Any math junkies out there?

[dEARlEADER]

Just out of couriosity... would you show us your shots?

sure..... soon as I have something decent i will share with the forum...

 

[dEARlEADER]

Can anybody else picture the obvious parallax error here? This is the opposite extreme to getting a panoramic tripod head.

What does this mean?

 

[frfefarfearz]

wow! real cool problem you got there.. takes a lot of math and physics.. im a self proclaimed math-physics junkie here, but for that problem, i still have to sit on it, pull up my resources and think..since its an application on what i've learned in univ..

i guess someone had solved the proble though.. am i right?..

 

[Senor Hound]

Can anybody else picture the obvious parallax error here? This is the opposite extreme to getting a panoramic tripod head.

I admit I'm unsure of what you're talking about absolutely, but there shouldn't be any error if the photos he is taking are 2-dimensional i.e. a building or something of that sort.

What I think he's saying is that if you take a photo of something in front of your background, the next photo (since your point of view has changed) will make it look like its standing in front of something entirely different. So you will not get a clean transition from one photo to another if your subject is very three dimensional. If this is an issue, a better idea would be to shoot the whole scene from one point (tripod), and then correct the change in distance from the ends to the center with a lens correction tool like Photoshop has.


But I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the last time.

 

[Garbz]

It's almost impossible to get just background. Nothing is 2D in my experience. You can get away with it in many instances with a tripod, you can eliminate it with a pano head, but if you're driving along a tree or a bush or something will just lead to massive parallax wouldn't it?

 

[Gopherkid]

Yeah, thats what I was saying with trying to keep the forground out of the pic. But now that I think about it the background will look messed up too. Hey, this would prob would work great if you wanted to get a picture of a wall right???

 

[BoblyBill]

Garbz is absolutely correct... In the pictures I took for excample the clouds in the background stayed in the same spot (which I was expecting obviously) but the foreground was going by really quickly. On top of that, buildings rotate (in a way) so you could blend the fronts of the building but when you got to the side of them they would be changing perspective... Interesting study though.

 

[dEARlEADER]

my intention is an artistic composition... I'm not looking for a tack sharp panorama....

I have two subjects in mind

this first is a lagoon with standing dead wood... the front line of dead wood starts about 100ft from the road... i'm looking to capture the reflection of the setting sun off the swamp water.... there is nothing between the road and the tree's except the water... some blurring is desirable....


the second is to see how this works shooting the main street of my small town... all of the main street buildings are attached.. so there is no change in perspective... I am hoping to capture the some exagerated blurring of people walking (as they will be closer) and still retain some character of the building backdrop... there will be no skyline in this shot...

for this i will need different math because the backdrop is closer and i can't drive as fast on main street... additionally i haven't selected a desirable focal distance for this shot...

your replies have helped because it's hard enough just getting the shutter speed to the desirable level.... the ambient lighting is a factor if you are locking the shutter speed...

 

[BoblyBill]

Hopefully this will help. I did this yesterday. I was shooting 3fps, 70mph, at 17mm (27.2 with crop factor), and about 45ft (two lanes of traffic and shoulder). Notice that the cloud really doesn't change, and the sign moves some (and rotates) but what the focus point is the concrete barier and the shadow of the street lamp. These two frames were back to back.

 

[christopher walrath]

4:30, about three miles west of Racine.

 

[cdanddvdpublisher]

It's almost impossible to get just background. Nothing is 2D in my experience. You can get away with it in many instances with a tripod, you can eliminate it with a pano head, but if you're driving along a tree or a bush or something will just lead to massive parallax wouldn't it?

I agree on the nothing is 2D; there's always going to be a variable that you can't control

 

[RyanLilly]

Just to add to what everyone else have said, at near sunset you will have a lot of long shadows, and they to will change position with each shot, the dead wood might appear about right, but when you stitch the frames together, none of the shadows will line up and there will be an obvious seam. It might however, look cool, just not one fluid picture though.

Save yourself a bit of time, before you hop in your car, Get a tripod and tape measure, or one of those wheels on a stick things, and as the others have calculated, snap a photo, walk 20 feet and snap another. Take four or five shots and put 'em together and see if you like the results.


Now that I think about it the dead wood, will probably not look right, If it were all on the same plane, in a row It would be OK but the wood might start at 100ft, but probably extends 40, 50, or 100 ft deeper, and all of those trees deeper than 100, will shift position also. Give it a try and see what comes out.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Just to add to what everyone else have said, at near sunset you will have a lot of long shadows, and they to will change position with each shot, the dead wood might appear about right, but when you stitch the frames together, none of the shadows will line up and there will be an obvious seam. It might however, look cool, just not one fluid picture though.

Save yourself a bit of time, before you hop in your car, Get a tripod and tape measure, or one of those wheels on a stick things, and as the others have calculated, snap a photo, walk 20 feet and snap another. Take four or five shots and put 'em together and see if you like the results.


Now that I think about it the dead wood, will probably not look right, If it were all on the same plane, in a row It would be OK but the wood might start at 100ft, but probably extends 40, 50, or 100 ft deeper, and all of those trees deeper than 100, will shift position also. Give it a try and see what comes out.

well how the hell is it art if i'm out there with a yard stick and chalk?..... i'm not a scientist man.... i'm an artist.... i see the picture so i am the picture.... i am smoking... i am clicking...i am driving.. yes means no.... damn you nerds with your "limits of 2 dimension" theories..... I was hoping the INTENTIONAL CREATIVE BLUR would help with the stitching by creating a smearing effect....

 

[BoblyBill]

damn you nerds with your "limits of 2 dimension" theories..... I was hoping the INTENTIONAL CREATIVE BLUR would help with the stitching by creating a smearing effect....

Then I must have missed something about you asking us math nerds to calculate the numbers for you.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Then I must have missed something about you asking us math nerds to calculate the numbers for you.

lol... you make your calculations and say it can't be done... i'm saying be the calculator... cry with the calculator... dance with the calculator..until she gives us the numbers we need to complete our vision....