|
Post by onlymark on Sept 21, 2011 4:55:28 GMT
That was three. The more you use the longer and thinner the panorama is with the software I have. download.cnet.com/Panorama-Perfect-Lite/3000-12511_4-10459396.htmlThe problem with it is that, being a free version, there is a limit to the size of the finished project. The one above in its original form is 1839x576 and 312kb. Ok for sticking up on a forum but not really to get the full effect. You don't need a tripod or to rest the camera somewhere. As long as you can sweep across the vista in a fairly uniform manner it'll turn out quite reasonably. An obvious thing though is the more accurate the original photos are the less mucking about you need to do with them in the programme to get a decent result. I muck around and adjust a minimal amount anyway as I don't fully understand the features of it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 21, 2011 7:49:38 GMT
So, after using more of the features like rotating and colour changing it turns out a bit better. No doubt with time and patience it could be better still -
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 1, 2011 10:26:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Oct 2, 2011 12:16:37 GMT
Kimby, just seen your post. Are you still struggling? No, I've given up! Well, actually I'm waiting for some kind person to offer to take my four photos by email and stitch them FOR me! Any takers?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 2, 2011 13:13:32 GMT
I can give it a try but the software I use isn't the best by any means, it tends to reduce the size quite a lot. Pm on way.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 2, 2011 16:18:48 GMT
Wow -- those are really seamless! I was saving this link until I could give some first hand comments about it. Since that hasn't happened, I'll toss it in now. It's a review of five free programs for creating panoramas. Reading through them, I'd say that the extra editing features wouldn't matter to me so much, since I'm already have editors that I'm happy with.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 11, 2011 7:48:27 GMT
Using the link bixa supplied I had a go with four photos Kimby sent me. Here are the results. Using CleVR - Arcopano - Hugin. The reason it is so short is that it couldn't match up all the photos apart from the first two (I think) - Microsoft Image Composite Editor - Panorama Plus Starter Edition. It decided only the last two images could be stitched together properly - Using the Microsoft Image Composite Editor and having just a little tweak - But you can see I've left it uncropped. This will remove quite a lot of the photo, the black areas Pos Panorama Pro I couldn't get to download properly. As you can see they are far from perfect. Why? I think it is because the programmes are struggling not only to match up the hills in the background but the railings in the foreground and the shoreline in the midground. It is true that it is better to use a tripod but I still think some good results can be had without one. However, it may be wise to do the following things - don't have foreground and background objects to try and line up. Kimby could have done better by standing forward or zooming a little to avoid capturing the railings. If they are unavoidable then, especially if they are not just in a straight line, stand in the middle of the 'curve' or bend so that when the photos are taken you are equidistant from them. As with my amphitheatre photos before, it was difficult to match them up because I was at one side of the auditorium, not in the middle. This makes little difference when the objects are far away, like hills, but as soon as there is anything closer I think that's where the trouble begins. If you don't use a tripod then when you sweep the camera across you need to take care you do it as horizontally as possible keeping the camera straight and at ninety degrees to the objects. Obviously as soon as you even move your position a little, or sway, or lean or adjust the zoom, it'll all end in tears. There are programmes like the one I play with, Panorama Perfect Lite, that don't make the panorama automatically. It's a manual operation and quite complicated. Even so there was little I could do with Kimby's photos because of the sheer difference between the foreground and background. The other alternative is to buy a camera that does it for you at the time.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 11, 2011 7:52:14 GMT
Kimby, the camera you used, a Kodak Z760?
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Oct 11, 2011 8:04:13 GMT
Thanks Mark. Even though I haven't got my perfect panorama image, I've learned a lot about how to take better photos for next time. I do have a tripod, and will try using it. I will definitely not capture the railing in the foreground. (I wonder if it would have helped if I/you had cropped the railing out of the photo before splicing them?)
The Hugin and Panorama Plus starter edition looked the best to me. But comparing the raw photos to the panoramas, the Hugin used only one photo as far as I can tell. The Panorama Plus did use two photos, and fairly seamlessly.
It was fun seeing the long images, even if they were far from perfect. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Oct 11, 2011 8:05:00 GMT
Kimby, the camera you used, a Kodak Z760? Yep. No panorama feature that I can find.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 11, 2011 8:09:30 GMT
No, it hasn't got one.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Oct 11, 2011 8:11:26 GMT
Mark's Microsoft Image Composite Editor image with some cropping. (If I remove the entire railing, there's not enough lake left in the photo.)
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 11, 2011 8:24:59 GMT
Kimby, this is with the railing cropped out of each photo individually. As you can see, and the original I've sent back to you, it's a bit thin now -
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 11, 2011 8:26:03 GMT
Maybe you could crop out the top left corner as well? It'd make it a bit shorter.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 11, 2011 8:35:19 GMT
Like that?
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Oct 11, 2011 8:38:10 GMT
And the right end, which doesn't have any snowy peaks, can also be cut off.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 12, 2011 5:44:09 GMT
Mark, how long did each of those processes take & how much of it did you have to do, rather than the program doing it for you? If you were forced to pick, would you use one of those programs, or continue looking for a decent freebie? I used Mark's 4th photo down, the one done with Microsoft Image Composite Editor, and came up with this. Nothing was cropped. The hope would be that a viewer would be dazzled by the beauty of the lake & mountains & wouldn't scrutinize the railing. And messing with it just a little more to draw the eye to the distance:
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Oct 12, 2011 6:15:52 GMT
My first stop would be with Microsoft Image Composite Editor. It's a point and shoot option, i.e. you just load the photos and it does it for you. Plus there is an option to alter a couple of easy things to automatically see if it can make it line up better. Two of the programmes, as shown above, wont stitch together all the photos, which is a pain if you really want all of them but then use Photoscape et al to alter them more.
It may be that you'd need to do three or four sets before a final decision as to which is the favourite, but for me, for now, I'd be happy enough with Microsoft Image Composite Editor. If I wanted to try it manually I'd go for Panorama Perfect Lite, which even though is the same as most manual ones, a little complex and the final product isn't a big size (but ok for forums and the like) it's still nice to have a play.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 12, 2011 6:30:40 GMT
Thanks, Mark. After seeing what it/you did with those lake pictures plus reading what you wrote above, Mcrsft Img Composite Editor seems a good idea.
There have been times that I wished I could capture a scene panoramically, but my camera just wasn't up to it.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Oct 12, 2011 14:00:59 GMT
BTW, my intent in getting a panoramic photo of the view from the cottage is so that I can begin learning which mountain is which, but the peaks are so small that that may not work. It's still a pretty picture, though. Thanks Mark and bixa.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Oct 25, 2011 7:58:19 GMT
So this "panorama" was created simply by cropping off the top and bottom of a standard snapshot photo in the Windows Photo Gallery software that came with my computer. Works pretty well
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Dec 29, 2011 23:00:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Feb 13, 2012 9:34:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Feb 13, 2012 9:56:49 GMT
Wow! Mark, you who have been there -- the falls look huge but the river afterwards seems rather small. Are there several places where the water coming over the falls flows?
I also saw that bridge for the bungee jumping!
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Feb 13, 2012 13:12:25 GMT
There is only the one outlet. All the water goes down it that goes over the falls. There is good white water rafting there as well but there is a dry and wet season where the amount of water changes quite dramatically. If looking directly at the falls then Zimbabwe is to the left and Zambia to the right. The border is directly in the middle of the river and follows it as it zigzags. The town to the left is Victoria Falls, the Zambian town of Livingston is in the far distance roughly in the centre of the picture (still when looking directly at the falls.) In Vic Falls town there is a camp site I used to stay at within hearing distance and I regularly had to keep getting up in the night to go to the toilet - thought I'd share that with you.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Feb 13, 2012 13:20:51 GMT
Forgot to mention - there are still a lot of wild elephants in the area that cause havoc with the train line from time to time, using it as a path. But they also have wandered into the campsite after breaking down a fence (the campsite backs onto the line). One time two of them got in and started pulling down the tree branches at 3am on top of the tents pitched, as you do, in the shade. I had fun watching it.
|
|
|
Post by thill25 on Feb 14, 2012 15:05:18 GMT
I actually like post #44. IMHO, the railing is way too distracting to be in the shot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2012 18:26:24 GMT
It is indeed excellent, but often the standard now is the Imax view of a place -- and most people do not have access to that.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Feb 16, 2012 18:27:55 GMT
Why is it that our brains so readily see panoramas, and our cameras turn it into a boring rectangle with a lot of uninteresting stuff top and bottom?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Feb 16, 2012 20:15:19 GMT
Peripheral vision. That's why. No?
|
|