(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_Chesil%20Beach%20Panorama.jpg) (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Chesil%20Beach%20Panorama.jpg)
the above is a work in progress of a scene i am trying to create from 17 images, taken form the the top of Portland - covering from Bridport right round to Weymouth.
Where i need help is - the top left hand corner. The shore line has not been stitched in an orderly manner - and i'm just trying to work out the best way to correct it.
Image created thus far using CS4 Photomerge.
I can only suggest that you try a specialist panorama stitcher like Arcsoft Panorama maker, PTGui or Serif PanoramaPlus. If you have CS4 you are clearly very well minted, so laying out a little extra for the right tool for the job shouldn't cause a problem . . :D :legit:
Or alternatively - http://lifehacker.com/378490/stitch-photos-into-panoramas-with-free-software
Thanks for those suggestions.
Whilst more fortunate than others - i came by my copy of Photoshop for considerably less than it costs. I was given v6 and v7 upgrade as a thank you for some work i had done for friend.
So all i've paid for is the upgrade to CS2when i got my Nikon 5700 way back when and then to CS4 at the end of last year.
I suspect that ultimately i'm going to have to learn how to fine tune this process as funds don't allow for a dedicated panorama tripod head.
Honestly Hugin is well worth a look - it is just about the only option for linux users who want to do panoramas - a bit complicated to use, but very effective.
You might consider a PM to Mark Ellis for some tips - he is a bit of a pano junkie. And the only pano head he has is the one he wears his glasses on.
A free photostitch program comes with Canon cameras, borrow one or maybe download. Ive not used it but I bet a lot on here have.
thanks for that info.
I'm currently trying different methods with photomerge - but it is clear it has some short comings. Either that or i am the one with the short comings :)
I'll spend my day trying different methods with Photomerge, then i'll drop Mark a line for his tips.
Thanks again for your help.
There's one here, the same one used by Serif in their Panorama Plus software. Autostitch (http://people.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html)
Hi Andrew,
Firstly, which mode are you stitching these in, it is possible that the cylindrical mode will give a better result, this looks to have been stitched in auto, when the program has finished what it thinks is the stitching, you can still make final adjustments manually by selecting the appropriate layer from the layer bin and using the arrow keys to fine tune the positioning.
Given the slope on the horizon of this one, it suggests that you either shot this handheld or did not have the tripod set perfectly level, level is a must for Pano's with close up foregrounds, all pano stitching software will attempt to get the foreground spot on and leave errors towards the back of the frame, which is what has happened here. Also the image overlap looks rather large, 30-50% overlap is normally plenty, too much can sometimes cause problems, especially if the nodal point is slightly off or the level is out.
My suggestions are:
Have another look at the 17 images and try to remove some that are not required, i.e. try to reduce the overlap you have, especially those at the left side of the image (less can be more).
Have a look at the original images and try to remove any lens distortion before you stitch, this pano is struggling with the foreground on the left side.
Set the stitching mode to cylindrical as it allows the software more latitude when positioning frames.
As a last resort, try to crop the originals slightly to reduce the closeness of the foreground before stitching.
Once the software has done its best, go through the image at 100% to make any slight manual adjustments.
Good Luck.
Thanks to all.
I have now posted a working version of the image in Landscapes and it appeared that image no 1 was causing most problems on the left.
With Pete's suggestions in mind - i will go back and try to re-work the images and produce a better shot - though i suspect i will be limited to the images i have got and i suspect it is possible that the tripod is not 100% level - though i gave it a good go. The ground base was soft where i was based due to the need to be located where other observers could not get in front and obscure my view which they done on my previous attempts 3 times.
I think this has been an extremely interesting exercise and one that i have enjoyed although providing much frustration along the way. It is one that i will need to learn from to get it right in future.
What it has done is made me appreciate the amount of work that goes into these types of images even with the help of software designed to do much of the leg work.
As Pete has pointed out - many factors go into getting one of these images right.
Hopefully i can salvage something better from this set of pictures - but i suspect it will be for my next effort to show any real improvement.