Adding extra images with different focal lengths to a panorama

MR
Posted By
Mike Russell
Feb 23, 2008
Views
1033
Replies
28
Status
Closed
"Benny" <no spam > wrote in message
I have created a panorama using about 6 images all taken using a 17mm lense (with a Canon 40D).

At a later date I went and took some more shots (from the same position/location) but with focal lengths of 35mm and 50mm. I now want to add these extra images into the original panorama without them looking disproportionate or appearing to have better or worse resolution.

What is the math I should be applying to ensure I get the extra images at the same proportions as the panorama and also preferably at the same printable resolution?

My idea is that the 50mm images will need to be reduced in size to 17/50 (ie 0.34) to fit correctly into the panorama. The 35mm images would be reduced to 17/35 (ie about half) to fit into the panorama etc etc.
Not too sure what to do to ensure a consistency in printable resolution by mixing images (of differing focal lengths) in this way.

The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

One consequence of this is that you will need to double (or triple) up in the vertical direction to match the field of view of your original pano, and there will be keystoning issues because the vertical axis has changed. To deal with that, you could get by with the transform tool, but a tool such as PTGUI might save you a lot of time, since it known how to align images in spite of this rectilinear distortion.

Another issue that you will almost certainly need to deal with will be color matching the sky and other objects in the panorama. One way to do this is with curves, and numeric values from the info palette. Again, a panorama savvy program may save you some effort here, though you can do this perfectly well manually with a little effort.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

B
Benny
Feb 23, 2008
I have created a panorama using about 6 images all taken using a 17mm lense (with a Canon 40D).

At a later date I went and took some more shots (from the same position/location) but with focal lengths of 35mm and 50mm. I now want to add these extra images into the original panorama without them looking disproportionate or appearing to have better or worse resolution.

What is the math I should be applying to ensure I get the extra images at the same proportions as the panorama and also preferably at the same printable resolution?

My idea is that the 50mm images will need to be reduced in size to 17/50 (ie
0.34) to fit correctly into the panorama. The 35mm images would be reduced
to 17/35 (ie about half) to fit into the panorama etc etc.

Not too sure what to do to ensure a consistency in printable resolution by mixing images (of differing focal lengths) in this way.

thanks

Benny
R
ronviers
Feb 23, 2008
On Feb 23, 6:27 am, "Benny" <no spam > wrote:
What is the math I should be applying to ensure I get the extra images at the same proportions as the panorama and also preferably at the same printable resolution?
Benny

Hi Benny,
One possibility would be to ‘place’ each image as a smart object into a PS document set to the image size you want with a canvas size large enough to facilitate the largest. Align them. Then starting at the next to the bottom layer use the transform tools and the shift key (for constraint) to match the image sizes. Smart objects transformations are nondestructive so you get as many shots as you want. You can set the working layer to difference mode so you can tell when the image turns black that you have it registered. After you get them sized set the guides to percent and snap a guide to each edge. Note the percent then drill down into the smart object and group the document into another smart object then add guides to those locations and snap the document size to the guides. This is a nondestructive way to get all your documents to match perspective.

Good luck,
Ron
B
Benny
Feb 23, 2008
wrote in message
On Feb 23, 6:27 am, "Benny" <no spam > wrote:
What is the math I should be applying to ensure I get the extra images at the same proportions as the panorama and also preferably at the same printable resolution?
Benny

Hi Benny,
One possibility would be to ‘place’ each image as a smart object into a PS document set to the image size you want with a canvas size large enough to facilitate the largest. Align them. Then starting at the next to the bottom layer use the transform tools and the shift key (for constraint) to match the image sizes. Smart objects transformations are nondestructive so you get as many shots as you want. You can set the working layer to difference mode so you can tell when the image turns black that you have it registered. After you get them sized set the guides to percent and snap a guide to each edge. Note the percent then drill down into the smart object and group the document into another smart object then add guides to those locations and snap the document size to the guides. This is a nondestructive way to get all your documents to match perspective.

Good luck,
Ron

Thanks Ron
I will digest your comments and get back if I need further clarification. regards
Benny
B
Benny
Feb 24, 2008
My idea is that the 50mm images will need to be reduced in size to 17/50 (ie 0.34) to fit correctly into the panorama. The 35mm images would be reduced to 17/35 (ie about half) to fit into the panorama etc etc.
Not too sure what to do to ensure a consistency in printable resolution by mixing images (of differing focal lengths) in this way.

The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

One consequence of this is that you will need to double (or triple) up in the vertical direction to match the field of view of your original pano, and there will be keystoning issues because the vertical axis has changed. To deal with that, you could get by with the transform tool, but a tool such as PTGUI might save you a lot of time, since it known how to align images in spite of this rectilinear distortion.

Another issue that you will almost certainly need to deal with will be color matching the sky and other objects in the panorama. One way to do this is with curves, and numeric values from the info palette. Again, a panorama savvy program may save you some effort here, though you can do this perfectly well manually with a little effort.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Thanks Mike
I actually used PTGUI (for the first time) to create the pano. I will now look further into it’s other capabilities.
As an aside, I also created an equivalent pano using CS3’s Photomerge and found some interesting differences in image and file sizes etc, as noted below.
PTGUI produced an image size of 3490 x 1147 pixels @ 72 ppi and a saved filesize of 4880 KB although in CS3 the doc size and pixel dimensions are shown as 11.5MB.
CS3’s Photomerge produced an image size of 12681 x 4253 pixels @ 72ppi and a saved filesize of only 1400KB. CS3 indicates a doc size and pixel dims of 154.3MB. The image is about 3.6 times larger but the file is about 3.5 times smaller???
I will need to investigate further to sort these figure differences out. In CS3 when I zoom to fill window to view them both at the same screen size I notice that PTGUI zoom is 26.25% and CS3’s is only 7.22%. I also need to zoom in around 300% for the PTGUI pano to obtain the same size as the 100% CS3 zoom. The PTGUI pano pixelates a loot sooner than the CS3 pano. My leaning is therefore towards the CS3 pano because of this. But it may just be a setting in PTGUI that will resolve this issue.
I presume with the extra images I want to insert into the pano, I will need to maintain the same pixel resolution (or better) as that of the pano? regards
Benny
B
Bogus
Feb 24, 2008
"Benny" <no spam > wrote in message
My idea is that the 50mm images will need to be reduced in size to 17/50 (ie 0.34) to fit correctly into the panorama. The 35mm images would be reduced to 17/35 (ie about half) to fit into the panorama etc etc.
Not too sure what to do to ensure a consistency in printable resolution by mixing images (of differing focal lengths) in this way.

The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

One consequence of this is that you will need to double (or triple) up in the vertical direction to match the field of view of your original pano, and there will be keystoning issues because the vertical axis has changed. To deal with that, you could get by with the transform tool, but a tool such as PTGUI might save you a lot of time, since it known how to align images in spite of this rectilinear distortion.

Another issue that you will almost certainly need to deal with will be color matching the sky and other objects in the panorama. One way to do this is with curves, and numeric values from the info palette. Again, a panorama savvy program may save you some effort here, though you can do this perfectly well manually with a little effort.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Thanks Mike
I actually used PTGUI (for the first time) to create the pano. I will now look further into it’s other capabilities.
As an aside, I also created an equivalent pano using CS3’s Photomerge and found some interesting differences in image and file sizes etc, as noted below.
PTGUI produced an image size of 3490 x 1147 pixels @ 72 ppi and a saved filesize of 4880 KB although in CS3 the doc size and pixel dimensions are shown as 11.5MB.
CS3’s Photomerge produced an image size of 12681 x 4253 pixels @ 72ppi and a saved filesize of only 1400KB. CS3 indicates a doc size and pixel dims of 154.3MB. The image is about 3.6 times larger but the file is about 3.5 times smaller???
I will need to investigate further to sort these figure differences out. In CS3 when I zoom to fill window to view them both at the same screen size I notice that PTGUI zoom is 26.25% and CS3’s is only 7.22%. I also need to zoom in around 300% for the PTGUI pano to obtain the same size as the 100% CS3 zoom. The PTGUI pano pixelates a loot sooner than the CS3 pano. My leaning is therefore towards the CS3 pano because of this. But it may just be a setting in PTGUI that will resolve this issue. I presume with the extra images I want to insert into the pano, I will need to maintain the same pixel resolution (or better) as that of the pano?
regards
Benny

Autopano is worth checking out. I also use PTGui and CS3 photomerge. It can be a lot of work, but who wants to sleep anyway. You can do that when you are dead.

r.
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 24, 2008
The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Say WHAT ???

You may know curves, but you do not know optics!

Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects not to mention barrel and other lens distortions.

Technically you can make the pan, but the eye will wonder "What’s WRONG?".

For visually good pans, you should shoot in portrait (vertical) mode, lens of 55mm or better, overlap of 15% and USE A TRIPOD with the cameral level!
MR
Mike Russell
Feb 24, 2008
From: "Johan W. Elzenga"
….
Once again, you may read this (which you ‘conveniently’ deleted when quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective

LOL – Sir F. A. Rien, le nom dit tous: il ne ce fait pas. —
Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com
RL
Rainer Latka
Feb 24, 2008
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Say WHAT ???

You may know curves, but you do not know optics!

Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects

You may know optics, but you do not know the implications of "… – what matters is that you took the images from the same location"

SCNR

not to mention barrel and other lens distortions.

Technically you can make the pan, but the eye will wonder "What’s WRONG?".

no, if you follow the advice

For visually good pans, you should shoot in portrait (vertical) mode, lens of 55mm or better, overlap of 15% and USE A TRIPOD with the cameral level!
N
nomail
Feb 24, 2008
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Say WHAT ???

You may know curves, but you do not know optics!

Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects

Say WHAT?

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship between objects.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 25, 2008
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Say WHAT ???

You may know curves, but you do not know optics!

Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects

Say WHAT?

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship between objects.
Say WHAT?

Obviously you’ve never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship changing.

Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle … doesn’t make it not visible and affect images ‘joined’ having been shot with differing focal lengths.
M
Mike
Feb 25, 2008
In article , says…
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Say WHAT ???

You may know curves, but you do not know optics!

Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects

Say WHAT?

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship between objects.
Say WHAT?

Obviously you’ve never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship changing.

Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle … doesn’t make it not visible and affect images ‘joined’ having been shot with differing focal lengths.
Ignoring second order effects such as pin-cusion distortion (which can be corrected by panorama software) and assuming
the scene is far from the camera (relative to the physical dimensions of the lenses), Johan is correct. The relative
view you get from two lenses of differing focal length is equivalent to the relative view you get by observing a scene
through two physical masks cut into sheets of cardboard (with the longer lens equivalent to a smaller hole in the
cardboard). Objects in th escene may be occluded by the edges of the mask, but they do not mysteriously shift their
relative positions.

Mike
N
nomail
Feb 25, 2008
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship between objects.
Say WHAT?

Obviously you’ve never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship changing.

Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle … doesn’t make it not visible and affect images ‘joined’ having been shot with differing focal lengths.

If you make close-up to macro shots, and you use a zoomlens where the length of the lens changes when the zoom position changes, then you may observe this. It’s because you are effectively changing lens position slightly when zooming such a lens. If you use a lens with internal focussing and zooming, you will not see any change, even if you make close ups. This is totally irrelevant however, because it is very unlikely that the OP is making close-up shots. We are talking about a panorama, remember?

Once again, you may read this (which you ‘conveniently’ deleted when quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 25, 2008
Mike found these unused words:

In article , says…
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location. You are correct about the change in image size.

Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Say WHAT ???

You may know curves, but you do not know optics!

Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects

Say WHAT?

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship between objects.
Say WHAT?

Obviously you’ve never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship changing.

Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle … doesn’t make it not visible and affect images ‘joined’ having been shot with differing focal lengths.
Ignoring second order effects such as pin-cusion distortion (which can be corrected by panorama software) and assuming
the scene is far from the camera (relative to the physical dimensions of the lenses), Johan is correct.

Special case situations always modify the status. My objection was to your blanket statement that "focal length is not an issue".

The relative
view you get from two lenses of differing focal length is equivalent to the relative view you get by observing a scene
through two physical masks cut into sheets of cardboard (with the longer lens equivalent to a smaller hole in the
cardboard). Objects in th escene may be occluded by the edges of the mask, but they do not mysteriously shift their
relative positions.

I never mentioned shifting ‘relative positions’, my word selection was "relationships". If you chose to infer that means ‘position’ or ‘size’, I can’t help that.

Example:
Shoot a person’s face full frame with a portrait lens of, say, 105mm (35mm format). Next shoot it with a 28mm lens. The relationships of the objects that comprise the person have changed. Small ears, big nose! (yes, I -=did=- see your caveat of the special case of ‘far enough’ restriction.)

You’ve already covered sperical distortion.

In the net, focal length -=is=- an issue! In general, you can not ignore ‘2nd order’ effects IF you want good panoramas!

"which can be corrected by panorama software" … hey! lets not then bother about exposure and other details either! They can be corrected, but the eye will know, if at all familiar with the scene.
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 25, 2008
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship between objects.
Say WHAT?

Obviously you’ve never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship changing.

Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle … doesn’t make it not visible and affect images ‘joined’ having been shot with differing focal lengths.

If you make close-up to macro shots, and you use a zoomlens where the length of the lens changes when the zoom position changes, then you may observe this. It’s because you are effectively changing lens position slightly when zooming such a lens. If you use a lens with internal focussing and zooming, you will not see any change, even if you make close ups. This is totally irrelevant however, because it is very unlikely that the OP is making close-up shots. We are talking about a panorama, remember?

Once again, you may read this (which you ‘conveniently’ deleted when quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective

Just followed -=your=- example and snipped the part I found didn’t fit my side.

Doesn’t have to be ‘macro’ or a zoom lens (just used that to hope you’d have observed!), the optics alter the image.

Perspective, size are but two relationships in an image – there are more, but … you’re an ‘expert’!
N
nomail
Feb 25, 2008
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Example:
Shoot a person’s face full frame with a portrait lens of, say, 105mm (35mm format). Next shoot it with a 28mm lens. The relationships of the objects that comprise the person have changed. Small ears, big nose!

You make a well-known beginners mistake. In order to shoot the face full frame with the wide angle, you will have to change the position of the camera: you will have get much closer to the person. THAT is what causes the big nose and the small ears!

If you would use the wide angle *from the same distance* as the 105mm, the nose will not become bigger and the ears will not become smaller. Of course, the face will not be full frame in this situation, but that is the consequence of using a wider angle *without* moving the camera.

I’m not going to quote that link for a third time, but it’s obvious that you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it. Here’s a few other links. Maybe you understand one of those:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography) http://cornicello.blogspot.com/2007/05/matter-of-perspective _08.html http://jamesmskipper.tripod.com/jamesmskipper/perspective.ht ml http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070729065439AA qM2oG&show=7


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
K
KatWoman
Feb 25, 2008
"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship between objects.
Say WHAT?

Obviously you’ve never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship changing.

Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle … doesn’t make it not visible and
affect images ‘joined’ having been shot with differing focal lengths.

If you make close-up to macro shots, and you use a zoomlens where the length of the lens changes when the zoom position changes, then you may observe this. It’s because you are effectively changing lens position slightly when zooming such a lens. If you use a lens with internal focussing and zooming, you will not see any change, even if you make close ups. This is totally irrelevant however, because it is very unlikely that the OP is making close-up shots. We are talking about a panorama, remember?

Once again, you may read this (which you ‘conveniently’ deleted when quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective

Just followed -=your=- example and snipped the part I found didn’t fit my side.

Doesn’t have to be ‘macro’ or a zoom lens (just used that to hope you’d have
observed!), the optics alter the image.

Perspective, size are but two relationships in an image – there are more, but … you’re an ‘expert’!

this conversation makes my head hurt
but the comment about sir rien’s name is priceless
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 25, 2008
"KatWoman" found these unused words:

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

If you shoot *from the same position*, a longer focal length simply crops the image. There will be no difference in the visual relationship between objects.
Say WHAT?

Obviously you’ve never used a zoom lens and observed the relationship changing.

Perhaps because it is somewhat subtle … doesn’t make it not visible and
affect images ‘joined’ having been shot with differing focal lengths.

If you make close-up to macro shots, and you use a zoomlens where the length of the lens changes when the zoom position changes, then you may observe this. It’s because you are effectively changing lens position slightly when zooming such a lens. If you use a lens with internal focussing and zooming, you will not see any change, even if you make close ups. This is totally irrelevant however, because it is very unlikely that the OP is making close-up shots. We are talking about a panorama, remember?

Once again, you may read this (which you ‘conveniently’ deleted when quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective

Just followed -=your=- example and snipped the part I found didn’t fit my side.

Doesn’t have to be ‘macro’ or a zoom lens (just used that to hope you’d have
observed!), the optics alter the image.

Perspective, size are but two relationships in an image – there are more, but … you’re an ‘expert’!

this conversation makes my head hurt
but the comment about sir rien’s name is priceless
Took him long enough to figure out the Nym!

Somehow I think he’s a charter member of the EMP Society.
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 25, 2008
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Example:
Shoot a person’s face full frame with a portrait lens of, say, 105mm (35mm format). Next shoot it with a 28mm lens. The relationships of the objects that comprise the person have changed. Small ears, big nose!

You make a well-known beginners mistake. In order to shoot the face full frame with the wide angle, you will have to change the position of the camera: you will have get much closer to the person. THAT is what causes the big nose and the small ears!

If you would use the wide angle *from the same distance* as the 105mm, the nose will not become bigger and the ears will not become smaller. Of course, the face will not be full frame in this situation, but that is the consequence of using a wider angle *without* moving the camera.
Duh !!!

… and in making a pan from wide angle and other focal lengths, the camera wasn’t moved?

You’re really determined to work this into something I didn’t originally say.

As for your links, should you ever consider my -=ORIGINAL=- statement in full – I might be bothered to glance at your farcical ‘teachings’.

The point, no matter how much you snip to minimize your misunderstanding, is:

FOCAL LENGTH DOES MATTER!

{well to those who care about their images, eh?]
MR
Mike Russell
Feb 26, 2008
If you’ll look at the rest of Monsieur le Nul’s posts, you’ll see he’s been responding here and there, spoiling for a squabble all week. I suggest people stop giving him what he wants, and he’ll settle down and be nice. —
Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com
RL
Rainer Latka
Feb 26, 2008
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Example:
Shoot a person’s face full frame with a portrait lens of, say, 105mm (35mm format). Next shoot it with a 28mm lens. The relationships of the objects that comprise the person have changed. Small ears, big nose!
You make a well-known beginners mistake. In order to shoot the face full frame with the wide angle, you will have to change the position of the camera: you will have get much closer to the person. THAT is what causes the big nose and the small ears!

If you would use the wide angle *from the same distance* as the 105mm, the nose will not become bigger and the ears will not become smaller. Of course, the face will not be full frame in this situation, but that is the consequence of using a wider angle *without* moving the camera.
Duh !!!

.. and in making a pan from wide angle and other focal lengths, the camera wasn’t moved?

You’re really determined to work this into something I didn’t originally say.

As for your links, should you ever consider my -=ORIGINAL=- statement in full – I might be bothered to glance at your farcical ‘teachings’.
The point, no matter how much you snip to minimize your misunderstanding, is:

FOCAL LENGTH DOES MATTER!

do you really think shouting is a convincing argument? Actually _you_ are the one who has been ignoring the second part in the original statement

"The focal length is not an issue – what matters is that you took the images from the same location"

all the time. Please try to understand, what "what matters is that you took the images from the same location" implies re the relation of objects
N
nomail
Feb 26, 2008
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

You make a well-known beginners mistake. In order to shoot the face full frame with the wide angle, you will have to change the position of the camera: you will have get much closer to the person. THAT is what causes the big nose and the small ears!

If you would use the wide angle *from the same distance* as the 105mm, the nose will not become bigger and the ears will not become smaller. Of course, the face will not be full frame in this situation, but that is the consequence of using a wider angle *without* moving the camera.
Duh !!!

.. and in making a pan from wide angle and other focal lengths, the camera wasn’t moved?

No, not if the OP says that he shot all the images from the same position. Of course, you can choose not to believe the OP, but as he is the one who took the images and you did not, that would be rather silly for the rest of the discussion.

You’re really determined to work this into something I didn’t originally say.

No, I’m determined to make you understand that you said something wrong. Now *you* are the one trying to change things around by implying that the OP did *not* shoot all the images from the same position, even if he says he did.

As for your links, should you ever consider my -=ORIGINAL=- statement in full – I might be bothered to glance at your farcical ‘teachings’.

Your original statement was:
"Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects not to mention barrel and other lens distortions".

The second part (about distortions) is true, the first part is wrong. Different focal lengths do *not* alter the visual relationship between objects. Only different camera positions do.

The point, no matter how much you snip to minimize your misunderstanding, is:

FOCAL LENGTH DOES MATTER!

It matters, but not for the relationship between objects (i.e. the perspective) in the image. And shouting doesn’t change that either.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 26, 2008
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Your original statement was:
"Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects not to mention barrel and other lens distortions".
The second part (about distortions) is true, the first part is wrong. Different focal lengths do *not* alter the visual relationship between objects. Only different camera positions do.
Then we’re in agreement, different focal lengtrhs -=do=- change visual relationships! "The second part (about distortions) is true," if one image has distortion or other focal length cause alteration, then the relationship of an object from one image to another has changed!

The point, no matter how much you snip to minimize your misunderstanding, is:

FOCAL LENGTH DOES MATTER!

It matters, but not for the relationship between objects (i.e. the perspective) in the image. And shouting doesn’t change that either.

Thwacking a mule with a 2×4 does cause his attention to focus.

Unfortunately, you’re still single minded that only ‘perspective’ is a relationship between object in images. Had I meant only size, I would have said "Size", had I meant only perspective’ I would have so said!

Once you cure that lingering problem, remove the blinders, cease reading in your biases, then perhaps you may, someday, accept that -=generalized=- statements should be called into question whenever they are -=wrong=-!
D
Dave
Feb 26, 2008
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:57:37 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

farien, go read
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Blair/Courses/MUSL242/f98/pmike.ht m

Dave
R
ronviers
Feb 26, 2008
On Feb 25, 6:01 pm, "Mike Russell" <
MOVE> wrote:
If you’ll look at the rest of Monsieur le Nul’s posts, you’ll see he’s been responding here and there, spoiling for a squabble all week. I suggest people stop giving him what he wants, and he’ll settle down and be nice. —
Mike Russell -www.curvemeister.com

He picked two of the worst possible members to go fisticuffs with. He should have chosen my post to attack, not only did it have errors but my defense tends to resemble the ‘leave Britney alone’ guy’s.
J
jaSPAMc
Feb 27, 2008
"Mike Russell" found these unused
words:

If you’ll look at the rest of Monsieur le Nul’s posts, you’ll see he’s been responding here and there, spoiling for a squabble all week. I suggest people stop giving him what he wants, and he’ll settle down and be nice.

I do try to help until some poster makes a bad, generalized statement that is incorrect. Those need to be clarified, but then we get one respondent with deliberate minute points of view, insisting that theirs is the -=only=- possible inference. <G> Love to play "Ernie Evans" with them.

Perhaps I should review my posts, AFAIK, this thread is the only one wherein I’ve been badgering the moles.

FWIW, I do respect your views, 95% of the time (or more?).
B
Benny
Feb 27, 2008
focussing and zooming, you will not see any change, even if you make close ups. This is totally irrelevant however, because it is very unlikely that the OP is making close-up shots. We are talking about a panorama, remember?

Once again, you may read this (which you ‘conveniently’ deleted when quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Thanks for all the replies and opinionated enthusiasm.
It was good to read the link above as it was exactly what happened on site. I did take a few images from a different location (even though only slightly away from the original position) and the images were unusable because of the changed perspective.
The images taken from the original location (but with different lenses) only needed cropping (based upon the ratio of the focal lengths) and they fitted near perfectly.
regards
Benny
N
nomail
Feb 27, 2008
"Benny" <no spam > wrote:

focussing and zooming, you will not see any change, even if you make close ups. This is totally irrelevant however, because it is very unlikely that the OP is making close-up shots. We are talking about a panorama, remember?

Once again, you may read this (which you ‘conveniently’ deleted when quoting me): http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=perspective
Thanks for all the replies and opinionated enthusiasm.
It was good to read the link above as it was exactly what happened on site. I did take a few images from a different location (even though only slightly away from the original position) and the images were unusable because of the changed perspective.
The images taken from the original location (but with different lenses) only needed cropping (based upon the ratio of the focal lengths) and they fitted near perfectly.

You’re welcome. Glad to hear that at least some people understand the relationship between camera position and focal length! 😉


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
A
Anon
Feb 27, 2008
I agree with Sir F Rein – a different focal length will result in a different spatial relationships within the image, even if the camera position is exactly the same. A longer focal length means the film (or CCD) is optically farther away from the scene.

Visually, the differences in spatial relationship may not be immediately apparent since objects appear to be relatively positioned the same ("the tree is still in front of the second mountain ridge"). But scaling the image to fit the original focal length image will reveal the slight size differences. Scaled to fit the periphery, the center objects will be a slightly different size. Much more obvious, scaling it to match the center exactly, the outer objects will be a different size. The spatial relationships are different from center to periphery when comparing images of different focal lengths. These effects are much more pronounced when looking at images containing foreground objects. When I use a wide angle lens this is even more pronounced by barrel distortion.

However since it will be used in a panarama, the spatial differences will be of little consequence. I see the OP has found the difference negligible.

And since its being discussed here, it can always be corrected in Photoshop! With thanks to all who help out,
Scott

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message
(Johan W. Elzenga) found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Your original statement was:
"Differing focal lengths will alter the visual relationship between objects not to mention barrel and other lens distortions".
The second part (about distortions) is true, the first part is wrong. Different focal lengths do *not* alter the visual relationship between objects. Only different camera positions do.
Then we’re in agreement, different focal lengtrhs -=do=- change visual relationships! "The second part (about distortions) is true," if one image has distortion or other focal length cause alteration, then the relationship
of an object from one image to another has changed!

The point, no matter how much you snip to minimize your misunderstanding,
is:

FOCAL LENGTH DOES MATTER!

It matters, but not for the relationship between objects (i.e. the perspective) in the image. And shouting doesn’t change that either.

Thwacking a mule with a 2×4 does cause his attention to focus.
Unfortunately, you’re still single minded that only ‘perspective’ is a relationship between object in images. Had I meant only size, I would have said "Size", had I meant only perspective’ I would have so said!
Once you cure that lingering problem, remove the blinders, cease reading in
your biases, then perhaps you may, someday, accept that -=generalized=- statements should be called into question whenever they are -=wrong=-!

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections