Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Fekneejit, i've been horsing around with panoramic photography for couple years as well :)

What's your preferred lens for this? I usually use my trusty Sigma 8mm fisheye which gets around in HDR in 12 ( 4x3 shots)

Which gets me nice 51mp (10100x5050px) panorama's. I can only imagine what happens if you build from 100 images, that gets you what, a 0.5 (32kx16k px?) gigapixel pano?

I've been wanting to try it with a 50mm 1.8 ( would be an 85mm lens on my machine,

but I have yet to find a suitable location that is interesting enough for the trouble :)

I'll post some of my stuff in this thread later!

Meanwhile check the website in my signature for some of my virtual tours :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
...I usually use my trusty Sigma 8mm fisheye which gets around in HDR in 12 ( 4x3 shots)

:lol: I was looking at your stuff earlier today & was going to send you a message asking what you used!

I just have an EOS 1000D (10MP), & use the 18-55mm lens that came with it. The middle row usually comes out around 20 shots, though I tend to overlap shots more than necessary to try & compensate for the odd rogue autofocus fuckup. Depending on how careful I am a full 360 is anywhere between 80 & 120 photos, x3 if bracketed :)

Generally they come out around 230MP, ~22000x11000, however Autopano Giga goes a bit pixel-happy sometimes when you try odd projections. The polar projection one above came out at around 360MP (~22000 sq), & I did another polar projection of just the floor that took 8 hours to render & came out at 1.95GP (just over 40000 sq). The 16 bit .psb file is 14.5GB. Yee hah.

If I had a proper fisheye lens I'd do a lot more & would be able to try them from better angles, I haven't done any proper urbex 360s yet, though I have a couple planned from a local place I like :)

Good luck with the 50mm, you may want to get some decent anti-psychotic pills lined up for the computer session though :grin2:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I also noticed ptgui does that, at large RAW setting ( 4x18mp or 72mp) i get say 10100*5050px pano out of a 12 image 360*180 sequence of shots, If you turn it to polar, suddenly the optimal resolution jumps to an insanely hig number ( like 18kx18k px, which corresponds to 324mp ), way higher then your initial actual pixel count of 72mp. Alarmbells going off inside, pixels cannot quantum leap, must be stretching sth somewhere. It has something to do with the way ptgui renders the images pixels,



- on a regular equirectangular image, optimal max resolution is when the middle horizon ( so the 2 horizontal rows of pixels exactly inthe middle if heigth is an even n° of pixels, which it usually is, and preferably horizontal width is divisible by 4) has a has a 1:1 pixel ratio with the original images.

For equirectangulars i tend to stick to 10100x5050 px, which gives me 4x336mb 16bit TIFF files (3 brackets and 1 tonemapped 51mp each ) panorama that could be printed up to 67,3x33,7" as a 150dpi normal photo print, or as a 33,7" x 16,8" 300dpi hi-res print





- when you change to a little planet projection, suddenly this number jumps to an almost ridiculous size, which I suppose is the program taking a 1:1 px ratio in the center, and stretching pixels the further from said center. I have all my little planets created as 6k*6k px files, which makes for 4 x 36,0mp files each 220mb in size.

These can be printed 20" square at 300dpi, or 40" square at 150 regular photo print resolution, even in that case, at 300°x300°, there is already clearly visible pixel stretching at the edges though.

Of course, there is a vast world of difference in our workflow...

Fisheye vs standard lenses is a totally different world, my max resolution would be 18mp x4 = 72mp, The 21 superfluous mp are mostly overlapping areas

with a 100x 10 mp photos ( No HDR! if HDR, divide by number of brackets but le 1000D doesn't have HDR i seem to remember? or did you get Magic Lantern?) You could theoretically get to 1 Gigapixel, anything above that are most likely pixels getting stretched out. do this minus your overlap, which ought to be around 25 to 30% and you end up with a theoretical max res of 700-750 mp?

Just for fun's sake: Such a 722mp (38kx19k px) monster (somewhere round 5 gb as a tiff? ) at 150 dpi, would give you a 253,3" x 126,7" print :D

Edited by BenderFX

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some nice stuff there :) Particularly like the darker ones... There's another thread here you can add them to.

Yeah it makes sense with the silly projections at silly sizes now, if it keeps the centre image at full resolution & stretches from there then they're going to end up exaggerated round the edges, I'd never spotted ptgui doing it before though (I switched from ptgui to Autopano Giga a while ago).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now