Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Panorama Heads

Subject: [OM] Re: Panorama Heads
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:57:38 -0700
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> .....  But, using it in horizontal mount, you can simply 
> rotate the camera around the mounting screw in the camera's tripod 
> socket.  But as the lens tips up and down there is a small error 
> introduced in the position of the no-parallax-point.
>
> Assume a 100mm lens and 21 degree horizontal angle of view on a 35mm 
> camera.  (but vertical in this case since the camera is mounted 
> vertically)  I'll also assume (just ball park) that the 
> no-parallax-point is about equal to the focal length away from the film 
> plane.  To take a 3 row pano we have to tilt the camera both up and down 
> 14 degrees to get a 1/3 field of view overlap between bottom, center and 
> top frames.  Final vertical coverage is 49 degrees.  Anyhow, tilting the 
> camera up or down by 14 degrees will mis-position the no-parallax-point 
> by about 3mm.  Even for relatively close object (like 25 feet) the error 
> is on the order of 1 pixel or less.  As usual, YMMV and my calculations 
> may be all wet... but I think it will work.
>   
OK, I know this is a theoretical construct, but still, I have 
alternatives to explore.

Why go to all that trouble? Put on a 35 mm lens in vertical orientation. 
That gives 54 deg. vertical coverage, and you can take fewer horizontal 
shots, too, if you want; no stitching vertically and less stitching 
horizontally.

So I can see only two reasons to do it the hard way. "Because it's 
there", of something similar, I can't argue with.

The only other reason I can see is that it's for an enormous print that 
will be viewed from relatively close. If it's that sort of project, I'll 
bet the budget would cover a proper two axis panorama rig.

As it happens, my nine shot waterfall panorama was shot vertically at 35 
mm. No calculations, I just set the zoom to give me the vertical 
coverage I needed.

The merged panorama is 10,375 x 4,094 pixels. Assuming it would be 
viewed from at least a few feet, and using quality upscaling, it should 
look great at 72 ppi. That works out to 12 x 4.7 feet.

Just noodling further.

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz