Shallow DOF Super Wide Mosaic experiment (270kB)

Jonas B · 07-14-2007, 05:13 PM

(I have posted this earlier at DPR - it may be of some interest to some here as well)

Background: From time to time I get seduced by great wide, or extreme wide, angle pictures. They often look great but they can also be kinda stereotypes, they are all scenery shots, or they are close and up to flowers, or they... well, you know. Another thing is that sometimes the bokeh is bad or half bad, or that everything is sharp.

Inspiration: I got some inspiration from another forum where a guy showed a couple of pictures of his car. He used a pano technique to get shallow DOF.

Sculpture Park: At a place 80 km north of where I live they have setup an open air sculpture exhibition. Some of these sculptures are really great work. I liked several of them. A black one is placed in a way that gave me severe problems getting a decent picture. As it is of some volume I decided to try to make a mosaic.

Zenitar?: The super wides angle lenses that are available for us pentax people are the Peleng 8mm FE, the Zenitar 16mm FE, the SMCP DA10-17 FE, DA12-24 and DA14. Then there are a few more older lenses as well. The Zenitar is reasonably good, cheap and wide.

Here is the black sculpture:

K10D, Zenitar16/2.8FE at f/2.8

As you can see we do not get much of blur in the background. The sculpture never really gets isolated from the environment. This can be good or bad. The whole sculpture also doesn't fit. Even with the Zenitar it was impossible to back up to get the whole thing.

Super Shallow DOF Mosaic: Time to try the pano technique! Picture in the next post.

[size=1]

Jonas B · 07-14-2007, 05:15 PM

In the first post you saw the Zenitar picture. Here is a version taken with a longer focal length, my first attempt to make a Shallow DOF Mosaic:

K10D, Sigma 30/1.4 EX at f/2, 35 pictures stitched

The background is now nice and soft, the Sigma = good bokeh.

If this is better or the same or nothing to care about will vary from person to person but also from situation to situation. I have found that the subject need to be large. A car is OK (if you take pictures of cars that is

), this sculpture is a tad small but it works.

There is a white sculpture in the background. It looks like this with this technique:

K10D, Sigma 30/1.4 EX at f/2

The picture of the white sculpture suffers from boring composition. I wanted the "hand" to be there but the overall result is nothing compared to slowly walk around it.

In the next post another picture, the place revisited...

Jonas B · 07-14-2007, 05:17 PM

The version...

From the post above

...is Ok but I wanted something more extreme. So, I revisited the place, brought my tripod, panohead, umbrella, rubber boots, light meter, a couple of sandwiches, the K10D and an SMC Tak 50/1.4.

I placed myself a bit closer to the sculpture, loaded the camera with a fresh memory card and fired away. Here is the result:

K10D, SMC Takumar 50/1.4 at f/2, 97 pictures stitched

The version above is a quick and dirty version. That is, as quick a 97 picture mosaic can be. You can see some parallax errors. Stupid me! I first took the Zenitar picture you saw in the first post. It started to rain and when fiddling around with everything I forgot to adjust the horizontel axis of the pano head for the Takumar. The Zenitar and the Tak have their entrance pupil differing 11mmm and that was enough to make some problems for the stitching software.

Now that doesn't matter very much. The result isn't any good anyway. Unfortunately the bokeh of the SMC 50/1.4 isn't nearly as nice as the background bokeh from the Sigma. I had a nice trip and a fun experiment anyway.

You can go back to the first post and compare the background to the Zenitar. Normally I don't use the Zenitar at f/2.8. here i did so to be able to look at the DOF differences. Here I wanted minimum DOF to isolate the subject from the background - something extreme wides aren't any good at.

Over at DPR Ron (distudio) suggested another projection method. All pictures above (except of the Zenitar one which is uncorrected) are shown with equirectlinear projection using PTGui. Rob suggested a Transverse Mercator projection instead.

First a common rectilinear version.

Same picture as above but unfixed, rectilinear projection

Rob grabbed the rectilinear version above and posted a Transverse... something version. it came out like this:

[img]thanks to Rob[/img]

Well, I don't know... to be continued

Jonas B · 07-14-2007, 05:18 PM

Preliminary Conclusions:

* This method works fine
- if you want an extreme WA with shallow DOF
- if you have the time and memory cards
- if the subject is suitable in size, or
- if there is no choice

Good things about it: Cool pictures, nice bokeh,

Drawbacks: It takes a panohead and a photographer adjusting the nodal point correctly

, you also need some capable stitching software and patience placing some control points in the blurred areas. And time.

100% crop

fwiw, any comments are welcome,

carpents · 07-14-2007, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jonas B

Preliminary Conclusions:

* This method works fine
- if you want an extreme WA with shallow DOF
- if you have the time and memory cards
- if the subject is suitable in size, or
- if there is no choice

Good things about it: Cool pictures, nice bokeh,

Drawbacks: It takes a panohead and a photographer adjusting the nodal point correctly , you also need some capable stitching software and patience placing some control points in the blurred areas. And time.

...

fwiw, any comments are welcome,

I became enamored with the ultra-wide stitching back when LanceB and Brett St. Pierre showed side-by-side panos, one with the 31/1.8 Limited and the other with the 20/2.8. The 31/1.8 took many more shots, of course, but it outresolved the 20/2.8 by a good margin. The difference was startling, really. With digital stitching so (relatively) easy, why not put on a longer/better corrected lens and just stitch?

This is just another application, and I think well done.

I think that, in effect, you are doing the same thing as the 31/1.8 vs. 20/2.8 pano experiment did; namely, you are getting a shot that mimics a shallow aperture shot but with much more definition in the detailed areas. You're also getting more of a close-to-far perspective than if you had just walked 20 steps back with the SMC Tak and taken one shot.

I, however, have neither the pano head nor the patience for a 97-image stitch. So, I can't say that I would ever do it, but it certainly has me thinking.

--Sean

P.S. - That Sigma 30/1.4 looks pretty sweet, too. Damn, I don't need another lens...really.

Jonas B · 07-14-2007, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by carpents

-snip-
I think that, in effect, you are doing the same thing as the 31/1.8 vs. 20/2.8 pano experiment did; namely, you are getting a shot that mimics a shallow aperture shot but with much more definition in the detailed areas. You're also getting more of a close-to-far perspective than if you had just walked 20 steps back with the SMC Tak and taken one shot.

I, however, have neither the pano head nor the patience for a 97-image stitch. So, I can't say that I would ever do it, but it certainly has me thinking.

A 97 image stitch is a bit much. But it is what it takes if you want to take a picture with something equivalent to a 8mm f/0.35 lens. I'm not 100% sure about the math here as the pictures are in the equirectilinear projection. I know the horizontel FOV is about 160 degrees.

The first sample (Sigma, 35 pictures stitched) may be around 10mm f/1.0 or so.

With the subject up close it gets pretty wild.

Thank you for looking and commenting,

EDIT:

PS: But you have the patience to run a full flanged 50mm world cup?! And yes, the Sigma is cool. And, I received a Zuiko 55/1.2 in the mail the day before yesterday. Rumoured to have very good bokeh. We shall se about that.

PDL · 07-15-2007, 01:42 PM

Very interesting both subject wise and technically. I would try it, but I really hate to PP for so long. As for the subject material - I thought your comments about the background are correct - so here is my thought.

How about going back out there in the winter after a snowstorm --- to capture that many images while freezing your (fill in your favorite euphemism) off. It would be a daunting task - but the contrast between the subject and fresh snow would be interesting.

Nice Work - By the way I just read in the news paper that John Szarkowski (shar-KOFF-ski) passed away - he was the director of the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and championed the work of Weston, Adams, Arbus, Friedlander, Winogrand, Eggleston, Evans, Kertesz and others. He did not like digital manipulations - but that was just his issue. My point is - here is a quote from 2000 that came to mind when I looked at your image - sort of sums up photography for me.

"The truth is that anybody can make a photograph. The trouble is not that photographs are hard to make. The trouble is that they are hard to make intelligent and interesting” John Szarkowski 2000

You have made an intelligent and interesting image - one that begs to be explored further.

PDL - sorry to get off track here.

carpents · 07-15-2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Jonas B

PS: But you have the patience to run a full flanged 50mm world cup?! And yes, the Sigma is cool. And, I received a Zuiko 55/1.2 in the mail the day before yesterday. Rumoured to have very good bokeh. We shall se about that.

LOL, I just noticed this.

And - yeah - I could never run a series of tests like Klaus does at photozone, though. Horses for courses (as you Euros say).

I do believe that you have/had one amazing collection of camera equipment - I'm sure the list would be breathtaking. I'd love to pick through some of your scraps!

Jonas B · 07-15-2007, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by PDL

Very interesting both subject wise and technically. I would try it, but I really hate to PP for so long. As for the subject material - I thought your comments about the background are correct - so here is my thought.

How about going back out there in the winter after a snowstorm --- to capture that many images while freezing your (fill in your favorite euphemism) off. It would be a daunting task - but the contrast between the subject and fresh snow would be interesting.

Nice Work - By the way I just read in the news paper that John Szarkowski (shar-KOFF-ski) passed away - he was the director of the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and championed the work of Weston, Adams, Arbus, Friedlander, Winogrand, Eggleston, Evans, Kertesz and others. He did not like digital manipulations - but that was just his issue. My point is - here is a quote from 2000 that came to mind when I looked at your image - sort of sums up photography for me.

"The truth is that anybody can make a photograph. The trouble is not that photographs are hard to make. The trouble is that they are hard to make intelligent and interesting” John Szarkowski 2000

You have made an intelligent and interesting image - one that begs to be explored further.

PDL - sorry to get off track here.

When it come to keepers my ratio is about a handful a year. It takes some time to stitch 35, or 97, pictures, but with my keeper ratio it doesn't matter really. There is always things to learn during the process as well.

You didn't get that much off track, and as you did it in such a nicely manner I don't mind. Thank you for looking and taking your time commenting.

Jonas B · 07-15-2007, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by carpents

-snip-
I do believe that you have/had one amazing collection of camera equipment - I'm sure the list would be breathtaking.

"had" is the key word here Sean. I can't possibly afford to keep all the stuff I buy and try. By having some patience when looking for stuff and then sell something else I try to keep the expenses down to a decent level.

When learning new equipment i sometimes get ideas about how it can come to use, sometimes even in ways I haven't tried before. I checked a boring focus chart picture from the Sigma:

At first sight I was disapointed by the foreground bokeh. Then it reminded me about an older similar picture:

Here we see how the bokeh is better in the foreground, but not in the background. So, how much we ever love some old SMC Takumars they aren't the best for everything.

Thinking of your flower shots I can give you this one in return (yes, it happens but very very seldom):

regards,

*LeoTaylor* · 07-16-2007, 11:11 AM

Ninety plus frames, expensive lenses, this interesting thread is way over my level. I do believe more people should try mosaics. As an astrophotographer I often use them since with telescopes your field of view is not very flexible.

I use 2-4 frame mosaics for daytime use, often when I lack the right lens for the job. When my wife and I went for a photo walk through the Yale University campus I only brought my DA 50-200 kit lens. Many buildings would not fit at the distance I could stand, so I'd take a two shots and stitch them together with Panorama Maker 3. This simple program came free with a Nikon camera and handles all the common problems (brightness, curvature, scaling, rotation) often without user intervention.

Two shot mosaic taken with K100D, joined with Panorama Maker, tweaked with PSP-10: