• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
0

Resolution change when using images made with ultra wide lenses for creating pano with LR

New Here ,
Feb 20, 2017 Feb 20, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

When I use pictures, made with the Voigt 10mm or the 16-35mm at 16mm, I’m confronted with a change in resolution when I use Lightroom or photoshop to create the pano.

The images taken with an A7r2 + wide angle are around 5300 pixels high (for horizontal images).

When I combine them the resulting pano is only around 3500 pixels high, even when I combine only 2 or 3 horizontal images.

Hugin or Autopano Pro seems to do it in the right way.

On the other hand when I combine pictures taken with “normal” to “tele” lenses the resolution doesn’t change that much.

Prefer the Lightroom version because of the resulting dng file and the easy workflow.

Don’t have to convert to tiff and retain the original DR like you mentioned.

Or is there a setting I’ve to change or is this the way LR and PS works ?

Thanks for any suggestions.

Views

1.1K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

LEGEND , Feb 23, 2017 Feb 23, 2017

edwarddebruyn2  wrote

So it's normal that a lot of the original image-info is discarded. If I combine 3 images 10mm ( with ⅔ overlap)  the result has about 30% loss of the original image resolution (5300px to 3700px).

So Hugin is doing a much better job in this regard.

No, that is not what I'm seeing! When using the same Spherical/Equirectangular and Cylindrical projections Hugin and LR produce a panorama image file with about the same image dimensions. Hugin will only produce a panaorama image fi

...

Votes

Translate

Translate
LEGEND ,
Feb 20, 2017 Feb 20, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Upload a couple of these to Dropbox or another site so we can try this ourselves to try and see what is happening

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Feb 20, 2017 Feb 20, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ok, see here two images were the resolution changes from 5300 to 3700 high when combined.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16913829/_DSC8379.ARW

and

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16913829/_DSC8380.ARW

17:38 local time: They are still uploading to my dropbox (slow internet)

Thanks for this quick reaction !!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Feb 20, 2017 Feb 20, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I clicked your links and they go to a 404 link not found page!!!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Feb 20, 2017 Feb 20, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

sorry, will try later to place it again, on the move for the moment...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Feb 20, 2017 Feb 20, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

After you get them uploaded, make sure they are marked as "shared".

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Feb 21, 2017 Feb 21, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

They finally got uploaded....sorry but the uploading here in Tenerife is VERRY SLOW...

Didn't actually expect this.

Made jpegs of them now and they react the same way in Lightroom pano tool.

The lens, Voigt. 10mm as the 16-35mm, is a wide angle and is rectangular. The projection I'm using is the spherical projection.

Tried with the cylindric projection but the pano turns out with an immense sky and shrinked landcape part...

Perspective wont work.

But it's working great and very rapid with images made with 35mm to 200mm and more.

Like also the fact that the produced dng files have the same lightroom adjustments and the pano is still open to make changes afterwords.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Feb 21, 2017 Feb 21, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

These are my results.  The finished results have 100% Boundary Warp applied.    Hopefully someone with more knowledge of this will chime in.  This may or may not be a glitch in the pano program.

Results with exported JPG files are similar  The screen clips of the thumbnails are completed panos showing the dimensions.

Lightroom automatically corrects this lens as you can see below

Screen Shot 2017-02-21 at 10.48.46 AM.png

Spherical

Screen Shot 2017-02-21 at 10.33.18 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-02-21 at 10.43.35 AM.png

Cylindrical

Screen Shot 2017-02-21 at 10.33.06 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-02-21 at 10.43.42 AM.png

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Feb 22, 2017 Feb 22, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Bob, thank you.

But it is a rectangular lens, see https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-10mm-5-6-e-hyper-wide-heliar/

Have the same problem with my Sony FE 16-35mm at 16mm, but with less impact on resolution.

Correction is not activated in the A7r2.

Did the same tests as you with exactly the same results.

And yes have the same problem with the jpegs.

Friendly greetings

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Feb 20, 2017 Feb 20, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

What kind of projection are you using? Sounds like you are using an equirectangular projection which can have this squishing effect in Lightroom's pano stitching I have noticed. In general the pano stitching is very limited in Lightroom and hugin will always work better but of course takes much more time to get set up.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Feb 22, 2017 Feb 22, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Took a look at these and I get the same results as Bob above. I am quite sure that the problem is that this 10mm lens is so incredibly wide that with a equirectangular projection, you get squished in the projection because of the way the equirectangular projection maps the vertical dimension. A 10mm lens on a full frame camera gives 100 degrees vertical and 122 degrees horizontal field of view. In the cylindrical projection the verticals actually get extended. I see the same thing but to a lesser degree (it's not as wide) in images from my 16mm lens on my full frame body when merging portrait orientation images. A 16 mm lens has 100 degrees FOV in the long axis, so the same as your 10 mm on the short axis. I think Adobe is probably being conservative with the render resolution in order to not blow up memory requirement for larger panoramas. This is already a problem. Would be great if you could actually control the resolution it renders in.

Nice image by the way

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Feb 22, 2017 Feb 22, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I agree with Jao vdl that this is just the projection distortion in a 10mm lens   You can see the distortion in this OFFSET overlay in photoshop, especially in the near rocks on the left and right of center.  I'm surprised these even merged. 

Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 10.09.11 AM.png

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Feb 23, 2017 Feb 23, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Bob+Somrak  wrote

I agree with Jao vdl that this is just the projection distortion in a 10mm lens   You can see the distortion in this OFFSET overlay in photoshop, especially in the near rocks on the left and right of center.  I'm surprised these even merged. 

This is called Volume Deformation or simply "elongation." The wider the angle of view the more volume deformation will be present in the image. The overlapping image areas must be "resized" to enable stitching. It appears both LR and Hugin down-size the elongated image areas rather than up-size, which would cause a loss of image detail. I get virtual identical resolution panorama image files using LR and Hugin with Spherical/Equirectangular and Cylindrical projections.

What might be useful is for Adobe to add a Fisheye projection similar to what is available in Hugin. This appears to maintain more of the original image file's vertical resolution as shown below without introducing noticeable distortion:

DSC8379-DSC8380_Hugin Fisheye Projection.jpg

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Feb 23, 2017 Feb 23, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

So it's normal that a lot of the original image-info is discarded. If I combine 3 images 10mm ( with ⅔ overlap)  the result has about 30% loss of the original image resolution (5300px to 3700px).

So Hugin is doing a much better job in this regard.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Feb 23, 2017 Feb 23, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

If you use cylindrical than you get MORE (7302) of vertical although it really distorts the sky

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Feb 23, 2017 Feb 23, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

edwarddebruyn2  wrote

So it's normal that a lot of the original image-info is discarded. If I combine 3 images 10mm ( with ⅔ overlap)  the result has about 30% loss of the original image resolution (5300px to 3700px).

So Hugin is doing a much better job in this regard.

No, that is not what I'm seeing! When using the same Spherical/Equirectangular and Cylindrical projections Hugin and LR produce a panorama image file with about the same image dimensions. Hugin will only produce a panaorama image file that is close to the original file's vertical resolution (5304 px) when set to 'Fisheye' projection. This projection is not available in LR's Merge to Panorama tools, which is why I suggested it might be a useful addition (i.e. new feature suggestion): Photoshop Family Customer Community

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Feb 24, 2017 Feb 24, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

Bob, The Fisheye projection looks good, thanks for the advise !!!

Will have to wait that it will become available in LR, lets hoop it will.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Feb 22, 2017 Feb 22, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

edwarddebruyn2  wrote

When I combine them the resulting pano is only around 3500 pixels high, even when I combine only 2 or 3 horizontal images.

Hugin or Autopano Pro seems to do it in the right way.

I'm no expert with Hugin, but getting very similar results using Spherical in LR and Equiretangular in Hugin.

DSC8379-DSC8380_LRvsHugin.jpg

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Feb 23, 2017 Feb 23, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Jay: I think Adobe is probably being conservative with the render resolution in order to not blow up memory requirement for larger panoramas.

This would be strange that they only do this with a (super) wide angle and leave higher focal lengths untouched, doesn't make sense...but you have a point about the fact that the control of the resolution would be nice.

Bob: I'm surprised these even merged.

1. Actually it's certainly a problem I've to face because I didn't use a panorama head and didn't correct for the entrance pupil.

When I put it on a slider to do the correction the slider is in the image...

Maybe there is some possibility to set it a few cm above the level of the slider. Don't know if such device exists but would be welcome.

Think that 3 to 4cm would be enough.

And so yes find that LR does a great job here. It's actually better since one of the last upgrades because I don't have any vignet problems anymore. Before I had always a problems, certainly when there was little contrast in the sky...

2. Yes 95% of my pictures are merged in the right way. It's only difficult when I've only sea or almost no detail in the foreground

3. Tried with a pupil correction but the resolution change is still present when I use the spherical projection.

Thanks to all for your reactions...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines