Discussion
I have been mucking about with a panohead for a few months now and finally got around to having some made. below are some pictures of the first one off the production line.
I have others being made and wonder if anyone out there in PH land would like one. The commercially available ones run at around £500 I will sell these to PH'ers at £49.95 postage and packing included. (camera and benbo not included!)
Comments appreciated
Bob
I have others being made and wonder if anyone out there in PH land would like one. The commercially available ones run at around £500 I will sell these to PH'ers at £49.95 postage and packing included. (camera and benbo not included!)
Comments appreciated
Bob
rotate the camera aroudn the lens rather than the base of the camera. you get a better stitch because there is no paralax.
http://www.panoguide.com/howto/panoramas/gear.jsp
nice bit of kit BTW :-)
rick.
http://www.panoguide.com/howto/panoramas/gear.jsp
nice bit of kit BTW :-)
rick.
Edited by Scho on Saturday 8th March 18:49
I'd be interested to see the results. I have to say that whenever I do this, I just move my head and the camera, in a very low budget way. My camera, is pretty crappy anyhow, but the images usually stitch together reasonably, especially if four pictures are all taken about a centre point. I just use the viewfinder as a reference.
results are extreemely good
a quick example
this needs cropping but shows what you get from multiple shots
when I get to work (monday I will upload some more)
as to where you rotate the camera - where the light rays cross inside your lens, its called the nodal point.
It is a critical factor in seamlessly stitching your images together for a clean panoramic photograph. If you are taking panoramic shots without centering on the nodal point and are off -even by just a little bit, you will have parallax distortion.
What the heck is parallax distortion?
It is a term for the many errors found when stitching a panoramic photograph such as double vision or blurring of non-moving objects, after you tried in vain to capture the perfect image and carefully stitch it together. Parallax distortion happens when you are trying to capture something in the foreground and background although when shooting a subject that is in the distance, it is less obvious.
a quick example
this needs cropping but shows what you get from multiple shots
when I get to work (monday I will upload some more)
as to where you rotate the camera - where the light rays cross inside your lens, its called the nodal point.
It is a critical factor in seamlessly stitching your images together for a clean panoramic photograph. If you are taking panoramic shots without centering on the nodal point and are off -even by just a little bit, you will have parallax distortion.
What the heck is parallax distortion?
It is a term for the many errors found when stitching a panoramic photograph such as double vision or blurring of non-moving objects, after you tried in vain to capture the perfect image and carefully stitch it together. Parallax distortion happens when you are trying to capture something in the foreground and background although when shooting a subject that is in the distance, it is less obvious.
Nice results. Certainly way better than my manual approach.
It looks though like you must have to stretch the images, rather than just line them up, which is something I never do. The only reason I say is that the borders of the image are not straight.
Perhaps the stretching is needed because of errors in the panohead setting. I have to say that if I used my rudimentary method and used stretching, I think I could get a much better result that that which I already find acceptable.
Don't get me wrong though, those pictures you took, once cropped, you wouldn't know they were not a single image. Mine certainly don't look like that.
It looks though like you must have to stretch the images, rather than just line them up, which is something I never do. The only reason I say is that the borders of the image are not straight.
Perhaps the stretching is needed because of errors in the panohead setting. I have to say that if I used my rudimentary method and used stretching, I think I could get a much better result that that which I already find acceptable.
Don't get me wrong though, those pictures you took, once cropped, you wouldn't know they were not a single image. Mine certainly don't look like that.
dilbert said:
It looks though like you must have to stretch the images, rather than just line them up, which is something I never do. The only reason I say is that the borders of the image are not straight.
The wider angle lens you use, the more 'stretching' will be needed to get everything to join up and look right. Or you can do a Hockney and just slap them together any old how, and people will pay you thousands 
dilbert said:
Nice results. Certainly way better than my manual approach.
It looks though like you must have to stretch the images, rather than just line them up, which is something I never do. The only reason I say is that the borders of the image are not straight.
Perhaps the stretching is needed because of errors in the panohead setting. I have to say that if I used my rudimentary method and used stretching, I think I could get a much better result that that which I already find acceptable.
Don't get me wrong though, those pictures you took, once cropped, you wouldn't know they were not a single image. Mine certainly don't look like that.
I'm not sure why the edges are curved - maybe its the software streaching the images because I havent got the nodal point set up perfectly. maybe its the use of a non standard lens i.e. wide angle or slight telephoto (I've just had a look at the exif data and the recorded focal length is 38mm camera Olympus E500 4/3)It looks though like you must have to stretch the images, rather than just line them up, which is something I never do. The only reason I say is that the borders of the image are not straight.
Perhaps the stretching is needed because of errors in the panohead setting. I have to say that if I used my rudimentary method and used stretching, I think I could get a much better result that that which I already find acceptable.
Don't get me wrong though, those pictures you took, once cropped, you wouldn't know they were not a single image. Mine certainly don't look like that.
These were taken on the mark one (see pictures at http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
You certainly get bending because of objects near to the camera her is the lounge !!!!
or a wierd onr (forgot to rotate the images)
I will dig some others tomorrow
Bob
Your panohead looks functional enough, although I'm not sure I'd be too happy hanging my D2x off it 
Panoheads exist for one or two reasons (or both) in my book
-To make taking panoramas possible
-To make taking panoramas easy
>It is a critical factor in seamlessly stitching your images together
>for a clean panoramic photograph. If you are taking panoramic shots
>without centering on the nodal point and are off -even by just a little
>bit, you will have parallax distortion.
Not really true that all panoramas require panoheads to achieve perfect results. Your shot above the car park would look exactly the same with a normal tilt/pan tripod head (i.e. not a panoramic one) as you'll have no parralax issue there. In that case, given your panohead doesn't really offer much over and above a normal pan/tilt head, I'd probably fall back on just using that (whereas a 'commercial' head with detenting and accurate rotations would provide benefit).
The black areas around the shot are added to ensure you do not crop any of the output mosaic, nothing to do with nodal ponts. Assuming you are using PTGui you can just change your output FoV via the panorama preview pane sliders to dial that out at the preprocessing stage. Also, it looks to me like your pitch of that image is quite a bit off. You would do well to set some horizontal control points on the horizon, and allowing the whole image to pitch down approx 5deg (by eye). What you have there is actually a very hard shot to properly level without an external reference. Shooting an offset (i.e. you haven't gone -10 -> +10 deg but like -15 -> 5 deg) partial pano is hard to level correctly unless you have good vertical visual markers in the image (i.e. a couple of skyscrapers). A pro would use a bubble level on the panohead, and accurate angular demarkations to force the stitching programs to use a known datum to stich from - which would give more 'correct' results.
Your lounge shot does requires use of your panohead to work however, and looks good!
>_dobbo_ looks good - I've always struggled with converging lines when I've done panoramics.
again, similar issue to do lack of pitch offset correction. Solvable when using simple stitching programs by making sure you take photos symetrically about level (i.e. of a skyscraper youll need to mirror your shots so you take some of the pavement in front of you) - just got to hope you have good enough images that your stitcher can deal with the control point selection when you do that, which is hard. I'd recommend learning something like PTGui if you take partial panoramas as it provides so much more adjustablility which allows correct outputs.
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/sbm24/pulpit.mov
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/sbm24/pulpit_top.mov
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/sbm24/lake.mov
were shot handheld with no panohead, just a lot of work in post processing!
I think you can tell I like panoramas
Kindest,
Stu@360precision
Panoheads exist for one or two reasons (or both) in my book
-To make taking panoramas possible
-To make taking panoramas easy
>It is a critical factor in seamlessly stitching your images together
>for a clean panoramic photograph. If you are taking panoramic shots
>without centering on the nodal point and are off -even by just a little
>bit, you will have parallax distortion.
Not really true that all panoramas require panoheads to achieve perfect results. Your shot above the car park would look exactly the same with a normal tilt/pan tripod head (i.e. not a panoramic one) as you'll have no parralax issue there. In that case, given your panohead doesn't really offer much over and above a normal pan/tilt head, I'd probably fall back on just using that (whereas a 'commercial' head with detenting and accurate rotations would provide benefit).
The black areas around the shot are added to ensure you do not crop any of the output mosaic, nothing to do with nodal ponts. Assuming you are using PTGui you can just change your output FoV via the panorama preview pane sliders to dial that out at the preprocessing stage. Also, it looks to me like your pitch of that image is quite a bit off. You would do well to set some horizontal control points on the horizon, and allowing the whole image to pitch down approx 5deg (by eye). What you have there is actually a very hard shot to properly level without an external reference. Shooting an offset (i.e. you haven't gone -10 -> +10 deg but like -15 -> 5 deg) partial pano is hard to level correctly unless you have good vertical visual markers in the image (i.e. a couple of skyscrapers). A pro would use a bubble level on the panohead, and accurate angular demarkations to force the stitching programs to use a known datum to stich from - which would give more 'correct' results.
Your lounge shot does requires use of your panohead to work however, and looks good!
>_dobbo_ looks good - I've always struggled with converging lines when I've done panoramics.
again, similar issue to do lack of pitch offset correction. Solvable when using simple stitching programs by making sure you take photos symetrically about level (i.e. of a skyscraper youll need to mirror your shots so you take some of the pavement in front of you) - just got to hope you have good enough images that your stitcher can deal with the control point selection when you do that, which is hard. I'd recommend learning something like PTGui if you take partial panoramas as it provides so much more adjustablility which allows correct outputs.
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/sbm24/pulpit.mov
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/sbm24/pulpit_top.mov
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/sbm24/lake.mov
were shot handheld with no panohead, just a lot of work in post processing!
I think you can tell I like panoramas
Kindest,
Stu@360precision
_dobbo_ said:
looks good - I've always struggled with converging lines when I've done panoramics.
How do you go about working out the nodal point on a particular lens.
I have to say, your panohead looks great, but I don't think my lens would fit on it.
what on earth are you using? How do you go about working out the nodal point on a particular lens.
I have to say, your panohead looks great, but I don't think my lens would fit on it.
stuthemong said:
Your panohead looks functional enough, although I'm not sure I'd be too happy hanging my D2x off it [\quote]
it weighs 700 grams and is made from 4mm thick stainless and attaches to your toy through the tripod mounting screw. I can assure you ot is as solid as a tripod head.
Thanks for the comments, when I was taking these panoramas I was on a learning curve. I now take more care on setting the level of the camera and use a decent tripod and head.
All of these shots were created using "Autostich" and not cropped when posted - so no post processing by me!
I made this one (or rather had these made) as an entry level introduction to producing panoramas, I have had fun creating the prototypes and producing my own panoramas printed out on my deskjet 500 (24" by a long way).
here are links to a few of the garden
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/2323828668_649...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/2323010797_d68...
or a full 360
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3176/2323830656_18d...
Thanks for all your comments
Bob
[\quote]it weighs 700 grams and is made from 4mm thick stainless and attaches to your toy through the tripod mounting screw. I can assure you ot is as solid as a tripod head.
Thanks for the comments, when I was taking these panoramas I was on a learning curve. I now take more care on setting the level of the camera and use a decent tripod and head.
All of these shots were created using "Autostich" and not cropped when posted - so no post processing by me!
stuthemong said:
Not really true that all panoramas require panoheads to achieve perfect results. Your shot above the car park would look exactly the same with a normal tilt/pan tripod head (i.e. not a panoramic one) as you'll have no parralax issue there. In that case, given your panohead doesn't really offer much over and above a normal pan/tilt head, I'd probably fall back on just using that (whereas a 'commercial' head with detenting and accurate rotations would provide benefit).
You are correct that you can get acceptable results without a panohead but it does make life so much easier. Detents will cost you £450.oo extra!I made this one (or rather had these made) as an entry level introduction to producing panoramas, I have had fun creating the prototypes and producing my own panoramas printed out on my deskjet 500 (24" by a long way).
here are links to a few of the garden
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/2323828668_649...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/2323010797_d68...
or a full 360
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3176/2323830656_18d...
Thanks for all your comments
Bob
White Fly Swater said:
_dobbo_ said:
looks good - I've always struggled with converging lines when I've done panoramics.
How do you go about working out the nodal point on a particular lens.
I have to say, your panohead looks great, but I don't think my lens would fit on it.
what on earth are you using? [\quote]How do you go about working out the nodal point on a particular lens.
I have to say, your panohead looks great, but I don't think my lens would fit on it.
On the basis that your photo shows the camera/lens combo at it's full extension, and my D200 and 28/70 combo is probably a fair bit bigger, it made me wonder if it would work for me.Whitefly,
Autostich, eh? Judging by the way you have approached this, and your willingness to get hands on and play, I'd really really really recommend you switch over to PTgui for stitching. You'll find it tough to start off with, but thereafter you'll embrace it's adjustability. Seriously.
Also, FWIW, there are options out there like the Panosaurus and NN3 that are considerably less than 500quid, and do have detenting. that said, a lot of the homemade rigs out there are very good indeed, and I don't doubt you'll get more from iterating your own.
Big pano tip on the lips of shooters at the moment is a program called ENFUSE. Google it and get playing, it makes dynamic range compression in panos much easier and gives effortless results
Kindest,
stu
Autostich, eh? Judging by the way you have approached this, and your willingness to get hands on and play, I'd really really really recommend you switch over to PTgui for stitching. You'll find it tough to start off with, but thereafter you'll embrace it's adjustability. Seriously.
Also, FWIW, there are options out there like the Panosaurus and NN3 that are considerably less than 500quid, and do have detenting. that said, a lot of the homemade rigs out there are very good indeed, and I don't doubt you'll get more from iterating your own.
Big pano tip on the lips of shooters at the moment is a program called ENFUSE. Google it and get playing, it makes dynamic range compression in panos much easier and gives effortless results
Kindest,
stu
i got a bit obsessed with panorama's a while back. basically a pano head is essential if you want to have anything in the foreground of your pics and an absoloute must if you're to to shoot indoors.
i made these with real viz stitcher and a manfrotto 330 sph head.
http://www.rickschofield.co.uk/trinity/trinity.htm...
photo's of my girls old house before they moved to portugal.
i made these with real viz stitcher and a manfrotto 330 sph head.
http://www.rickschofield.co.uk/trinity/trinity.htm...
photo's of my girls old house before they moved to portugal.
stuthemong said:
Whitefly,
Autostich, eh? Judging by the way you have approached this, and your willingness to get hands on and play, I'd really really really recommend you switch over to PTgui for stitching. You'll find it tough to start off with, but thereafter you'll embrace it's adjustability. Seriously.
Also, FWIW, there are options out there like the Panosaurus and NN3 that are considerably less than 500quid, and do have detenting. that said, a lot of the homemade rigs out there are very good indeed, and I don't doubt you'll get more from iterating your own.
Big pano tip on the lips of shooters at the moment is a program called ENFUSE. Google it and get playing, it makes dynamic range compression in panos much easier and gives effortless results
Kindest,
stu
Thanks for the comments Autostich, eh? Judging by the way you have approached this, and your willingness to get hands on and play, I'd really really really recommend you switch over to PTgui for stitching. You'll find it tough to start off with, but thereafter you'll embrace it's adjustability. Seriously.
Also, FWIW, there are options out there like the Panosaurus and NN3 that are considerably less than 500quid, and do have detenting. that said, a lot of the homemade rigs out there are very good indeed, and I don't doubt you'll get more from iterating your own.
Big pano tip on the lips of shooters at the moment is a program called ENFUSE. Google it and get playing, it makes dynamic range compression in panos much easier and gives effortless results
Kindest,
stu
Autostich was the reason for building the panohead and has worked fine, however now you have stuck your fivepennys worth in i am going to spend hours no days mucking about with more software !
My panohead is the best (I made it!!!!) I know there are others out there and maybe it would have been cheeper to buy one of those buy and its a big but I like messing about. and selling bits you make be it photos or lumps of hardware is fun. I have a watchmakers lathe and make all sorts if things for my other hobby - its so much more fun.
regards
Bob
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff