panoramic shooting (Page 2): Hugin works on a Mac. You can find it here: http://hugin.sourceforge.net If you have an older Mac or operating system, you may need to download an older...

thix2112

Hugin works on a Mac. You can find it here:
http://hugin.sourceforge.net

If you have an older Mac or operating system, you may need to download an older version. They are available at the above site.

I like Hugin. It is very powerful and it also does a good job with scanned film photos.

Tom

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

pageva wrote:

my Sony has a mode setting for this, mounted on a tripod but difficult to get camera to cooperate. Also is the black area telling me I can pan further. My Nikon D3200 does not have this capability.

Yes, you panned too slowly.......Sony in camera works very well - as they have been at it for awhile now - without spending extra time and monies for software !

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

pageva wrote:

my Sony has a mode setting for this, mounted on a tripod but difficult to get camera to cooperate. Also is the black area telling me I can pan further. My Nikon D3200 does not have this capability.

That looks rather nice, but I'll stick with the program a friend of mine and I wrote some 10+ years ago. So far, I've not seen one stitching program surpass it.
--Bob

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

For any of you who do a lot of panoramic work, or who are really fussbudgets (like me) and want to do it right, May I suggest a device called a "Panosaurus"?

thix2112

rocketride wrote:

For any of you who do a lot of panoramic work, or who are really fussbudgets (like me) and want to do it right, May I suggest a device called a "Panosaurus"?

I concur with that along with Hugin. Sample pano sphere photo made by using both products.

Tom

the hiker Loc: San Diego

I have the sony A65 with the panarama feature and it works well but you have to practice shooting in that mode. Also I find it is eaiser to shoot hand held.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

thix2112 wrote:

I concur with that along with Hugin. Sample pano sphere photo made by using both products.

Tom

Tom,
That is a pretty cool image. Nicely done.
--Bob

thix2112

rmalarz wrote:

Tom,
That is a pretty cool image. Nicely done.
--Bob

Thanks Bob. Told my son to stand there for a minute while I spun around with the camera. It was a composite of about 12 photos with the camera mounted on a Panosaurus head with a fisheye lens then using Hugin to create a stereoscopic projection from the images.

Tom

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

thix2112 wrote:

I concur with that along with Hugin. Sample pano sphere photo made by using both products.

Tom

Very Nice! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

thix2112

Thanks rocketride.
Tom

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

thix2112 wrote:

Hugin works on a Mac. You can find it here:
http://hugin.sourceforge.net

If you have an older Mac or operating system, you may need to download an older version. They are available at the above site.

I like Hugin. It is very powerful and it also does a good job with scanned film photos.

Tom

I started out with panoramic photos while still using film some 11 years ago. That's why a friend of mine and I wrote our own pano program. Fortunately, it also works with digital, exceptionally well.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=51&with_photo_id=32184783&order=date_desc&user=817015

--Bob

thix2112

rmalarz wrote:

I started out with panoramic photos while still using film some 11 years ago. That's why a friend of mine and I wrote our own pano program. Fortunately, it also works with digital, exceptionally well.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=51&with_photo_id=32184783&order=date_desc&user=817015

--Bob

Bob - very cool pano. You did an impressive job creating your own program.

Tom

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

thix2112 wrote:

Bob - very cool pano. You did an impressive job creating your own program.

Tom

Thanks, Tom. Being a couple of out of work engineers, at the time, we probably did a bit of over kill, but we were pleased with the way it worked with film. Digital was quite a bit easier for the program to hand.

I appreciate you taking a look and the compliment. I'll pass that along to my programming partner.
--Bob

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

rmalarz wrote:

Thanks, Tom. Being a couple of out of work engineers, at the time, we probably did a bit of over kill, but we were pleased with the way it worked with film. Digital was quite a bit easier for the program to hand.

I appreciate you taking a look and the compliment. I'll pass that along to my programming partner.
--Bob

Why are scans from film more difficult for a stitching program to deal with than natively digital images?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

rocketride wrote:

Why are scans from film more difficult for a stitching program to deal with than natively digital images?

rocketride,
The way we were looking at it, aspect of the grain of the film was more random than the rectilinear arrangement of the pixels in a digital image. Even without moving the camera between photos, the scanned pixels of an identical area of the two negatives would contain different patterns and numbers of grain particles. Those pixels would be slightly different.
--Bob