I think there should be some awesome pixels for Baldy to peep
Hmmmm, looking at the first few frames from my camera, the first impression is I may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I shot at ISO 400, thinking it would be clean, but we are seeing some noise. Also, I may have overexposed a little, just enough to make some signs bloom.
Last time I shot at f/4.5, ISO 200, 0.8 seconds. This time I went f/5.6, ISO 400, 0.8 seconds... I was just a snitch over-exposed last time in the windows and so I intended to go a little darker this time but failed to do the maths right...
Andy didn't shoot the whole pano, I had the ISO and exposure too high, so back to SF we go. :cry
Last time I shot at f/4.5, ISO 200, 0.8 seconds. This time I went f/5.6, ISO 400, 0.8 seconds... I was just a snitch over-exposed last time in the windows and so I intended to go a little darker this time but failed to do the maths right...
Andy didn't shoot the whole pano, I had the ISO and exposure too high, so back to SF we go. :cry
Baldy,
I have noticed on occasion that exposures of anywhere between 1 sec and 1/15 sec can create the most vibration, even considering mirror lockup and a real beef of a tripod. Anything longer than 1 sec and the vibration to exp length ratio is fine, in other words the vibration is very brief maybe only 1/8 sec long. Therefore if the overall exp is substantially longer then the vibration portion of the exp is insignificant. This means the very worst exposure times for potential camera vibration are closer to 1/8 sec. Since you are at 0.8 sec exposure you may want to lengthen your times to 1.6 sec at 200iso
I have noticed on occasion that exposures of anywhere between 1 sec and 1/15 sec can create the most vibration, even considering mirror lockup and a real beef of a tripod. Anything longer than 1 sec and the vibration to exp length ratio is fine, in other words the vibration is very brief maybe only 1/8 sec long. Therefore if the overall exp is substantially longer then the vibration portion of the exp is insignificant. This means the very worst exposure times for potential camera vibration are closer to 1/8 sec. Since you are at 0.8 sec exposure you may want to lengthen your times to 1.6 sec at 200iso
Fascinating. That could explain a lot. I had the beefier tripod and the shorter exposures, but my shots are not as sharp as Andy's.
Most disheartening for me was the amount of high ISO noise I'm seeing on the shots with the 5D MKII at 400 ISO. Andy's are clean at 100 but some of us used the word awful (Andy thinks we're exaggerating or being too picky) when looking at mine at 400. I don't remember seeing that much noise on my previous shots with the 1Ds MKIII at ISO 400. I'll post examples when I get some time.
I went to bed glowing last night because the conditions were so epic. I've seen maybe 5 days in my life that clear in the Bay Area. It was a really big bummer to open my files this a.m.. The first ones we opened were a little bit overexposed, but we found ones with good exposure and they still weren't 72-inch print worthy.
The disappointment would be easier to take were it not for the fact that we had an epic day and I went to bed thinking we'd nailed it.
Fascinating. That could explain a lot. I had the beefier tripod and the shorter exposures, but my shots are not as sharp as Andy's.
Most disheartening for me was the amount of high ISO noise I'm seeing on the shots with the 5D MKII at 400 ISO. Andy's are clean at 100 but some of us used the word awful (Andy thinks we're exaggerating or being too picky) when looking at mine at 400. I don't remember seeing that much noise on my previous shots with the 1Ds MKIII at ISO 400. I'll post examples when I get some time.
I went to bed glowing last night because the conditions were so epic. I've seen maybe 5 days in my life that clear in the Bay Area. It was a really big bummer to open my files this a.m.. The first ones we opened were a little bit overexposed, but we found ones with good exposure and they still weren't 72-inch print worthy.
The disappointment would be easier to take were it not for the fact that we had an epic day and I went to bed thinking we'd nailed it.
Wow!!! I am so sorry to hear your disappointment Baldy. As a local, I know how rare it is to get such great conditions and not capture what you want. Is it possible that the next time you go, you use two different cameras and different ISO's so this would not happen again. I thought Andy's one exposure was crystal clear. It is too bad that he did not finish all the pano shots. Just a thought of course.
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited December 3, 2008
Here's what my original pixels looked like with ISO 400 400mm f/2.8 lens at 5.6 and 1/3rd second exposure. I didn't adjust exposure here, but did sharpen in LAB lightness channel 100%.
The noise looks to be worse in the reallllly warm colour temp areas that are lit with sodium light. This is pretty common as there is very little blue and green hitting the blue and green pixels on the sensor so you're only really getting a third of the information you would be with a cooler light. if you can isolate the channels you will see the blue is by far the noisiest.
some of the guys I shoot with swear by cooling filters when shooting in these kind of conditions. they soak up some of the light in the red channel so you need longer shutter times but you will get less noise. An 80A is the strongest, will soak up 2 stops of light but will shift your colour temp from 3200 to 5500
I have to say that the noise looks very fixable. The shoot (colors, composition, sharpness etc..) from earlier in the thread was so good I think it would be worth it to run it through ninja or noiseware to clean up the noise. Both programs very versatile and adjustable to your needs.
You could always print it on a smaller printer at full size just to see what you will be able to see on print compared to our overly sharp and bright LCD's.
Good Luck Baldy. I am sure enjoying watching you go through this unique process even if it has been a heck of a struggle for you.clap
So, after two attempts with Baldy, lessons learned:
* @ distance (~ 2 miles to subject!) - there are lots of factors at play
* biggest factors: Atmosphere and glass
* we had clear conditions on both attempts. Two nights ago, I shot with the 300 f/2.8L @ f/8 - RAZOR sharp shots and gorgeous color, contrast, all of it - a beautiful beautiful pano, already stitched it in draft form and it's gorgeous.
* tonight, Baldy shot with the 600L and did two rows, and ended up with what we think is the winner. Reason being, it's 600mm AND two rows, so he's gonna get the desired dpi in the vertical dimension for 72" high printing. Wooop! Lesson: Glass matters.
* tonight, I shot a single row with the 400mm f/5.6L @ f/8 and it failed to achieve the same sharpness that baldy hit. While this is a good lens, it wasn't manly enough for this job.
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited December 5, 2008
The funny thing is I was a little bit pissy tonight because 9 bitter disappointments was getting to me, along with the hazy conditions I was seeing in the sky.
Sam and I pretty much decided to turn around not long after leaving the office, But Andy asked what it would hurt to go take a look at the bay and see. I said, "Okaayyyyy" in that tone of voice which means, "I know who to blame for this waste of time."
As we approached the bridge, I said, "in the 1,000 times I've been here in my life, two nights ago was in the top 5. Tonight is the worst ever. Massive haze fest."
Andy thought it might clear when it got dark, I thought we'd get a good orange sky, but no way did I think it would be clear enough.
I had problems connecting my lens to the tripod and finally gave up just before shooting time. But Sam tried one last time and it connected.
But tonight turned out to be the best of the 10. Amazing.
You can see the improvements from the lower ISO, longer shutter speed, and aperture 2 stops smaller than maximum also. These shots are superb in their sharpness, and when you realize the difficulties shooting over water, they are amazing!
The noise looks to be worse in the reallllly warm colour temp areas that are lit with sodium light. This is pretty common as there is very little blue and green hitting the blue and green pixels on the sensor so you're only really getting a third of the information you would be with a cooler light. if you can isolate the channels you will see the blue is by far the noisiest.
some of the guys I shoot with swear by cooling filters when shooting in these kind of conditions. they soak up some of the light in the red channel so you need longer shutter times but you will get less noise. An 80A is the strongest, will soak up 2 stops of light but will shift your colour temp from 3200 to 5500
That's actually quite fascinating. I remember now I used to do that with daylight films but never considered it for digital. I have to say I'm seeing the same thing with the reds too pronounced and easy to clip, the blues very subdued.
The other thing is lenses don't focus well on red because of the wavelength. Filmmakers hate to film in submarines with the red light.
I'm gonna try this on another night shot I want to do next, from the top of Mt. Tamalpais.
I'm gonna try this on another night shot I want to do next, from the top of Mt. Tamalpais.
Okay but can we stay focused on this one for a while please Get Sam to stitch it so I can process it Then, let's decide how we're actually gonna print this monster
Comments
I shot at ISO 400, thinking it would be clean, but we are seeing some noise. Also, I may have overexposed a little, just enough to make some signs bloom.
Last time I shot at f/4.5, ISO 200, 0.8 seconds. This time I went f/5.6, ISO 400, 0.8 seconds... I was just a snitch over-exposed last time in the windows and so I intended to go a little darker this time but failed to do the maths right...
Andy didn't shoot the whole pano, I had the ISO and exposure too high, so back to SF we go. :cry
I have noticed on occasion that exposures of anywhere between 1 sec and 1/15 sec can create the most vibration, even considering mirror lockup and a real beef of a tripod. Anything longer than 1 sec and the vibration to exp length ratio is fine, in other words the vibration is very brief maybe only 1/8 sec long. Therefore if the overall exp is substantially longer then the vibration portion of the exp is insignificant. This means the very worst exposure times for potential camera vibration are closer to 1/8 sec. Since you are at 0.8 sec exposure you may want to lengthen your times to 1.6 sec at 200iso
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Most disheartening for me was the amount of high ISO noise I'm seeing on the shots with the 5D MKII at 400 ISO. Andy's are clean at 100 but some of us used the word awful (Andy thinks we're exaggerating or being too picky) when looking at mine at 400. I don't remember seeing that much noise on my previous shots with the 1Ds MKIII at ISO 400. I'll post examples when I get some time.
I went to bed glowing last night because the conditions were so epic. I've seen maybe 5 days in my life that clear in the Bay Area. It was a really big bummer to open my files this a.m.. The first ones we opened were a little bit overexposed, but we found ones with good exposure and they still weren't 72-inch print worthy.
The disappointment would be easier to take were it not for the fact that we had an epic day and I went to bed thinking we'd nailed it.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
www.exposed-images.smugmug.com/gallery/6609715_DPUsg#421255777_CPT7N
Pamela
www.exposedimages.net
Wow!!! I am so sorry to hear your disappointment Baldy. As a local, I know how rare it is to get such great conditions and not capture what you want. Is it possible that the next time you go, you use two different cameras and different ISO's so this would not happen again. I thought Andy's one exposure was crystal clear. It is too bad that he did not finish all the pano shots. Just a thought of course.
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
Tell me what you see in this image:
some of the guys I shoot with swear by cooling filters when shooting in these kind of conditions. they soak up some of the light in the red channel so you need longer shutter times but you will get less noise. An 80A is the strongest, will soak up 2 stops of light but will shift your colour temp from 3200 to 5500
there's a little more in this thread.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/596525/0#5237627
This was shot at the end of a pier at the Oakland Ship yards.
zoomed in further to the pier
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
You could always print it on a smaller printer at full size just to see what you will be able to see on print compared to our overly sharp and bright LCD's.
Good Luck Baldy. I am sure enjoying watching you go through this unique process even if it has been a heck of a struggle for you.
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
They say that one can make a 6 foot image from a good 12Mpixel file
A new video describing its new features, looks very nice really. It facilitates tiling and gallery wraps also. That is pretty neat.
I think the noise in your image will not be that noticeable in a print, as opposed to a video monitor too.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
600mm f/8 ISO 100 1.8 seconds. No up or down resing.
What do you think?
Love how the sky is changing color.
* @ distance (~ 2 miles to subject!) - there are lots of factors at play
* biggest factors: Atmosphere and glass
* we had clear conditions on both attempts. Two nights ago, I shot with the 300 f/2.8L @ f/8 - RAZOR sharp shots and gorgeous color, contrast, all of it - a beautiful beautiful pano, already stitched it in draft form and it's gorgeous.
* tonight, Baldy shot with the 600L and did two rows, and ended up with what we think is the winner. Reason being, it's 600mm AND two rows, so he's gonna get the desired dpi in the vertical dimension for 72" high printing. Wooop! Lesson: Glass matters.
* tonight, I shot a single row with the 400mm f/5.6L @ f/8 and it failed to achieve the same sharpness that baldy hit. While this is a good lens, it wasn't manly enough for this job.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Sam and I pretty much decided to turn around not long after leaving the office, But Andy asked what it would hurt to go take a look at the bay and see. I said, "Okaayyyyy" in that tone of voice which means, "I know who to blame for this waste of time."
As we approached the bridge, I said, "in the 1,000 times I've been here in my life, two nights ago was in the top 5. Tonight is the worst ever. Massive haze fest."
Andy thought it might clear when it got dark, I thought we'd get a good orange sky, but no way did I think it would be clear enough.
I had problems connecting my lens to the tripod and finally gave up just before shooting time. But Sam tried one last time and it connected.
But tonight turned out to be the best of the 10. Amazing.
Well done, Baldy!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Now stitch it and post it so we can all drool!
This is looking good
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Seems like I took the bad luck for you as my travel got messed up so I am not going to make it out this weekend...
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
The other thing is lenses don't focus well on red because of the wavelength. Filmmakers hate to film in submarines with the red light.
I'm gonna try this on another night shot I want to do next, from the top of Mt. Tamalpais.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
CS4 just says, "Screw you. I'd rather blow up than stitch your stinkin' pano."
Are you sure AutoPano Pro is ready for 5D MKII RAW files? (... or is that your point?)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums