panorama software,virtual tour software
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-06-22
Send Msg:
Posts: 34
2003-02-01
#1

Coolpix 995 & 4500

I was just wondering what modes/settings do some of you guys use to get good results for a 2-shot fisheye panoramic. I'm getting inconsistent results and can't quite get it right. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-06-12
Send Msg:
Posts: 2239
2003-02-01
#2

Lens menu option  Fisheye 1,  AE LOCK, everything else automatic.  Check your white balance too for the type of lighting you are experiencing = incandescent, flouresent, cloudy, sunny etc.  Or use white balance measure using a white piece of paper.

And if your shooting in low light.. after setting up on the tripod and leveling out on both shots... try using the timer.  Shaky tripod produces fuzzy images when in low light.

Use an inexpensive light meter to cross check the cameras current lighting settings displayed in the LCD.. ie  F5.6 at 125 sec.  If the light meter is corresponding rather well with the camera internal through the lens light metering system.. then you might not need the external meter after your confidence level is firm.

Just a thought on the matter.


/s/
Dave
Forum Moderator for
EasyPano - Panoweaver
Pano2VR


Visit 360texas.com
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-12-31
Send Msg:
Posts: 38
2003-02-01
#3
I have begun to worry more about the white balance, but have a question: do you set the white balance with the fisheye on or off of the camera? I understand that this is done by holding a white piece of paper in front of the camera, right? Would the paper cover enough of the field of view of the camera if the fisheye were on?

Let me know how you do it 360, 'cause your stuff is tops!

BTW - I am using a Nikon 995.

Thanks,

John
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-06-22
Send Msg:
Posts: 34
2003-02-02
#4

Thanks for the tips!

 


Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-06-12
Send Msg:
Posts: 2239
2003-02-02
#5

For a while.. our Nikon 990's were generating images with a slight cool blueish tint, which I was correcting in Photoshop.. by adding a color balance  with a tweak of yellow and and bit of red. 

Then I just reset the camera back to its default settings and the cool blue cleared up.

However, there will be times when your in a field situation where you can't tell what the lighting is in 30' (10m) high ceilings.  Like the Shopping Mall was a mix of glass skylights letting in natural light, and halogen lamps.  So I located a plain white sheet of bond paper, went out in the mall area where the mixed lighting was, placed the white piece of paper of the floor, and using the camera menu [selected lens type to Normal, then selected  item 'White balace' - measure, pointed the "NORMAL lens" [took FE off the camera] down to the white paper and MEASURED the reflective lighting off the white paper. 

So the mixed lighting coming from above the camera was being reflected off the known to be white paper... and the reflective light passed through the camera lens to the ccd recording chip and was measured.... causing the camera now to believe that this new light mix is "WHITE".  All other colors red, blue, yellow are now interpreted accordingly to this new "White" bench mark.

Small discussion on ISO ratings:

For some of us, ISO is the new word for ASA or film speed [read ccd chip] sensitivity. Shooting indoor poorly lighted areas you can boost the ISO sensitivity from  REC  M of default ISO100 to say ISO 200.  After you boost the ISO to 200 then go in and change the Lens Adapter from normal back to Fisheye 1 or 2.  Effectively this allows you to shoot in underlighted areas... with a slightly faster shutter speed. 

For example ISO 100  F5.6 at 1/15th second is the same as ISO 200 F5.6 at 1/30th or slightly faster shutter speed.

The affect of shooting at ISO 200 is you are adding a bit of grain or white noise to the image.  ISO 200 white noise is barely detected even when Photoshop full zoomed in. 

Boosting the ISO to 400 you start to actually see the white noise in Photoshop.  Boosting the ISO 400 to 800 is done by first selecting ISO 400 and the increasing the Exposure Value [EV] to +max.  Sure you can shoot in very poor lighting - and your images will appear very noisy or grainy - maybe a desirable photo "ART FORM" affect. 

And no I don't think you won't hurt the camera.

Hope this helps.


/s/
Dave
Forum Moderator for
EasyPano - Panoweaver
Pano2VR


Visit 360texas.com
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-06-22
Send Msg:
Posts: 34
2003-02-04
#6

Thanks for the info. You should write a book!

Do you have to measure white balance for each direction of the 360-degree pic, meaning twice if doing a 2-shot fisheye? Or will once be enough? Thanks again.

 

 

 


Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-01-16
Send Msg:
Posts: 959
2003-02-12
#7
once should suffice as u should be using ae lock anyhow to ensure equal lighting. the whole point is of checking white balance is to give the camera an idea of the current lighting conditions. If u have a given lightsource causing u some concern make sure that it's on the seam of the images to ensure an equal lighting environment. (If u were to change the settings u'd have unbalanced hemi's.... ain't that pretty...
If I only had an hour to chop down a tree... I'd spend 45 mins sharpening the axe.
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-06-22
Send Msg:
Posts: 34
2003-02-13
#8
What about shutter speed. Should I let the camera decide that or should it be auto?
Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-01-16
Send Msg:
Posts: 959
2003-02-13
#9
I follow Dav's route leaving that on auto and instead upping iso value to say 200 and/or if needed up the exposure values... let the camera do some of the work. Then again u could just try it and c what happens...
It's all a balance of exposure times, lighting and "film"sensitivity... to be fair I'm still working that out myself. Digi-cams work slightly differently then film with it's overall higher end MB ie 35MB for a 35mm camera vs 1MB for my cp990 which I've only been playing with for the past year. (with film there's a good hundred+ years of experience to work from... us digi's r the new kids on the block... teehee or is it the cubic sphere)

Do let me know ur results with varied shutter times...
If I only had an hour to chop down a tree... I'd spend 45 mins sharpening the axe.
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-06-12
Send Msg:
Posts: 2239
2003-02-13
#10

The Kodak book* I use for ready reference says that photography has a 150 year history... but whoes counting.  We have owned several 35mm SLR's over the last 30 years, the last one was a Nikormat.  And we switched to digital in 1987 with a Casio 64k swivel head.  Since then we bought/sold another Casio and a Nikon 950.  Finally resting on a pair of Nikon 990's.  I suspect our next move will be to a digital SLR 12mp when they are perfected.  So digitals have been around for the last 15 years or so.

One thing I have noticed is that the more current digital cameras are really not much different functionally than the previous 35mm SLR's. The 35mm SLR functions are just located in a different place on the digitals.  If you have a well founded knowledge base of general photography, the digital learning curve is a rather easy adaptation.

The best aspect of digital is that you see your results RIGHT NOW. You do not have to pay additional to have your film process by a machine with risky printing results. Nor do you have to buy new film.  But then you already know this, because your here in the forum using digital products.   I just looked at the image sequence number.. and over the last 2 years, and the counter is says 5568 images.  I think we got our money worth in return.  How many rolls of film do you have to buy and process to equal buying a $1,000 prosumer digital camera [prof consumer].  I was talking with a professional photographer the other day, and he has taken some 15,000+ images with his 990.

Sorry to ramble on about small stuff this morning.

Dave

*The Joy of Photography Third edition by the editors of Eastman Kodak Company, page 78

 


/s/
Dave
Forum Moderator for
EasyPano - Panoweaver
Pano2VR


Visit 360texas.com
Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-01-16
Send Msg:
Posts: 959
2003-02-13
#11
I like the fact that u back up ur knowledge with the Kodak book..tee hee
...150 yrs... but who's counting vs my 100+ yrs amounts to the same... I guess...

Digi cameras have been around for 15 yrs... but compared to film... deffenetly a new kid on the block... considering usability and cost and MB and general useage... a wee babe in the woods.
Though I'd agree about having a good foundation of photography being a plus to the learning curve. A bit like having only driven automatic and then driving a shift stick car... Only that it's easier for the total newbie to learn digi due to all the goodies packed in and as u say the instant viewability.

digital SLR is a deff must for digi cams to be on the same par (sports photography/highspeed shots/+ low light problems) as film. Still to expensive... eventhough I took 24342 shots last year (I actually checked my storage disks) of which only a poultry 2134 were published
and all that on my cp990. (Alas I missed many great shots and opportunities with the 990 due to the inherant limitations of present digi tech... well at least that of my 990) I have refrained from touching my slr's as I've wanted to digi only... especially as the film/development costs + time were doing my head in.

Anyhow... i better go now... just felt like being pedantic
If I only had an hour to chop down a tree... I'd spend 45 mins sharpening the axe.