File :-(, x, )
kaoru Anonymous
fisheye?
>> Anonymous
I'm pretty sure that's just natural distortion from stitching enough photos into a panorama
>> Anonymous
PROTIP: There's no fisheye lens (or any other kind of lens) that gives a 360 degree FOV.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
>>56089
TRY AGAIN
>> Anonymous !Bjd0a/XWuE
>>56091

Unless its a fisheye lens on a 360 degree spinning photo mount which cost shitloads, but take grand 360 degree photos.

Roundshot D3 panorama camera

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f933.cfm
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>56091
Bzzt.
>> Anonymous !Bjd0a/XWuE
>>56128

wtf is that thing?
>> Anonymous
>>56134
looks like objective which takes 360 degree shots

similar desings are commonly used for astrophotography
>> Anonymous
>>56100
A scanning camera on a spinning mount isn't much different from a photographer taking a series of photos while spinning around - the panorama is still produced by multiple exposures through narrow-FOV lens. And Roundshot doesn't cost shitloads because of the clever spinning mount, it costs shitloads because it takes 470-megapixel photos. :D
>> Anonymous
>>56128
lol wut, does it produce donut-shaped images?
>> Anonymous !Bjd0a/XWuE
>>56135

yus, but whats its name and where do you get it etc etc?!
>> Anonymous
>>56145
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/360one_mod3.html
>> Anonymous
don't waste your money on these expensive panorama cameras. I take perfectly fine panoramas with a canon powershot and a free program that stitches photos together. It requires a little more work, but it saves you a couple hundred dollars.
>> Anonymous
>>56218
Remember if you are going the cheap why a tripod is a must for best results
>> Anonymous
>>56254
not necessarily, I've done some panos with and without a tripod and for some reason the tripod panos never came out that well.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>56254
I just discovered that Photoshop's merging tool rocks! Yesterday I took some images of this quintet handheld and with other spectators pushing me around, so they weren't suitable for panorama stitching on the first glance. But photoshop somehow repositioned and stretched them so the result looks almost perfect without any additional shooping :o (Looks like I need another gig of RAM, though)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Color Filter Array Pattern730Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3264Image Height2448Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:06:17 10:11:06Exposure Time1/320 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3000Image Height666RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
>>56264
that did do a good job. Whenever I do a panorama with moving people autostitch does this crappy ghosting thing that requires shooping.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>56268
What version of photoshop do you have? They might've improved the autostitch in CS3: I didn't have problems with ghosting when I accidentally threw in a couple of photos with people's heads obscuring the stage when making>>56264.


Here I took a few wide-angle photos out of my window and autostitched a panorama out of them. It's not perfect (for example, the building on the right looks like it's about to collapse), but I think photoshop still made a great job considering there was a lot of foliage rustling in the wind and this lens (Olympus kit 14-45/f3.5-5.6) is far from perfect distortion-wise.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Color Filter Array Pattern790Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3264Image Height2448Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:06:17 12:56:48Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4000Image Height683RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Photon
     File :-(, x)
Photoshop CS3 does amazing job now on photomerge (panorama). Here is a photo I took 2 weeks ago

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 2.6Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image ID9de986971e9e15ead380d14ef5deda09
>> Anonymous
What photoshop and add-ons and whatnot do I need for this? It looks neat-0!
>> Photon
>>56294
Photoshop CS3 is all you need. No add-on, nothing.
>> Anonymous
Sweet, imma check it out. I was using CS 1 until now (can't do shit with it either :p). Cheers!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Panorama stitched from 9 images and still less than 180 degrees - a 110mm lens probably wasn't the best choice for this. I need some wide prime, but they don't make them for my Olympus D:
Photoshop worked flawless this time, though.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Color Filter Array Pattern730Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2176Image Height1632Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution160 dpiVertical Resolution160 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:06:17 23:57:14Exposure Time1/160 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5000Image Height449RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
>>56387
Btw, photos taken handheld. Looks like a tripod is completely unnecessary in this case unless you can't correctly maintain the horizon for some reason.
>> ­
>>56387
most boring panorama ever
>> False. Anonymous
This is probably more boring. I just fixed it up from a vacation last year. I had to cut out quite some 'cause my camera wasn't straight though. It's lots of sky y'know.
Darn, it's 6033x1029, 928kB, 4chan won't let me post it :(
*cough* http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2176/untitled2un9.jpg
>> Anonymous
OP's picture is fisheye. its a fisheye panorama. if you look at enough fisheye sites you'll see many of these and how to do them.
>> Anonymous
>>56274
I use Photoshop CS; I never bothered to upgrade and I doubt it has any stitching software. I used to stitch photos together myself, which could take anywhere between half an hour to two hours of work. Recently I started to use a free program called autostitch, which does an okay job, I guess, but I end up doing a lot of editing to make the merge less trashy.
>> Anonymous
The picture above was stitched with Photoshop CS3, it works neatly. I'mma try some more stuff out soon, I have vacation anyway.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:18 15:17:56Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width4200Image Height1639
>> Anonymous
hm!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Mmm, photoshop seems to fuck up my pix. Check out the quality difference:

Any ideas on how I could fix this?
>> Anonymous
>>56406
I know, just wanted to play around with the autostitch.

And it's not much of a panorama since the same shot could be taken by cropping a shot taken with a very wide (say, 20mm equivalent) lens :D
>> Anonymous
>>56544
The upper pic appears blurrier because it's stretched, I don't see any detail loss. Shrink the pic with the "bicubic sharper" filter if you want less blurriness.
>> Anonymous
Mkay. But photoshop automatically stretched it to make it fit or somet. Imma check it out, but more advice is welcome.
cheers!