Am I the only one currently on a stitch kick?!?!

[Dominantly]

Just curious if anyone out there is also into panoramic stitches, but not necessarily just the traditional horizontal ones, I'm talking big wide angle, impossible to create with a single lens, faux medium format shots.

If anyone isn't familiar, hopefully this thread can peak a curiosity.

 

[480sparky39 38]

If I was lacking a super-wide and a fish-eye, I'd be doing them more often.

Not sure what 'medium format' has to do with it.

 

[Dominantly]

The resolution you get from a single frame with a wide angle lens, is no where near the resolution you get from a stitch, which is where the medium format comment comes in.

 

[GnipGnop]

Medium format has more to do with simple resolution. It has to do with the medium format "look" that is a result of the focal lengths in combination with the larger sensor size that gives the pictures such a "look" or "feel" to the viewer.

Medium format tends to have a higher dynamic range, and are much more suited to capturing the gentle changes and colours within a frame.

Medium format cameras do not have an anti-aliasing filter as well. This means that the details in the picture are finer and have much more sharpness.

I do have a friend who is about to purchase a Nodal Ninja MK4 (helpful to drastically reduce parallax errors). If you're seriously looking into taking quality panos, I suggest you look into purchasing one.

 

[Dominantly]

That's why I said faux.With stitching you not only get amazing resolution, you also get point of views and dof that are not possible (as far as I know) with any other combination.For example, one of Brenizers shots is an equivalent of 27mm at f/0.44.Its more than simply capturing a wide angle shot, it's about having that thin dof with a story telling wide angle view.In the Fairy Kingdom of Manhattan

 

[jake337]

I need a pano head!!! This joystick manfrotto grip just won't cut it.

 

[480sparky39 38]

That's why I said faux.With stitching you not only get amazing resolution, you also get point of views and dof that are not possible (as far as I know) with any other combination.For example, one of Brenizers shots is an equivalent of 27mm at f/0.44.Its more than simply capturing a wide angle shot, it's about having that thin dof with a story telling wide angle view.In the Fairy Kingdom of Manhattan

Learn me sumpin... how does stitching increase DOF?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

 

[shmne]

I asked the same thing at first, and it doesn't. In fact all of this was extremely confusing until I figured out the technique, which personally I feel should not be named after the author as this is one that has been in use for a very long time.

50mm f/1.2 - a lens most photographers know extremely well. Up close, amazingly sharp DOF that looks beautiful. From a distance however, the DOF is much more lack luster ( as that is how lenses work). Now for you to get the shot desired by this lens (up close, yet the entire scene) you just couldn't.

Instead the author takes multiple shots and stitches them together to keep that super sharp up close DOF, and also get the desired distance from the subject. The entire calculator that says the end image is "27mm @f/.44" is bull, it is creating an equivalence from a panorama -_- at the end of the day it is a stitch. That is just to get an idea of what would be needed however, should you want a lens capable of doing what this technique does.

**Edit**

To add to the conversation however - I feel the author doesn't use this to its full advantage. Working in small environments we used to do this in school to capture large sets where our actors were very close to us and we simply couldn't back up any more. Although we did 2x2 instead of 4x4 patterning (believe he stated he uses 16 shots).

I think this technique really shines when you have an actualy set up shot, instead of just regular people. Then again I also lean towards the more photoshop heavy side of phtoography lol so I can't really comment on that.

 

[Buckster]

Instead the author takes multiple shots and stitches them together to keep that super sharp up close DOF, and also get the desired distance from the subject. The entire calculator that says the end image is "27mm @f/.44" is bull, it is creating an equivalence from a panorama -_- at the end of the day it is a stitch. That is just to get an idea of what would be needed however, should you want a lens capable of doing what this technique does.

And at the end of it all, looking at the final print, the difference between it being ACTUALLY 27mm @ f/.44 or only PERCEPTUALLY 27mm @ f/.44 is - what?

 

[jake337]

That's why I said faux.With stitching you not only get amazing resolution, you also get point of views and dof that are not possible (as far as I know) with any other combination.For example, one of Brenizers shots is an equivalent of 27mm at f/0.44.Its more than simply capturing a wide angle shot, it's about having that thin dof with a story telling wide angle view.In the Fairy Kingdom of Manhattan

Learn me sumpin... how does stitching increase DOF?

I think he means to retain a shallow DOF while have a Wide FOV. Or having more magnification at a wider FOV.

Like trying to recreate a portrait on a 8x10 view camera with a 500mm lens with a small sensor camera.

 

[shmne]

That's why I said faux.With stitching you not only get amazing resolution, you also get point of views and dof that are not possible (as far as I know) with any other combination.For example, one of Brenizers shots is an equivalent of 27mm at f/0.44.Its more than simply capturing a wide angle shot, it's about having that thin dof with a story telling wide angle view.In the Fairy Kingdom of Manhattan

Learn me sumpin... how does stitching increase DOF?

I think he means to retain a shallow DOF while have a Wide FOV. Or having more magnification at a wider FOV.

Like trying to recreate a portrait on a 8x10 view camera with a 500mm lens with a small sensor camera.

Thanks! I was having issues trying to explain it better. This is exactly the case.

 

[shmne]

Instead the author takes multiple shots and stitches them together to keep that super sharp up close DOF, and also get the desired distance from the subject. The entire calculator that says the end image is "27mm @f/.44" is bull, it is creating an equivalence from a panorama -_- at the end of the day it is a stitch. That is just to get an idea of what would be needed however, should you want a lens capable of doing what this technique does.

And at the end of it all, looking at the final print, the difference between it being ACTUALLY 27mm @ f/.44 or only PERCEPTUALLY 27mm @ f/.44 is - what?

What are you trying to say? I'm sorry there are quite a few ways to read this.

 

[jake337]

The Brenizer Method Explained With Directions | San Francisco Bay Area Editorial Story-telling Wedding Photography

 

[Buckster]

Instead the author takes multiple shots and stitches them together to keep that super sharp up close DOF, and also get the desired distance from the subject. The entire calculator that says the end image is "27mm @f/.44" is bull, it is creating an equivalence from a panorama -_- at the end of the day it is a stitch. That is just to get an idea of what would be needed however, should you want a lens capable of doing what this technique does.

And at the end of it all, looking at the final print, the difference between it being ACTUALLY 27mm @ f/.44 or only PERCEPTUALLY 27mm @ f/.44 is - what?

What are you trying to say? I'm sorry there are quite a few ways to read this.

You say it's "bull". I ask, what's the difference?