[rbucz]

Szczerze mówiąc, nie widzę sensu używania tej funkcji. Ot, taki "bajer".

[m8o]

When you decide to take multiple photographs of buildings/cityscapes that you want to stitch together, and you do not want to spend tedious and time-consuming effort figuring out the exact angle of rotation to manually rotate the images to make vertical lines vertical, and/or want the vertical lines to all be parallel in the photograph rather than converging or diverging .... you will understand the point.

[nanok]

m8o: when you discover hugin (and others), and how you don't have to manually stitch these days, you might understand his point as well

[Rick Clark]

I just put a four foot level on my six foot table in which I leveled to zero and placed me K5 on it and it reads level, I think my camera was made on a Wednesday as I have found nothing wrong to this point.


Edit: I did it again and set the camera on the level and moved it up and down until the level was spot on and my camera is off. I have to lift the left side up and the #one bar goes to green. Oh well I don't think it will matter much to me and the way I use the K5.

---

Last edited by Rick Clark; 11-30-2010 at 09:29 AM.

[bobmaxja]

Mine is level too . I have a digital level and the two show the same

[falconeye]

99.9% of the vertical lines are perpendicular to the Earth's surface.

I haven't decided if the fruits of my labor last night are successful yet, or if they'll make for a nice pano. I'll get back to ya'all.

I believe your 3° misalignment. But for the rest:

1. Vertical lines are not all perpendicular to the Earth's surface in a photograph, at least not if it has any amount of pitch.

you do not want to spend tedious and time-consuming effort figuring out the exact angle of rotation to manually rotate the images to make vertical lines vertical

2. That's untrue too. After stitching a pano (using the rotated images), you can control and globally adjust the images' roll angle. Enter 3° and you're all set. For 360° panos, this will normally happen automatically but sometimes it doesn't and you don't get a straight horizon. Once you figured that out, you'll care about tripod head be level but not about image roll anymore that much. I use and recommend Autopano Pro.

In order to control the camera level, you can photograph a cord hanging from the ceiling with a weight attached, from two angles and with both levels green and camera set to autolevel. This is the most precise measurement possible, besides the ocean's horizon.

[m8o]

I believe your 3° misalignment. But for the rest:
1. Vertical lines are not all perpendicular to the Earth's surface in a photograph, at least not if it has any amount of pitch.

Well I did say also that I wanted all the vertical lines to be parallel too, no? I guess that's my obtuse way of saying when I shoot the panos that I tend to shoot, I try to limit all pitch if I'm doing one sweep. Forgive me not spelling it out; I tend to do that alot, thinking people will pick-up on the things I leave unsaid for brevity. If I do two sweeps, yes, can't get away from having some pitch, but the amount is so slight and subjects so far away, it's not affecting the outcome. But otherwise no, I have learned to try to have no pitch ... So I'd appreciate a properly operating level.

If it hasn't been seen by all participating, here are the fruits of that labor regarding what I'm talking about (a 20 image stitch). (from my ISO80 light-fill thread)

2. That's untrue too. After stitching a pano (using the rotated images), you can control and globally adjust the images' roll angle. Enter 3° and you're all set. For 360° panos, this will normally happen automatically but sometimes it doesn't and you don't get a straight horizon. Once you figured that out, you'll care about tripod head be level but not about image roll anymore that much. I use and recommend Autopano Pro.

Well "that's untrue" can only be so if one uses a program that provides that feature; I.e it assumes I'm going to change the manner I do something. The free Microsoft I.C.E. does not; it can rotate the whole at a significant loss of pixels to crop back to a rectangle since the image then becomes a parallelogram, but it can't rotate each image individually. Importing a series of 2 or 20 tilted photos makes for a twisted pano you can just never get right. Changing the way i'm doing it may turn out to be so tomorrow or months or years down the line. But for now, how I "do it", being perfectly level gives fantastic results with the least amount of lost time & effort in post.

Thanx for the attention and info. I appreciate it, mostly in a sense that I should move on from MS I.C.E. But I don't think as much of what I said was as "untrue" as you say it is, given what I do and how I do it. If I were to change what I do and how I do it, it may supplement the process and negate the need to be the level; but it would not negate [make untrue] what I said when performing the actions I do now in the manner I do now, and and how it's beneficial of having the properly functioning level.

---

Last edited by m8o; 11-29-2010 at 06:11 PM.

[falconeye]

Forgive me not spelling it out; I tend to do that alot, thinking people will pick-up on the things I leave unsaid for brevity.

You're forgiven if you forgive me the "untrue" brevity for meaning "Your Mileage May Vary"

I didn't understand you do this because actually, I do pitch my camera in many one sweep panos. Seldom I want the horizon to sit in the middle or to crop what already is a narrow format. And a pano software worth it's name allows to set the eye-point within the stitched panorama which automatically turns all verticals parallel. Moreover, it makes free-hand panos feasible.

Thanx for the attention and info. I appreciate it, mostly in a sense that I should move on from MS I.C.E. But I don't think as much of what I said was as "untrue" as you say it is

I apologize. I only wanted to say that levelled images are not generally required when stitching a pano. It sounded you thought they were.
Nice blue hour NYC pano btw, I really like it

[m8o]

I should mention in this thread that B&H rocks. Between this issue, and the blotch on my sensor that I wasn't going to touch being a brand new device, and they wouldn't clean as they don't do cleanings there, they took a new body-only package out of stock and swapped bodies with me. No need for me to have the original box and packaging et al. with me (would have required a 5 hour round trip as I'm staying in my NYC place for 2 weeks, and the camera box and packaging remained on LI). Fantastic!

[m8o]

As a follow-up, my wife just confirmed something to me I'd been thinking myself, in unsolicited fashion. That this camera's shutter sound is louder than the previous body's sound. My dog that hates the camera wasn't very bothered by that one but is more bothered by this one too. I'll have to reserve the results of the continuous fps test until tomorrow in good light. edit: Oops, strike the last part. I just realized I'm back to the V1.00 firmware in this new body. Will have to upgrade that again.

[m8o]

I just put a four foot level on my six foot table in which I leveled to zero and placed me K5 on it and it reads level, I think my camera was made on a Wednesday as I have found nothing wrong to this point.

Edit: I did it again and set the camera on the level and moved it up and down until the level was spot on and my camera is off. I have to lift the left side up and the #one bar goes to green. Oh well I don't think it will matter much to me and the way I use the K5.

thanx for the re-visit Rick. I remembered this morning that I wanted to ask you if you took a photo after doing what you described found the outputted image to be level. But I see now you continued on and updated the post thus answered my question already.