res for Java/PurePlayer
                              tours. I also avoid sharpening on sphericals, to get smaller files and less flickering.

                              --
                              Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                            • Sacha Griffin
                              It’s not a competition. You can see the “borders” edges in every part of your panoramas, from aberration to softness. From my perspective its better to
                              Message 14 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                It’s not a competition. You can see the “borders” edges in every part of
                                your panoramas, from aberration to softness.

                                From my perspective its better to see the whole result.. which is what we’re
                                really after anyway.



                                This file is pretty decent, the xmp is the exposure settings for CS3 I
                                suggest you use it.

                                Pureplayer Java tends to flicker a bit, I don’t mind it and won’t downrez
                                for it. All my source files are 7000x3500.

                                I don’t sharpen anyplace except for in raw unless I goofed something on
                                focus. I don’t make any linked tours in any plugins.

                                too much time and requires too much user interaction and requires the user
                                to have that exact plugin. I’d rather show a single panorama in 5 different
                                plugins and move onto something else…like shooting a new pano or getting a
                                new client.





                                10.5 20D

                                http://ww.seeit360.net/_MG_8061.CR2

                                http://ww.seeit360.net/_MG_8061.xmp

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

                                _____

                                From: Bjørn K Nilssen [mailto:bk@...]
                                Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:34 PM
                                To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Poor borders?




                                Why is it that when I'm asking (almost begging) to have a peek at your
                                source images, for
                                comparing, to see if I'm missing something, that you feel the need to turn
                                this into a
                                competition (and even on finished panos)? I have never claimed neither that
                                my highly
                                compressed (and resized to 4x2k) tour panos are better than your hires
                                single pano, nor
                                that my Raynox CF185 (I've never even used the Raynox180) is better than
                                your Nikon
                                10.5mm.
                                Why don't you rather mail me one of your source images for comparison?
                                Or take a look at the 2 images straight from the mem card shot with Raynox,
                                and tell me
                                what is wrong with the quality of the lens.
                                Maybe it will open my eyes?
                                I am far from convinced that the Raynox has anything to do with any part of
                                any insect,
                                but I find it quite strange that so many people (not only here) have so
                                strong feelings
                                against it, most of them without even trying it.
                                But when a man like Luca, who I highly respect as a very enthusiastic,
                                knowledgeable and
                                experienced panographer, uses such strong words as naming it 'crap' it made
                                me think that
                                maybe my eyes was deceiving me, and that I (who have never had a fisheye
                                before) was
                                working with much inferior source images than the rest of you.
                                BTW, before I bought the Raynox, a little more than a year ago, I was asking
                                to see some
                                source images from different lenses, including the Raynox, because I was
                                worried about
                                all the "horror stories" about it. I received nil (before I bought it), but
                                bought it
                                anyway, and could never understand why so many people seems to hate it. I
                                thouhgt it was
                                great from day one.

                                So far I have not received one single source image for comparing, but have
                                found one NEF
                                from Sigma 8mm and 3 from 5D/10.5N that nobody claimed that were as good as
                                possible from
                                those lenses.

                                BTW, nice bridge and pano, although it flickered a lot while panning (too
                                sharp?). Have
                                you ever tried to make a tour with such big images in PurePlayer?
                                I tested a lot of different sizes, compressions and smoothing to find what
                                worked best on
                                most computers, without degrading (which always happened after loading the
                                second one if
                                they were any bigger). 4x2k seemed to me to be the optimal max res for
                                Java/PurePlayer
                                tours. I also avoid sharpening on sphericals, to get smaller files and less
                                flickering.

                                --
                                Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilsse <http://www.bknilssen.no> n.no -
                                panoramas and 3D





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • erik leeman
                                Hi Bjørn, I had a look at your VR s and I am sorry but I have to agree that their imagequality is not exactly great. The purple and fuzzy edges in the trees
                                Message 15 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Bjørn, I had a look at your VR's and I am sorry but I have to
                                  agree that their imagequality is not exactly great. The purple and
                                  fuzzy edges in the trees really look terrible to be honest, but I
                                  also saw blurred seams (in the grass) that indicate that those
                                  individual shots do not stitch very well. Even the best stitching
                                  tools cannot perform miracles.

                                  Here is a link to a EOS5D + Sigma 15mm f/2.8 testimage, showing it
                                  before and after defishing by PTGui. I didn't sharpen it, just scaled
                                  it down in size. It shows high contrast edges (trees against a white
                                  overcast sky). I originally uploaded it to show someone what
                                  defishing does, but of course it also shows the 'raw' fisheye image
                                  quality at f/5.

                                  Here is some data:
                                  Canon EOS 5D + Sigma EX DG 15mm F2.8 Fisheye (1/100sec. F/5 ISO-100)

                                  Top image: original fisheye image
                                  Bottom image: defished version (black edge = loss of pixel size)
                                  Both images are 50% of their original size.

                                  http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/282630438_ee0e6e9740_o.jpg

                                  or, for the 'normal' page:

                                  http://flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/282630438/
                                • ptgroup
                                  Björn: i played with the image size etc. for pureplayer. 4k works well but will not work with PTViewer no more. 3K ist nearly as good and runs with both. i
                                  Message 16 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Björn:
                                    i played with the image size etc. for pureplayer.
                                    4k works well but will not work with PTViewer no more.
                                    3K ist nearly as good and runs with both.
                                    i set up a comparison site at:
                                    http://www.netzserver1.de/ivtest/

                                    one pano in different resolution & compression compared to
                                    DvalVR.

                                    unfortunately my Sigma 8 has a broken fron-lens - so the panos are not as good as before.

                                    but Immervision tells sth. about a binary-multiplier for calculating the resolution.
                                    that would b 4098, 3072, 2048 .... tha´s what youßll find on the above link.

                                    Ciao
                                    Mike
                                    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                                    Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Bjørn K Nilssen
                                    Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2007 22:34
                                    An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                    Betreff: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Poor borders?


                                    On 3 May 2007 at 14:34, Sacha Griffin wrote:

                                    > I don´t think this thread needs to continue. You´re the only convinced that
                                    > your raynox is the bees knees.
                                    >
                                    > Here we have two examples, Raynox Fisheye Java Panorama from your site.
                                    >
                                    > http://www.bknilssen.no/Vtur/Myren/Myrentur.html
                                    >
                                    > Then we have the Nikon 10.5 Fisheye Panorama from my site.
                                    >
                                    > http://tinyurl.com/3yjty7
                                    >
                                    > There´s no comparison and I used the raynox180 for awhile and then sold it.

                                    >
                                    > Sacha Griffin

                                    Why is it that when I'm asking (almost begging) to have a peek at your source images, for
                                    comparing, to see if I'm missing something, that you feel the need to turn this into a
                                    competition (and even on finished panos)? I have never claimed neither that my highly
                                    compressed (and resized to 4x2k) tour panos are better than your hires single pano, nor
                                    that my Raynox CF185 (I've never even used the Raynox180) is better than your Nikon
                                    10.5mm.
                                    Why don't you rather mail me one of your source images for comparison?
                                    Or take a look at the 2 images straight from the mem card shot with Raynox, and tell me
                                    what is wrong with the quality of the lens.
                                    Maybe it will open my eyes?
                                    I am far from convinced that the Raynox has anything to do with any part of any insect,
                                    but I find it quite strange that so many people (not only here) have so strong feelings
                                    against it, most of them without even trying it.
                                    But when a man like Luca, who I highly respect as a very enthusiastic, knowledgeable and
                                    experienced panographer, uses such strong words as naming it 'crap' it made me think that
                                    maybe my eyes was deceiving me, and that I (who have never had a fisheye before) was
                                    working with much inferior source images than the rest of you.
                                    BTW, before I bought the Raynox, a little more than a year ago, I was asking to see some
                                    source images from different lenses, including the Raynox, because I was worried about
                                    all the "horror stories" about it. I received nil (before I bought it), but bought it
                                    anyway, and could never understand why so many people seems to hate it. I thouhgt it was
                                    great from day one.

                                    So far I have not received one single source image for comparing, but have found one NEF
                                    >from Sigma 8mm and 3 from 5D/10.5N that nobody claimed that were as good as possible from
                                    those lenses.

                                    BTW, nice bridge and pano, although it flickered a lot while panning (too sharp?). Have
                                    you ever tried to make a tour with such big images in PurePlayer?
                                    I tested a lot of different sizes, compressions and smoothing to find what worked best on
                                    most computers, without degrading (which always happened after loading the second one if
                                    they were any bigger). 4x2k seemed to me to be the optimal max res for Java/PurePlayer
                                    tours. I also avoid sharpening on sphericals, to get smaller files and less flickering.

                                    --
                                    Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D






                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Pajuaba Gmail
                                    I don´t have any experience on a Raynox, be it 180, 185, 666, whatever. What I can say about this thread - and the text I´m replying to below - is: I believe
                                    Message 17 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I don´t have any experience on a Raynox, be it 180, 185, 666, whatever.
                                      What I can say about this thread - and the text I´m replying to below -
                                      is: I believe that, given the price of this attachment (US$ 369, on
                                      B&H!!), anyone should opt for a DSLR+FE combo. It´s my opinion. I can´t
                                      see any advantage of purchasing a piece of glass that *will* degrade the
                                      quality of your lens, period. There is no such a thing as a good
                                      attachment, that increases the quality of any lens - not to mention
                                      that, AFAIK, a DSLR file will always be better than his "equivalent"
                                      from a prosumer (I mean, file size versus file size). OTOH, a single
                                      lens, be it a Peleng 8mm, or a Zenitar 15mm, or a Tokina 10-17mm, to any
                                      factory-branded prime, is designed to perform as is, and has the needed
                                      amount of glass and mechanics to deliver the best quality on a price
                                      range. Summing it up, you´d better have a D60+Peleng combo than use a
                                      Raynox over any available prosumer.
                                      Just my R$ 0,02
                                      Regards,
                                      Rodolpho Pajuaba

                                      Bjørn K Nilssen escreveu:

                                      > I am far from convinced that the Raynox has anything to do with any part of any insect,
                                      > but I find it quite strange that so many people (not only here) have so strong feelings
                                      > against it, most of them without even trying it.
                                    • Bjørn K Nilssen
                                      ... I have no problems with critical feedback, but this really isn t what I was asking for help on at this time. I never posted that link to that tour - Sacha
                                      Message 18 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On 3 May 2007 at 21:34, erik leeman wrote:

                                        > Hi Bjørn, I had a look at your VR's and I am sorry but I have to
                                        > agree that their imagequality is not exactly great. The purple and
                                        > fuzzy edges in the trees really look terrible to be honest, but I
                                        > also saw blurred seams (in the grass) that indicate that those
                                        > individual shots do not stitch very well. Even the best stitching
                                        > tools cannot perform miracles.

                                        I have no problems with critical feedback, but this really isn't what I was asking for
                                        help on at this time. I never posted that link to that tour - Sacha did.
                                        Thanks to that my statistics tells me that I got 33 hits on that Myren page tonight
                                        (probably almost all from this list). Of those 33 hits 30 only saw the first pano in the
                                        tour (which has the lowest quality - but it was the entrance to the park), 3 persons saw
                                        2 nodes, and 2 people saw 3 of the 12 panos. Maybe Sacha was right about that linked
                                        tours requires too much user action?
                                        The same statistics tells me that nobody have ever looked at any of the 2 source images
                                        that I was asking to get comments/advice on. The statistics doesn't show everything
                                        though, so there could be one or two who actually took a peek at those ugly borders.
                                        That aside - that tour was shot with 2 blended exposures on a quite windy day, and the
                                        contrast blending and stitching was done very fast (too fast obviously).

                                        > Here is a link to a EOS5D + Sigma 15mm f/2.8 testimage, showing it
                                        > before and after defishing by PTGui. I didn't sharpen it, just scaled
                                        > it down in size. It shows high contrast edges (trees against a white
                                        > overcast sky). I originally uploaded it to show someone what
                                        > defishing does, but of course it also shows the 'raw' fisheye image
                                        > quality at f/5.

                                        Those are very good and sharp !
                                        But (I'm almost afraid to say anything negative now..) even when scaled down to 50% they
                                        are not very sharp on the left and right sides, are they?

                                        --
                                        Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                                      • Bjørn K Nilssen
                                        ... Well, when I m considering buying me a new hammer I m more interested in having a look at your hammer than looking at what a beautiful house you built with
                                        Message 19 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On 3 May 2007 at 17:23, Sacha Griffin wrote:

                                          > It´s not a competition. You can see the "borders" edges in every part of
                                          > your panoramas, from aberration to softness.
                                          >
                                          > From my perspective its better to see the whole result.. which is what we´re
                                          > really after anyway.

                                          Well, when I'm considering buying me a new hammer I'm more interested in having a look at
                                          your hammer than looking at what a beautiful house you built with it.

                                          > This file is pretty decent, the xmp is the exposure settings for CS3 I
                                          > suggest you use it.

                                          My CS3 beta timed out, but I couldn't download those files anyway, as I'm told that
                                          they're unavailable at the moment. It helped when I added an extra w to the other 2
                                          though ;)
                                          Thanks for the example. I thought you were using a 5D, so I was hoping to see a more
                                          circular image with visible "borders", which apparently where my lens is bad
                                          The picture looks great though, although (if I'm allowed to say so) it does show some
                                          soft corners and CA (upper left)?.

                                          > Pureplayer Java tends to flicker a bit, I don´t mind it and won´t downrez
                                          > for it. All my source files are 7000x3500.
                                          >
                                          > I don´t sharpen anyplace except for in raw unless I goofed something on
                                          > focus. I don´t make any linked tours in any plugins.
                                          >
                                          > too much time and requires too much user interaction and requires the user
                                          > to have that exact plugin. I´d rather show a single panorama in 5 different
                                          > plugins and move onto something else...like shooting a new pano or getting a
                                          > new client.

                                          Fair enough, but my point was that when you make a tour and use loadpano() the image
                                          quality very quickly degrades (or other problems appear - like just a grey screen) if I
                                          use bigger than 4x2k (guess I should try 4096x2048, which makes sense)--
                                          Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                                        • erik leeman
                                          I guess you are using Google s Analytics like I do, it misses a LOT of visitors as far as I have been able to tell by doing some quick tests. Yesterday I did
                                          Message 20 of 28 , May 3, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I guess you are using Google's Analytics like I do, it misses a LOT
                                            of visitors as far as I have been able to tell by doing some quick
                                            tests.
                                            Yesterday I did look at the two images you linked to in your original
                                            message. They show far less CA then your VR's, but the scenes
                                            themselves do not contain as much harsh contrast on the edges as
                                            those VR's do.
                                            Other than that I found them very low on detail and clarity (but rich
                                            on what appear to be dustspots), generally not very 'attractive' if
                                            that's the appropriate word. I also looked at about four or five of
                                            your linked VR's but quit when I got to one that features a purple
                                            flowerbed. That one had a very blurry bottom cubeface and when I
                                            tried to refresh it to see if it would improve (IE6 on WinXP) I
                                            instead landed back at the initial one.
                                            You are perfectly right about the decrease in sharpness toward the
                                            edges of my Sigma 15mm. Please note that this one was at f/5, I
                                            usually use it between f/8 and 11 where it is a lot better. In this
                                            example it was focused at about 5 meters, so anything in the far
                                            distance is out of (acceptable) focus at f/5. I just wanted to show
                                            the dramatic difference in CA in the trees as compared to what I saw
                                            in your VR's.
                                            I shoot with a lot of overlap, sometimes as much as 75%, so I can use
                                            only the tack-sharp centres of the individual images since I am quite
                                            fussy about detail and sharpness. Not nearly every application of VR
                                            demands this kind of quality though, what you get now is quite
                                            sufficient for most I guess but it doesn't come close to what is
                                            possible with better tools.

                                            Regards,

                                            Erik Leeman
                                          • Bjørn K Nilssen
                                            ... I m only using the stats from my web hotel, and it was from 23:40 yesterday. It only updates once a day. ... Thanks for taking a look at what this thread
                                            Message 21 of 28 , May 4, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 4 May 2007 at 6:33, erik leeman wrote:

                                              > I guess you are using Google's Analytics like I do, it misses a LOT
                                              > of visitors as far as I have been able to tell by doing some quick
                                              > tests.

                                              I'm only using the stats from my web hotel, and it was from 23:40 yesterday. It only
                                              updates once a day.

                                              > Yesterday I did look at the two images you linked to in your original
                                              > message. They show far less CA then your VR's, but the scenes
                                              > themselves do not contain as much harsh contrast on the edges as
                                              > those VR's do.
                                              > Other than that I found them very low on detail and clarity (but rich
                                              > on what appear to be dustspots), generally not very 'attractive' if
                                              > that's the appropriate word.

                                              Thanks for taking a look at what this thread was really about
                                              Fair enough that you didn't like them much, but at least you didn't say that they had
                                              very poor borders ;) And the dust spots can't be blamed on Raynox, and neither are they
                                              sensor dust ;) After all, this is a 1/1.8" sensor with 7 Mpx.

                                              > I also looked at about four or five of
                                              > your linked VR's but quit when I got to one that features a purple
                                              > flowerbed. That one had a very blurry bottom cubeface and when I
                                              > tried to refresh it to see if it would improve (IE6 on WinXP) I
                                              > instead landed back at the initial one.

                                              That's what happens when using the loadpano() in Pureplayer, because the only html page
                                              is for the first pano/entrance. Maybe it would be better to load as URLs? I can see that
                                              visitors could get unhappy when they hit F5 and ends up at start again instead of
                                              refreshing the current pano on a longer tour..
                                              But the blurry flowers (2nd or 3rd from the entrance both have blue flowers) must be
                                              caused by Java/PurePlayer. It sounds like image degradation, and it does not happen here,
                                              usually. If I have several Java apps running strange things often happen though.

                                              > You are perfectly right about the decrease in sharpness toward the
                                              > edges of my Sigma 15mm. Please note that this one was at f/5, I
                                              > usually use it between f/8 and 11 where it is a lot better. In this
                                              > example it was focused at about 5 meters, so anything in the far
                                              > distance is out of (acceptable) focus at f/5. I just wanted to show
                                              > the dramatic difference in CA in the trees as compared to what I saw
                                              > in your VR's.
                                              > I shoot with a lot of overlap, sometimes as much as 75%, so I can use
                                              > only the tack-sharp centres of the individual images since I am quite
                                              > fussy about detail and sharpness. Not nearly every application of VR
                                              > demands this kind of quality though, what you get now is quite
                                              > sufficient for most I guess but it doesn't come close to what is
                                              > possible with better tools.

                                              Well, according to all the harsh words about that specific tour (or at least the
                                              entrance) I would think that improving my skills would be more important than changing
                                              camera/lens. If I want more detail I just zoom in and take more shots (now I shoot 4 +
                                              zenith (x 2)), or I put on the Olympus 0.7X lens, or even shoot with the built-in 27mm
                                              eqv lens. Very flexible, and I think I'm willing to sacrifice other things to maintain
                                              this flexibility (for now anyway) :)
                                              And I will stop shooting bracketed of trees/plants on windy days, or at least stop using
                                              Photomatix for merging them..
                                              I can of course see that the images shot with Sigma/Nikon lenses have goog qualities, but
                                              the main difference is IMHO in the lack of noise. I was actually quite surprised that the
                                              N10.5, which have been praised a lot here, showed such an amount of soft corners/borders
                                              and CA.

                                              --
                                              Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                                            • Bjørn K Nilssen
                                              ... Thanks a lot for those links. I will certainly do some more tests with those binary numbers. If I had a choice I would choose DevalVR, but as long as it
                                              Message 22 of 28 , May 4, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On 3 May 2007 at 23:53, ptgroup wrote:

                                                > Björn:
                                                > i played with the image size etc. for pureplayer.
                                                > 4k works well but will not work with PTViewer no more.
                                                > 3K ist nearly as good and runs with both.
                                                > i set up a comparison site at:
                                                > http://www.netzserver1.de/ivtest/
                                                >
                                                > one pano in different resolution & compression compared to
                                                > DvalVR.

                                                Thanks a lot for those links. I will certainly do some more tests with those "binary"
                                                numbers.
                                                If I had a choice I would choose DevalVR, but as long as it is PC-only it's not an
                                                option. But the quality is great, and there's a lot less problems getting things to work
                                                and using higher res panos. I haven't tried it with QTVRs though.
                                                But my experience is that when making tours you get some additional problems, like
                                                degraded quality and nodes that don't show up. As tours is what I want to do the goal is
                                                to find the right compromise of quality/speed/size/ that causes the minimum of problems
                                                and incompatibilities. With a tour it is much more important to have fast-loading files
                                                than with a stand-alone pano IMO,

                                                > unfortunately my Sigma 8 has a broken fron-lens - so the panos are not as good as before.

                                                Thanks for the images :)
                                                Actually I thought the Sigma (that's the new model?) looked better than the N10.5 one,
                                                with sharper corners and less CA? But then the N10.5 was focused close? I don't think I
                                                could even get a blurred background on the Raynox, probably because of the smaller sensor
                                                and wider fov. I can easily get a blurred shot though, but then it is blurred all over ;)

                                                > but Immervision tells sth. about a binary-multiplier for calculating the resolution.
                                                > that would b 4098, 3072, 2048 .... tha´s what youßll find on the above link.

                                                Immervision makes quite good players IMHO, and quite good docs, but they are not exactly
                                                great when it comes to customer support on their forum, unfortunately.

                                                --
                                                Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                                              • ptgroup
                                                Björn: Sigma8/Nikkor 10: that´s what my impressions are too. yes- it´s the Sigma 8,,/F3.5 and it has remakable better image than the F4 before. also: I find
                                                Message 23 of 28 , May 4, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Björn:
                                                  Sigma8/Nikkor 10:
                                                  that´s what my impressions are too.
                                                  yes- it´s the Sigma 8,,/F3.5 and it has remakable better image than the F4 before.
                                                  also: I find CA´s are less then the Nikkor 10.5 !!

                                                  But: mine has CA´s - a lot, because of the 10000 of tiny burned in notches.
                                                  They also are a severe problem when shooting through the sun on a blue day - lot
                                                  of corrections needed. But when the repair is done - THIS will be MY lens !
                                                  I´ll sell the Nikkor then though it´s a litte sharper - but that´s really not remakable.
                                                  The Sigma 8 on a D80 has just the right image-circle - not cropped on top/bottom like on a D200-
                                                  so you get full advantage of the lens.

                                                  If you compare the images on the website you´ll see, that a 3072 /Q9 or 10 image would get close to the DevalVR
                                                  and the filesize is still acceptable.
                                                  You have to carefully enlarge the fullscreen so they are the same size to compare.
                                                  The writing "Herzberg" on the back- glass of the "Kramer Allrad" caterpillar a good to compare as well all the writings
                                                  on the back.


                                                  SoImmervision would be very good option for JATC - may be until DevalVR is available for MAC/LINUX and Helge
                                                  implements DevalVR in his JATC.

                                                  Ciao
                                                  Mike
                                                  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                                                  Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Bjørn K Nilssen
                                                  Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2007 11:24
                                                  An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Betreff: Re: AW: [PanoToolsNG] Poor borders?


                                                  On 3 May 2007 at 23:53, ptgroup wrote:

                                                  > Björn:
                                                  > i played with the image size etc. for pureplayer.
                                                  > 4k works well but will not work with PTViewer no more.
                                                  > 3K ist nearly as good and runs with both.
                                                  > i set up a comparison site at:
                                                  > http://www.netzserver1.de/ivtest/
                                                  >
                                                  > one pano in different resolution & compression compared to
                                                  > DvalVR.

                                                  Thanks a lot for those links. I will certainly do some more tests with those "binary"
                                                  numbers.
                                                  If I had a choice I would choose DevalVR, but as long as it is PC-only it's not an
                                                  option. But the quality is great, and there's a lot less problems getting things to work
                                                  and using higher res panos. I haven't tried it with QTVRs though.
                                                  But my experience is that when making tours you get some additional problems, like
                                                  degraded quality and nodes that don't show up. As tours is what I want to do the goal is
                                                  to find the right compromise of quality/speed/size/ that causes the minimum of problems
                                                  and incompatibilities. With a tour it is much more important to have fast-loading files
                                                  than with a stand-alone pano IMO,

                                                  > unfortunately my Sigma 8 has a broken fron-lens - so the panos are not as good as before.

                                                  Thanks for the images :)
                                                  Actually I thought the Sigma (that's the new model?) looked better than the N10.5 one,
                                                  with sharper corners and less CA? But then the N10.5 was focused close? I don't think I
                                                  could even get a blurred background on the Raynox, probably because of the smaller sensor
                                                  and wider fov. I can easily get a blurred shot though, but then it is blurred all over ;)

                                                  > but Immervision tells sth. about a binary-multiplier for calculating the resolution.
                                                  > that would b 4098, 3072, 2048 .... tha´s what youßll find on the above link.

                                                  Immervision makes quite good players IMHO, and quite good docs, but they are not exactly
                                                  great when it comes to customer support on their forum, unfortunately.

                                                  --
                                                  Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D






                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Mark D. Fink
                                                  Hi Bjørn, ... goog qualities, but ... surprised that the ... soft corners/borders ... I just had a thought. Maybe the softness you are seeing in the Nikon is
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , May 4, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Hi Bjørn,

                                                    >I can of course see that the images shot with Sigma/Nikon lenses have
                                                    goog qualities, but
                                                    >the main difference is IMHO in the lack of noise. I was actually quite
                                                    surprised that the
                                                    >N10.5, which have been praised a lot here, showed such an amount of
                                                    soft corners/borders
                                                    >and CA.

                                                    I just had a thought. Maybe the softness you are seeing in the Nikon is
                                                    because sharpening was turned off in the camera. In DSLR's, this is
                                                    usually a highly configurable option. I don't know if digicams have this
                                                    control or not, but if yours is set to sharpen the images in the camera,
                                                    then the Nikon will look softer - initially. Once you apply sharpening
                                                    in PhotoShop, (preferably at the end of the image workflow cycle), then
                                                    you'll really appreciate what this lens can do.

                                                    On my Canon 10D (bordering on ancient...), I shoot with sharpening
                                                    completely off, so the images look quite soft coming out of the camera.
                                                    A little unsharp masking in PhotoShop, and WOW, what a difference.

                                                    Mark
                                                    www.pinnacle-vr.com
                                                    www.northernlight.net
                                                  • Mark D. Fink
                                                    Hi Erik, ... If you re shooting with that much overlap in order to get the best image quality, have you considered shooting with a longer lens? I ve found that
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , May 4, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Hi Erik,

                                                      >I shoot with a lot of overlap, sometimes as much as 75%, so I can use
                                                      >only the tack-sharp centres of the individual images since I am quite
                                                      >fussy about detail and sharpness. Not nearly every application of VR
                                                      >demands this kind of quality though, what you get now is quite
                                                      >sufficient for most I guess but it doesn't come close to what is
                                                      >possible with better tools.

                                                      If you're shooting with that much overlap in order to get the best image
                                                      quality, have you considered shooting with a longer lens? I've found
                                                      that the difference in image quality between panos shot with my Sigma
                                                      8mm vs. the Sigma 14mm are quite dramatic. True, it requires 24 images -
                                                      (3x8) - but it's worth the extra effort for the image quality,
                                                      especially if you are shooting extra images as it is.

                                                      Mark
                                                      www.pinnacle-vr.com
                                                      www.northernlight.net
                                                    • erik leeman
                                                      Hi Mark, I am using a 15mm fisheye on a 5D in portrait orientation for my 360x180 s, and with this combination the missing zenith and nadir of a single row
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , May 4, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Hi Mark,
                                                        I am using a 15mm fisheye on a 5D in portrait orientation for my
                                                        360x180's, and with this combination the missing zenith and nadir of a
                                                        single row series can be covered quite comfortably with one 90x90
                                                        degrees image for each. This is a crucial advantage in
                                                        shooting 'dynamic' scenes with moving objects or people and
                                                        continuously changing light. Using a longer lens would mean shooting
                                                        multiple-row series and that would make most of the scenes I like
                                                        to 'do' as good as impossible.
                                                        With most scenes all the significant detail is in a relatively narrow
                                                        horizontal band. The inevitable loss of sharpness and contrast in the
                                                        outer edges of every individual image can easily be countered in that
                                                        horizontal band by shooting with ample overlap, but the upper and lower
                                                        regions ofcourse can not. Using a longer lens would improve those
                                                        regions, but with the (for me serious) drawback described above.
                                                        I shoot partial stitches with 24, 50 and 100mm (Macro) lenses, with 70
                                                        or more images, but for 360x180's that 15mm seems an ideal compromise.
                                                      • Mark D. Fink
                                                        Hi Erik, Yes, for the type of shooting you are describing, it sounds like you have the perfect workflow. I ve found the Sigma 14mm rectilinear lens to be a
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , May 4, 2007
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Hi Erik,



                                                          Yes, for the type of shooting you are describing, it sounds like you
                                                          have the perfect workflow. I've found the Sigma 14mm rectilinear lens to
                                                          be a good balance for me, even where there is motion in the frame. I
                                                          shoot the top row at +60 pitch and the bottom row at -60 pitch. The
                                                          middle row is at 0 pitch and gives me about 78 degrees FOV, which covers
                                                          quite a bit of the area where motion usually takes place. The top and
                                                          bottom rows don't normally have as much activity as the middle row.



                                                          I deal with moving clouds by shooting the top row first, then moving on
                                                          to the middle and bottom rows. When I first started using the 14mm, I
                                                          would shoot one column at a time, top, middle, then bottom, then change
                                                          the yaw and repeat. I quickly abandoned that approach, as there was too
                                                          much movement between adjacent images in each row.



                                                          "Horses for courses", I believe is the term. :o)



                                                          Mark

                                                          www.pinnacle-vr.com <http://www.pinnacle-vr.com/>

                                                          www.northernlight.net <http://www.northernlight.net/>



                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]
                                                          On Behalf Of erik leeman
                                                          Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 8:45 AM
                                                          To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                                          Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Poor borders?



                                                          Hi Mark,
                                                          I am using a 15mm fisheye on a 5D in portrait orientation for my
                                                          360x180's, and with this combination the missing zenith and nadir of a
                                                          single row series can be covered quite comfortably with one 90x90
                                                          degrees image for each. This is a crucial advantage in
                                                          shooting 'dynamic' scenes with moving objects or people and
                                                          continuously changing light. Using a longer lens would mean shooting
                                                          multiple-row series and that would make most of the scenes I like
                                                          to 'do' as good as impossible.
                                                          With most scenes all the significant detail is in a relatively narrow
                                                          horizontal band. The inevitable loss of sharpness and contrast in the
                                                          outer edges of every individual image can easily be countered in that
                                                          horizontal band by shooting with ample overlap, but the upper and lower
                                                          regions ofcourse can not. Using a longer lens would improve those
                                                          regions, but with the (for me serious) drawback described above.
                                                          I shoot partial stitches with 24, 50 and 100mm (Macro) lenses, with 70
                                                          or more images, but for 360x180's that 15mm seems an ideal compromise.





                                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        • Bjørn K Nilssen
                                                          ... I usually shoot with sharpness at 0 (it goes from -5 to 5), but lowering it will give me a little less noise/grain, as well as softer images. Maybe I
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , May 4, 2007
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            On 4 May 2007 at 8:02, Mark D. Fink wrote:

                                                            > Hi Bjørn,
                                                            >
                                                            > >I can of course see that the images shot with Sigma/Nikon lenses have
                                                            > goog qualities, but
                                                            > >the main difference is IMHO in the lack of noise. I was actually quite
                                                            > surprised that the
                                                            > >N10.5, which have been praised a lot here, showed such an amount of
                                                            > soft corners/borders
                                                            > >and CA.
                                                            >
                                                            > I just had a thought. Maybe the softness you are seeing in the Nikon is
                                                            > because sharpening was turned off in the camera. In DSLR's, this is
                                                            > usually a highly configurable option. I don't know if digicams have this
                                                            > control or not, but if yours is set to sharpen the images in the camera,
                                                            > then the Nikon will look softer - initially. Once you apply sharpening
                                                            > in PhotoShop, (preferably at the end of the image workflow cycle), then
                                                            > you'll really appreciate what this lens can do.
                                                            >
                                                            > On my Canon 10D (bordering on ancient...), I shoot with sharpening
                                                            > completely off, so the images look quite soft coming out of the camera.
                                                            > A little unsharp masking in PhotoShop, and WOW, what a difference.

                                                            I usually shoot with sharpness at 0 (it goes from -5 to 5), but lowering it will give me
                                                            a little less noise/grain, as well as softer images. Maybe I should do some more tests on
                                                            those settings?
                                                            But no matter how I set the sharpness it doesn't affect only the borders/corners/edges,
                                                            like on those 5D/10.5 shots. Some of the shots I saw were RAW files though.

                                                            I guess that one shouldn't expect ultra sharp corners/borders on a lens that obviously
                                                            wasn't designed to be used on a FF, because you need to shave it first to get the full
                                                            frame covered?

                                                            --
                                                            Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.