![]() I'm often using the Polarie / Polarie U for tracked panos and build an 'index-head' (for simplified panos) on top of it. The MSM is a little bit 'weak' if you put more than a normal camera on top of it, especially if you add a lot of leverage. Once I resumed shooting I'd notice the camera was tilted one way or another. I carefully moved the camera up and synched down the ball head. I'd get one row done no problem, the humor started when I move up to the second row. But this turn into late night comedy as I was literally laughing out loud at myself in the dark. I am using the Z bracket on my MSM, and initially was using a ball head atop it. So.īut in all honesty, I'm shooting at f/2.8 for a minute and getting sharp images using the MSM rotator. This worked, but made my pano to small for the pano foreground I had created. I opted to crop the lead image, thinking that I had enough to play with, and synced the crop across all panels. I did play with my first series and by playing with the vignette slider was able to get it close but then was getting a lighter stipe. I've had this issue shooting a pano with my Sigma 50 f/1.4 art wide open Stopping down to f/2 made it almost unnoticeable. LR CC and PS CC are both really great at most tasks, but they fall short on alignments and on panos. LR CC even screws up HDR a lot of the time even when the subject isn't moving, so no alignment necessary. I've tried both LR CC and PS CC in the past to do alignments and panos, and neither ever does a very good job. I rarely do panos, but as I recall the rule of thumb is to have at least 30% overlap. The default file size in PTGui is something like 80%, so it'll downscale the image size 80% during output. For instance, if Hugin cannot output a psb file then it is limited to the psd file size restriction and thus it might downscale the stitched pano to meet that file size restriction. It's quite common for pano stitching software to automatically reduce resolution in order to create a specific file size. Hugin might have reduced resolution/scaled down the panorama based upon some setting you have checked in that software. If the same images were used (same pixel size) than the software should have spit out roughly the same dimensional panorama. Thanks for the PTGui suggestion - I'll try that now.Ĭropping would have no effect because the software still has to align overlapping regions of each frame, this is a scaling issue. I presume Hugin cropped more to make the perspective work? I did export from Lightroom (as TIFF's) and I made sure not to scale. I prefer PTGui over Hugin for it's control over masking and control point setting for the most optimal merging, lots of perspective options as well. Is it possible to have LR do a better job merging the photos without the vertical dark banding?ĭid you export the images from Lightroom so they could be stitched in Hugin? If you did is it possible you did an image scaling/resolution change upon export? That would be my guess as to what's happened.įWIW PTGui handles the vignetting issues quite well, it also has an auto white balance correction and exposure correction for frame to frame slight issues that works well. However, Hugins final resolution was less than Lightroom - and maybe I don't understand the power of multiplication, but the result went from 117MP in Lightroom (19358圆069) to 60MP in Hugin (13462x4509). I found "Hugin" and it was also able to create the pano, and it did it without the vignette. I tried adjusting the vignette on each image to make the edges overexposed, but creating a new pano with those settings. ![]() However, Lightroom created an artifact that looked like a vignette / vertical bands. I'm not sure a ballhead is the right tool for the job here, as creating each image was a bit of guesswork when moving to the next frame.Īt the end of the day, LightRoom was able to merge my 17 (that's odd) images into a pano. ![]() I used a MoveShootMove star tracker, with a Z-bracket on it to put my ballhead on. ![]() ![]() My ham-fisted approach to creating a MW panorama didn't quite go as smoothly as I had hoped. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |