Is there an ideal width of scene for a panoramic shot?

[Ezookiel]

For the vast majority of my time playing with photography, I've been "into" panoramic photos.
Only having had P&S's I've always simply created a panoramic shot by using canon photostitch (which I originally got free with a scanner, not with a camera).

Most of the time the results just "work", that is that they seem "natural to the eyes" if you know what I mean, and are pleasant enough to look at. But sometimes they just don't work, they don't have that comfortable feel. I'm kind of suspecting it might be when capturing too wide an expanse, but not really sure. Is there an ideal "width" of scene to a panoramic shot?

[arthurking83]

Short answer: No!



..


Long answer: What makes an easy stitch is a good quality, technically competent capture, where each exposure is comfortably overlapping the previous one and the next one and with minimal distortion in each shot.

It's harder to stitch a a few images taken with a wide angle lens, than it is when more images are captured covering the same FOV with a longer focal length.

It's very common for less experienced people to shoot at the widest focal length to capture the widest perspective possible.
The distortion of the edges of the images cause even the best stitching software problems in patching the series together.

Of course it can be done, and it can still be done quite well .. but it's harder and most likely requires a lot more touching up after the stitch.


If you have a Ultra Wide Angle zoom lens you like to use, try zooming in to a focal length that minises distortion as much as possible.
(I've found that when I've doen them and felt lazy about doing it, with my 10-20 Sigma, approximately 14mm is a good focal length to use as it has basically no distortion to speak of.
But I have to factor in quite a considerable amount of overlap with each image so that the pano software has a good amount of data to calculate an a good stitch.

[Ezookiel]

Thanks for that. That's actually quite good information. I only own an 18-200 so no ultra wides here, and prior to that it was a Fuji S5000, and I hadn't thought to use a greater focal length. I have on many occsions turned the camera to portrait so that the end result had more room for the inevitable cropping that occurs when you stitch images, but hadn't actually thought to not use maximum width. It never mattered with the images from the P&S Fuji, but could well make a difference with the 18-200 on the 60D as there does seem to be more distortion.. I appreciate the info.

However, What I was meaning with the question, was more along the lines of what makes the image have that pleasing feel to the eye.
Is it when the field of view captured is about the same as the eye sees, or can you still get a panorama of say a full 180 view to have that same comfortable feel as your looking at it?
I haven't got access to my photos here to give an example, but there was one image where I had combined all the shots into an image, and it never felt right. Technically I couldn't see anything particularly wrong, it just didn't seem to feel right if you know what I mean. However, while I was playing around, I accidentally redid the stitching without the last shot from the sequence, so now it actually covered less than the whole scene, but now the image just had that "right" feel to it. It seemed more comfortable. I wondered if it was that I'd tried to force way too unnatural a width of scenery into one image that had caused the initial wider image to feel wrong.
Oddly enough though, I've cropped a single frame down to a fake "panorama" style with reasonable degrees of success, where it doesn't feel forced, and the photo kind of "works" even though it was probably actually much less FOV in the image than the eye can normally see. So it kind of made me wonder what causes a panorama to overstep that "pleasing" feel.
I had a hunch it was when you go beyond the FOV of the naked eye, but it's only a kind of a feeling, and may well be wrong. I'm sure some of those Ken Duncan style shots you see cover in one image an expanse that is more than the FOV of the eye. So kind of just asking if there is a known rule to it, or preferred number of degrees of FOV to fit into one image.

[ricktas]

There used to be an old guideline that said to be panoramic the photo had to be 3:1, so three times longer than it was high, etc. Now like most things in photography it was a guide, not a rule, but I find that photos that are around 3:1 are the easiest on the eye

[ameerat42]

When CanonPSTCH works properly as a stitching program it's great. Don't rely on it for everything, though.
Get a couple of other programs as complements. Each has its +s and -s.
I've said this in other posts - but where? - so,
Try Hugin (latest version if you've got Win XP with SP3 or any later OS)

There's also the free Autostitch. Don't get the commercial Autopano.
This will do almost anything, once you learn how, but it doesn't handle well movement of subjects (like people walking) between frames.

I don't use it, but there's also stitching function in Adobe PS.
Am.

PS: Your Q: Whatever looks good and contains a well shot scene. Some can be q-u-i-t-e w-i-i-i-d-e. If that works, then OK.

[arthurking83]

.....

However, What I was meaning with the question, was more along the lines of what makes the image have that pleasing feel to the eye ......

Yeah! sorry .. idiot me.

I initially read the OP and replied as I did ... but then re read the OP and read it differently(as you explained here)!

Doh! .. overworked, overtired, and too late at night with the reply!



I think what works is what you want to work.

I've captured 180°+ panos that I like, in landscape orientation(at 14mm with the Siggy) and I liked the end result.
Can't remember if I've posted the last one.
Basically a 180° widescape with a solitary lonely dead tree amongst desert almost smack bang in the middle.
It's not very tall compared to the width of the image. The ratio ended up as 50:9, as opposed to the standard format 16:9 ratio.

[Ezookiel]

Ok. Thanks. I'm suspecting the lack of "niceness" to the image when it contained the extra frame, was probably more likely a composition issue that made the wider image less pleasing.
I'll also give those other programs a go. Canon has worked really well for MOST images, but there are times when I think it should have no problems, and for some reason it does. But then it's also amazed me at times with what it has managed to pull off.
I have CS5.5 so in theory I should be able to use that as well, but I've only just recently started that learning curve, and it's way steep enough already. the one thing I really like about Canon PStich is it's definitely very easy to use.

Thanks for the advise everyone. Greatly appreciated.

[ricktas]

CS5 is easy : File > Automate > Photomerge

Leave the layout on Auto, select your photos you want to merge into the pano, and click OK...then wait as PS does it.

[William]

17:6 is a good ratio on the eyes for a pano , Here's an example of a 17:6 Pano crop

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day Ez

A most interesting Q and one with 1/2-dozen possible answers
For most of my panos I set up a format of 3,2:1

Years ago [well 3-4 anyway] I started panos & printing for exhibition, and found that the commercial printers preferred using either 8-inch or 12-inch paper rolls - so I cropped my panos for easy & inexpensive printing

A 3,2:1 format thus gives me a print of 7-1/2" x 24" or 11-1/2" x 36" depending upon the end-result required
The missing 1/2-inch in the print size from the traditional 8" or 12" allows for the mounting adhesive & the cardboard window-mat board

On another side of panos ...
I shoot my panos tripod mounted 95% of the time with camera in portrait mode, using lens focal lengths up to 300mm, but most are shot at about 50mm.
I never shoot panos at wide angle as there always is too much lens distortion as well as perspective distortion
I use Pixtra panorama software which when I selected it, outperformed the pano module in photoshop by a factor of 10 at least. I hope PS panos-module has become easier & more predictable, but I'll stick with what works for me

If you'd like a PDF explaining how I do them, PM me with your email details
Hope this helps a bit
Regards, Phil

[Ezookiel]

So I guess apart from the final image dimensions, there doesn't appear to be a set rule as to how many degrees of angle you can shoot, which is what I was kind of aiming for in the question.
That is - If I'm looking at a 180 degree view for example, is it ok to fit the whole 180 degrees into a single pano, or do I pick say, the 100 degrees that has the best part of the view, or the best 120 degrees, etc.
I'm finding that if I try for say the full 180 degrees, then the mountains look so small the majesty of their size is lost. But if I pick too little of the view, then the majesty of the expanse of view is lost. So how much of the view is too much to fit into one pano.
I'm guessing this is where composition, and the important aspect ratios mentioned above come into the equation. Go with too much of the view and end up with a thin narrow image that isn't the right aspect ratio. I'm guessing that it will be mostly through experience that I'll start to know how much of the view is too much.
A pano lens would be nice so you can compose for a specific ratio. It's a bit hard when taking multiple shots you are going to stitch to pano, to know whether to take 5 of the whole scene, or 3 of the best part of the scene.
So far I've always taken the entire scene in as many shots as that required, then started playing with them afterwards to just see what "looks right" On some images that's been quite a wide portion of the scene, and on other shots it's ended up having to be a much smaller portion of the scene. If there isn't some magic number like "never exceed 120degrees of the view in one image" or some such "rule of thumb" then I guess I'll keep taking the entire scene, and working out later how much looks right in the final image.
Appreciate all the helpful answers. If I ever make a large print from one of my shots, I can pretty much guarantee it will be one of my panos that I'll deem worthy of printing, so knowing what aspect ratio to have ready for the printer will help heaps.

[arthurking83]

It became a fully fledged 'rage' some time back where it seemed every bored photographer was doing 360° fully encompassing panoramas where you navigated all around the localised sphere of the photographer. That was 360° in every direction(I think some even went as far as showing the ground beneath the camera too.. tripod or feet and all!

But THIS immersive panorama of Angle Falls is one of the better versions that I've seen.
There are(have been) others, but this is the last one I've navigated through and have in my short term memory.

It goes just a bit beyond your average pano, but it give you an idea of what's right.

I think that as long as the subject matter has interest or importance, or whatever other reason for it's inclusion in the framing, then there is no real set ratio that you should try to adhere too to make the image more appealing. Let the subject matter do that.

ps. if you do decide to investigate the link(which is highly recommended too! ) it's worth any waiting time for the high definition version to load up and allow you to navigate.

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day Ez

Ahhhh - you're now talking angle of coverage ...
In the main - my panos meander thru 100 to 135 degrees > I find if I try for >150deg the image becomes too long & skinny, whereas less than 100deg, the image looks more like a std wide-angle lens shot

Hope this helps a bit
Regards, Phil

[OzzieTraveller]

sorry folks - double post ... thought the modem had gone to sleep so clicked twice :-)

[Ezookiel]

G'day Ez

Ahhhh - you're now talking angle of coverage ...

LOL. Actually, I always was talking about angle of coverage

... I'm kind of suspecting it might be when capturing too wide an expanse, but not really sure. Is there an ideal "width" of scene to a panoramic shot?

But people kind of thought I was talking about dimensions in the final image, and various other aspects of panoramic photography, and it kind of wandered in that direction for quite a while.

[OzzieTraveller]

Good on yer Ez

The beautiful ambiguities of the English language
What else can I confuse you with ... ?

Regards, Phil

[Ezookiel]

...But THIS immersive panorama of Angle Falls is one of the better versions that I've seen.
...ps. if you do decide to investigate the link (which is highly recommended too! ) it's worth any waiting time for the high definition version to load up and allow you to navigate.

Thanks. I chose the hi res version before I noticed your comment. Yes, I agree. The hi res was worth the wait (pretty quick on my home ADSL2+ anyway).
Makes you wonder how they do them.