moto
Posts: 26
Location: Atlanta, United States
Registered: 24 Apr 2008
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 11:40 GMT
|
|
|
how can you say the theory is irrelevant if you are using settings derived from the application of the theory? if you simply did as many uneducated photographers do, and simply close the aperture all the way and set focus ring at infinity, your results would not be as good.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
DorinDXN
Posts: 3086
Location: Timisoara, Romania
Registered: 14 Nov 2006
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 12:06 GMT
updated: 10 Jul 2012 at 12:11 GMT
|
|
Hi Dennis, please take it as an optional new step to make your panos even better.
To have a DOF calculator with hyperfocal distance really handy, for those who have an android phone here is a link
tinyurl.com/DOF-Android
However keep in mind that these DOF caculators aren't made with fish eye lenses in mind, but gives you a good starting point to fine tunne your settings.
Also keep an eye or both on Hans's excellent work about focus planes posted in these forums, maybe he is kind to post again the related stuff.
cheers,
Dorin
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
DenisSS
Posts: 1307
Location: Nigeria
Registered: 2 Sep 2010
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 13:23 GMT
|
|
I do think this is getting a little hot under the collar. Denis made what I found to be an interesting starting point for discourse and, if nothing else, it got me thinking about the whole jpg compression issue. Although not directly relevant, it was a good way for me to order my own thoughts; hence, my diatribe. Others have made equally sensible observations.
I think Mr Moto (couldn't resist that one, although ee cummings might be a more deserved epithet) is now trying to be confrontational, so it might be worth quoting the old adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have not always agreed with Denis on a number of issues, but nevertheless, he has been delighting us with his panoramas and providing expert help for many years and for that I am grateful. Denis has never made claims to be an expert and in many cases, he is unnecessarily self-critical. What he does have, and this is something I would like to see from Mr Moto to prove that he is not a book-taught photographer, is a wealth of visual evidence which shows he knows what he is talking about.
Panorama photography is not an exact science, and there are so many variables in equipment, workflow and software that the only real proof of a panorama photographer's worth is in the images s/he produces. When someone adds what I am sure many will find a useful tip, it is not for the likes of others to jump down his throat in an abrupt and seemingly aggressive manner. It is that sort of thing that will ensure that these useful snippets of information will be withheld from us in the future.
For the majority, that would be a shame.
Jon
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Birder
Posts: 73
Location: Boston, United Kingdom
Registered: 1 Apr 2012
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 14:05 GMT
|
|
moto said: how can you say the theory is irrelevant if you are using settings derived from the application of the theory?
What i was saying was that IMHO with a Samyang 8mm Fisheye the range is so great that its almost impossible to get it wrong, and if that makes me an uneducated photographer, so be it.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Birder
Posts: 73
Location: Boston, United Kingdom
Registered: 1 Apr 2012
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 14:11 GMT
|
|
Tactus 360 said: I do think this is getting a little hot under the collar. Denis made what I found to be an interesting starting point
I think Mr Moto is now trying to be confrontational, so it might be worth quoting the old adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
When someone adds what I am sure many will find a useful tip, it is not for the likes of others to jump down his throat in an abrupt and seemingly aggressive manner. It is that sort of thing that will ensure that these useful snippets of information will be withheld from us in the future.
For the majority, that would be a shame.
Jon
+1
and maybe it would be best for me to say no more until I see a Moto Pano
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
DennisS
Posts: 1623
Location: Los Anglels, United States
Registered: 1 Sep 2007
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 14:46 GMT
|
|
In case nobody picked up on it, my last post was meant to be as sarcastic as possible. If you have followed my posts and know my sense of humor, you would know that there is no way I am going to let some self-proclaimed book worm come out of nowhere and tell me that my test is invalid and useless. Especially when that person has yet to produce a single photograph showing a real world example. Although I totally disagree with a lot of what another senior member (real name withheld) here puts forth as the only way to do things, at least he puts up real world examples of how to apply theory.
No chart is going to give me the correct settings for my Sigma 8mm lens mounted on an NEX-7 adapter. The adapter Smooth and I use puts the lens about .030" out of the correct “flange back” position. There needs to be a quick and reliable way to find the proper focus setting. Using a combination of my test and "focus peeking", I came up with .4mm @ f5.6. Try to find that on any chart.
John, Thanks for the explanation. I always respect anything you post. You are always the voice of reason. My point was that one does not need to know how to explain the theory behind pano work as long as they can produce results. Knowing the theory is nice, but not a requirement. We all can always learn something new and expand our knowledgebase.
When someone pops up and tells me that I am flat out wrong and what I am doing is useless and invalid, well, that is another story. Especially when that person sits in a chair dictating what is correct without doing the work of posting actual pictures.
It is that sort of thing that will ensure that these useful snippets of information will be withheld from us in the future. I will always freely share what I have found to work. If my info helps at least one person produce a better pano, then my efforts are worth it.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Birder
Posts: 73
Location: Boston, United Kingdom
Registered: 1 Apr 2012
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 15:42 GMT
|
|
DennisS said: If my info helps at least one person produce a better pano, then my efforts are worth it.
Well, in that case put me down as the one.
anyway, you sacastic, no way... 
Thanks again
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
DennisS
Posts: 1623
Location: Los Anglels, United States
Registered: 1 Sep 2007
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 20:48 GMT
|
|
I came up with .4mm @ f5.6. Make that .4m. Damn that metric conversion. I just can't get it right.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
burake
Posts: 286
Location: Antalya, Turkey
Registered: 7 Jun 2012
|
Re: .jpg compression, focus and f stop side by side comparisons
Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 13:22 GMT
|
|
John Houghton said: DennisS said: Either I do not know what banding in the sky is or I don't see any.
This is what banding in the sky looks like:
tinyurl.com/ccw2hou
These two actual size image crops show the result of a applying exactly the same set of adjustments to a 16-bit image (left) and a jpeg version of the same image (right). The image adjustments were a couple of curves adjustments and a hue adjustment. The loss of quality shows up most clearly in bland areas like blue sky. The two images started out looking very little different.
John
This was very interesting for me...Thanks for sharing John...
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
back to threads list |
this thread is closed
prev
