Earth Curvature? Or Lens Effect?

[Turnerea]

I stitched together this photo for fun... found out that of course its a bit complicated to do that as waves are crashing in, but I think it looks *relatively* seamless. I'm sure you can see where the waves just don't look right though.

Main question- you think the curvature of the ocean here is due to the actual shape- ie the curvature of the earth, or just an effect from my lens? I figure it couldn't be the lens, because why would it be over multiple exposures (there are 16) like this? But I'd also be surprised if it was the earth... thoughts?

 

[ANDS!]

What lens did you use? Also, a "straight" pano is not going to get you a straight line. When you "pan" you are panning on a curve. If you wanted no curve, you would have to have the camera on a rail and move it along the X-axis only.

 

[Turnerea]

Yeah, sorry should have given more info.

50mm 1.8
f/7.1; 1/5s; ISO100

I have a balljoint tripod, but instead of releasing it each time I just rotated the legs carefully in the hard sand on the beach. Certainly not the best technique, but it was adequate- I don't think that was responsible for the curve... any error introduced in my technique shouldn't produce a smooth curve...at least how I'm thinking about it.

 

[OldClicker]

What lens did you use? Also, a "straight" pano is not going to get you a straight line. When you "pan" you are panning on a curve. If you wanted no curve, you would have to have the camera on a rail and move it along the X-axis only.

Why would a pan be a curve? - TF

 

[reg]

Why would a pan be a curve? - TF

Have you ever use a pan head? It goes in a circle.

 

[AlexColeman]

The lens, you have to walk a line, not rotate. You can see a more pronounced effect here

You walk like ----------
U>
For a straight pano.

 

[reg]

The lens, you have to walk a line, not rotate. You can see a more pronounced effect here


You walk like ----------
U>
For a straight pano.

No, you rotate around the nodal point of the lens.

 

[OldClicker]

I think it has more to do with the relative distance from you to the water's edge and from the water's edge to the horizon. If you are lining up your 'stitches' with the waters edge, the horizon will appear curved. - TF

 

[AlexColeman]

I apologize, I must be mistaken, however I just tried it, and it gave me a straight pano line. What are you talking about?

 

[reg]

I apologize, I must be mistaken, however I just tried it, and it gave me a straight pano line. What are you talking about?

If you're not doing it with a special tripod head, you rotate your body around the front of the lens, instead of just rotating your body while holding the camera. I'll try to find a pic of this technique.

 

[AlexColeman]

Ok.

 

[ANDS!]

At 50MM, it aint the lens.

 

[OldClicker]

What lens did you use? Also, a "straight" pano is not going to get you a straight line. When you "pan" you are panning on a curve. If you wanted no curve, you would have to have the camera on a rail and move it along the X-axis only.

Have you ever use a pan head? It goes in a circle.

But a flat circle relative to the horizon, assuming it is level. - TF

 

[reg]

But a flat circle relative to the horizon, assuming it is level. - TF

And that flat circle creates parallax error.

Here's what I'm talking about, rotating around the nodal point:

 

[Turnerea]

I think it has more to do with the relative distance from you to the water's edge and from the water's edge to the horizon. If you are lining up your 'stitches' with the waters edge, the horizon will appear curved. - TF

I lined up mainly with the horizon line, but the rocks lined up well in addition to the horizon. I think I get the effect of the different relative distances making the horizon into an arc...

Also looking forward to seeing pictures of the techniques discussed above.