Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Straightening curved pano shorelines
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jul 31, 2021 20:59:21   #
UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT
 
Cany143 wrote:
Mike.... I'll give you grief whether I see it or not. You oughta know that.


Jim, in these uncertain times it is so nice to have something to depend on.

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 05:20:40   #
Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast
 
NMGal wrote:
Mike, all you need to do is cuss loud and long, click on everything in sight, take a deep breath and viola! There it happens.


I know it works for me....

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 09:12:50   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Some possibilities -
https://fstoppers.com/education/straighten-extreme-distortions-ease-454391
https://straighten.imageonline.co/
https://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/straighten-photos/
https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/perspective-correction-fix-bent-lines/

Reply
 
 
Aug 1, 2021 10:01:23   #
UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT
 


Thanks, Jerry, I appreciate your research.

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 10:30:01   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
Cany143 wrote:
After merging multiple images in Lr, if there's any unintended curvature in the result, I'll right-click to 'Edit In' Ps. There, >Select >All >Edit >Transform >Warp and move/manipulate any of the top or side 'dots,' or left-click mouse to 'drag' one or more portions of the image, to the point that the curvature is eliminated. It only takes seconds, and admittedly it is done 'by eye' as opposed to anything formulaic, but it does work.


That's how I do it in PS.

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 11:55:03   #
UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT
 
Fotoartist wrote:
That's how I do it in PS.


I tried it and it worked (but do not let Cany 143 know, he is hard enough to live with as it is).

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 13:18:09   #
neillaubenthal
 
UTMike wrote:
At one point I had a great tutorial as to how to straighten the curvature introduced by multiple photo panorama merges. I cannot find it now.

Any guidance, tutorials would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Warp in Photoshop might work…but if there is anything close in the pano shots then parallax is an issue. The solution is to put the camera on a tripod with a panorama nodal point rail. Essentially just on a tripod you rotate the camera at the film plane…but you need to rotate it around the nodal point instead…which is someplace in the lens…the aperture blades maybe but can’t remember the details. The rail mounts on the tripod and up you slide the camera mount back and forth setting it at the no parallax point which depends on your body and the lens focal length. Hudson Henry has a video on his site and YouTube about it and a pdf you can download that has the numbers for Nikon FF Z bodies and lenses, otherwise you will have to figure them out for yourself…but his video tells you how to do that…essentially you test with both near and far objects in focus and rotate the camera…then slide it in the rail and repeat until the near thing doesn’t move in relation to the far thing as you rotate.

The alternative option is to crop or frame so there isn’t any shoreline or near stuff in the image.

Reply
 
 
Aug 1, 2021 14:09:12   #
UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT
 
neillaubenthal wrote:
Warp in Photoshop might work…but if there is anything close in the pano shots then parallax is an issue. The solution is to put the camera on a tripod with a panorama nodal point rail. Essentially just on a tripod you rotate the camera at the film plane…but you need to rotate it around the nodal point instead…which is someplace in the lens…the aperture blades maybe but can’t remember the details. The rail mounts on the tripod and up you slide the camera mount back and forth setting it at the no parallax point which depends on your body and the lens focal length. Hudson Henry has a video on his site and YouTube about it and a pdf you can download that has the numbers for Nikon FF Z bodies and lenses, otherwise you will have to figure them out for yourself…but his video tells you how to do that…essentially you test with both near and far objects in focus and rotate the camera…then slide it in the rail and repeat until the near thing doesn’t move in relation to the far thing as you rotate.

The alternative option is to crop or frame so there isn’t any shoreline or near stuff in the image.
Warp in Photoshop might work…but if there is anyth... (show quote)


Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtful advice. I used the PS warp and it solved my problem. As I hike some distances, I usually take most panoramas hand held, which leads to PP help.

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 14:57:31   #
Vienna74 Loc: Bountiful, Utah
 
I have also found it makes little sense to use a wide angle lens if shooting a pano. The closest to 50mm (full-frame sensor) will introduce less distortion.

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 16:35:39   #
UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT
 
Vienna74 wrote:
I have also found it makes little sense to use a wide angle lens if shooting a pano. The closest to 50mm (full-frame sensor) will introduce less distortion.


That is a good point, thanks.

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 19:39:01   #
tommystrat Loc: Northwest Montana
 
As Cany has so eloquently postulated, the Warp function of the Transform editing mode in PS is a miracle-worker in removing pano-induced curvature. And, taking panos in portrait vs. landscape mode is essential, IMHO...

Reply
 
 
Aug 1, 2021 19:55:03   #
UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT
 
tommystrat wrote:
As Cany has so eloquently postulated, the Warp function of the Transform editing mode in PS is a miracle-worker in removing pano-induced curvature. And, taking panos in portrait vs. landscape mode is essential, IMHO...


I generally agree, Tommy, but sometimes the desire for the good foreground can overwhelm me (LOL).

Reply
Aug 1, 2021 20:20:41   #
Cany143 Loc: SE Utah
 
Vienna74 wrote:
I have also found it makes little sense to use a wide angle lens if shooting a pano. The closest to 50mm (full-frame sensor) will introduce less distortion.


I'm going to (respectfully) disagree. Little sense if one wants the dof or the perspective afforded by a w/a lens or the compression of a tele? Little sense if there's a near/far relationship that one wants to establish? Little sense when whatever "distortion" that might be introduced via the geometry of parallax and/or the pano-izing of a number of exposures side-to-side or bottom-to-top can be visually 'corrected' in post?

Using simple shooting techniques, and learning (or knowing by having done so previously) the capabilities of the software solutions that are available, there are almost always two or three ways of arriving at the desired result. The solution I outlined above is simply one of those; there are others (though they might be more complex, and they would surely be trickier to illustrate in words). None, however, requires --or even suggests-- that using a "normal" (i.e., a 50mm or equivalent) lens is the 'best' --or the only-- way to produce the desired result.

Reply
Aug 2, 2021 14:58:50   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Cany143 wrote:
I'm going to (respectfully) disagree. Little sense if one wants the dof or the perspective afforded by a w/a lens or the compression of a tele? Little sense if there's a near/far relationship that one wants to establish? Little sense when whatever "distortion" that might be introduced via the geometry of parallax and/or the pano-izing of a number of exposures side-to-side or bottom-to-top can be visually 'corrected' in post?

Using simple shooting techniques, and learning (or knowing by having done so previously) the capabilities of the software solutions that are available, there are almost always two or three ways of arriving at the desired result. The solution I outlined above is simply one of those; there are others (though they might be more complex, and they would surely be trickier to illustrate in words). None, however, requires --or even suggests-- that using a "normal" (i.e., a 50mm or equivalent) lens is the 'best' --or the only-- way to produce the desired result.
I'm going to (respectfully) disagree. Little sens... (show quote)


Lenses wider than 35mm introduce barrel distortion and volume anamorphosis, which is very difficult to correct, particularly if you are using ultrawide lenses.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50037142

And telephoto lenses do not compress - though it does seem like they do. You'll find that if you take a shot with a telephoto lens, and then, without moving the camera position, take the same shot with a wider lens - the wide angle shot cropped to the same size as the uncropped tele shot will have the exact same compression.

The illusion of compression comes from the longer distance between the tele shot vs the wide angle shot when you are trying to achieve the same compositional framing. You are not the first, nor will you be the last, to make this incorrect assumption.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2021 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.