Your photo sharing community!

Share On

Listing of interesting sofware to generate panoramics

There are quite a few but I will only comment on the one I uses which is Panorama Factory.
You can download for a free trial but the image will have a watermark.It cost about $69 but not for verticals but you should be able to change the orientation and stitched.
You can stitched in Photoshop and Elements but those programs
doesn`t automatically compensate for exposure blending.
If you want more info just GOOGLE it.

For power and flexibility it's hard to beat PTgui. This is a shareware front-end to the famous suite of panotools utilities. The latter are command-line utilities with a very steep learning curve. PTgui puts a windows-based GUI in front of it and works very well. There is no version for MACs. It is downloadable and will work for a month before you have to decide whether or not to buy it. Most people don't hesitate. It is unusually good with spherical fisheye lenses, although you have to use a special version of the panotools utilities... details and links provided.

The latest version of PTgui hides the sophistication behind some pretty neat "wizards" that automate most panorama stitching. The more precise tools and complex options are hidden until you need to start using them. Oh yes, I think it's about USD50 or 60. Free upgrades for a year, low-cost upgrades after that.

If you have big bux to spend, you can get Realviz Stitcher. It is very good and can do many types of panoramics including cubic virtual reality. http://www.realviz.com/

Phil

People on the PanotoolsNG (Yahoo) list where I hang out are pretty rude about Realviz Stitcher. That discouraged me from looking into it. Have you tried it? Is it all that good? I can convert equirectangular 2:1 (360x180) images to cubic VR instantly in a few seconds using a very inexpensive tool (the simplest version of it is freeware!). There is very sophisticated control of cube-face resolution, etc.

Roger, many years ago I purchased version 3 for a project, it was pretty good at that time although not perfect. It was very cpu intensive and used a lot of memory. Back then the computers were not that powerful. It really flies now on a 3ghz pentium with a gig. I am sure that the newer version is really great.

I cannot imagine why anyone would say anything bad about it other then maybe sour grapes in that it is expensive and they cannot afford it. If it is used in your business though it is like any other tool. If it saves time and does a good job then it will pay for itself. If I ever get any more jobs requiring cubic vr I would not hesitate to upgrade to the latest version.

They used to make a version that you could do an external cubic vr, where you put the item on a rotating table and shot it every x degrees. It then put it together and you could float around the object looking at it from all angles. They sort of do it now with their modeler program but it is not like the old one they had. I would love to get that one some day.

You can download a sample program Roger and try it out to see what it can do. I think you will be impressed, it is a real commercial tool but again it is pricey.

Phil

I don't think there is much "sour grapes" on this particular list. Many are professional photographers who make a living taking panoramas, which is something I intend to start for the tourism and real-estate sectors in my own company here in Japan. The problems were more in the ability to handle various kind of stitching errors, and the ability to do fine tuning that would turn the final product into a fault-free item. There were also, I believe, limitations on the types and FLs of lenses that could be used, although I do not have any recent information. I am glad you found it worthwhile. That's really all that matters, isn't it!

Hi, Phil. I tracked down a comparative review of RealViz and my own favourite, PTgui. The URL follows:

http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/2005/09/realviz-stitcher-5-review-vs-ptgui-51.html

The restriction on the use of fisheye lenses, which I vaguely referred to, was definitive for me, as I use nothing else for panoramas. The new version in beta apparently accepts 180-degree circular fisheye images, so maybe it is a significant upgrade. I am afraid it would have to be!

Roger, out of curiosity. Why would you use a fisheye lens for shooting panoramas if you are going to stich them together. It seems to me that using this type of lens would negate all of the benefits of using a longer lens and taking multiple shots then stitching them together. After all this is a stitching program. If you are going to be using a wide fisheye, then you probably don't even need a stitching program. You are more into the ipix or egg area I would guess. While that is fine for low resolution panoramas that dont show a lot of detail when you zoom in, they don't compare at all qualitywise to a multi image stiched panoramic using a longer rectilinear lens where the image is spread evenly across all of the pixels instead of being bunched up the farther from the center you go.

Just curious, maybe you could fill me in on this technique.

Phil

I am thinking more of immersive (VR) panoramas, which you do not display on Usefilm. Stitching is a pain, a necessary evil, and movement of subjects between frames that are later stitched causes endless problems (ghosts and "half" people). Therefore, the fewer stitches the better. With a circular fisheye it is possible to get away with three shots although I prefer to use four. With a full-frame fisheye like my 10.5mm Nikon on the D200 I use for my professional work, I take six (portrait mode) plus one each for nadir and zenith. When I bother with a nadir, that is... I think you might be surprised at the quality of the images generated with this equipment... I generally create original equirectangular panoramas that are 5,000 pixels wide by 2,500 high. Unless you have to use fierce JPEG compression, as you would to get in under the 400k filesize limit at Usefilm, that allows plenty of leeway for zooming in.

What happened to the moderation of this forum? You were going to let me handle that...

Hi, Phil. I've been getting a trickle of reports on RealViz Stitcher and now the Virtual Tour software. One was from someone who participated in their beta program for the latter, thought it was great in terms of features, but was disappointed when they released it while still unstable and with some unresolved bugs. Not very encouraging. Again, I feel your positive experience may be because you don't work with lenses that have serious distortion to contend with in stitching. With that proviso, and if you are experienced with PhotoShop, Stitcher is a convenient and doubtless useful program to have. If you want to create immersive panoramas the previous versions just couldn't hack it. The new one may be much better but as I said before it would need to be.

Hi everybody. I am into panorama stitching since 2004. I started with manual stitching in PS, then tried RealViz. Appalling! I’ve tried several programs more and stopped with Panorama Factory. (The last version is 4.4 and is quite good) It’s very simple. I use automatic only and correct ghosts later in PS. (I can stitch up to 40-50 50-100 MP panoramas per day – not corrected, of course). My personal record is 190 MP – (68 images). This program do only raws unfortunately but it suits me all the same. Recently I found PanoramaStudio. Excellent! Any more questions – feel free to ask. Valery

Hi, Valery! Did you know that if you make a donation to Usefilm you can post panoramas of ANY pixel dimensions provided the filesize is under 400k? For a panorama lover like you that seems like a good deal. (The minimum donation is US$25.) I was disappointed not to be able to see your beautiful panorama of Moscow larger than the usual 850-pixel limit. I see, like Phil, that you mostly stitch to create larger, more detailed images. I do it to create immersive (virtual reality) panoramas. This is why I prefer PTgui for stitching...

Oh yes, welcome to Usefilm! I hope you enjoy the experience.

Hi guys, I used PhotoMerge to stitch shots of the Athabasca River into my first ever panorama. Hindsight being 20/20 I would have spent more time accounting for contrast changes (but the weather in Canada changes fast, so fast that in the time it took to get 4 off, this is what I ended up with) respectable alignment, unacceptable contrast between transitions. I've tried working with the individual shots, but find it difficult to match even two adjacent files separately. Since I'm basically a lazy ass, is the PTGUI program capable of providing "reasonable" consistency, automatically? Thanks for any helpful advice, -john

The "blend" function that is provided within PTgui does a very good job of concealing this kind of discontinuity, John. I have several panos where the camera pointed into deep shadow for one shot and into sunlit street for another, and the result is visually quite acceptable. PTgui is unusual in offering the use of several alternative "blenders," (effectively they operate as "plugins"). One is particularly good at resolving parallax problems (which you don't have) and another is particularly good at blending different image densities. The latter does not try to eliminate vignetting, however, and the PTgui default works well enough for me that I have not tried these alternatives. Since you can try PTgui free, and it is available now for both MAC and PC, why not see if it can help? There is also an excellent support group if you are interested.

Hi, pano guys! Two ot three weeks ago I found for myself Autopano Pro (latest version 1.3RC2). Two Frenchmen make it and they work hard at it. I downloaded and tried and now I redo all my former panoramas. It can stitch as many rows and as many frames as your hard drives allow. Yes, it is not RAM dependent like Panorama Factory, and I merged two days ago 72 frames into a 340 MP photograph and no ghosts at all!!!! Even moving people and cars are not a problem. They say the program is capable of producing 90 GP photo (300.000 per 300.000 pixels). Well. The program is here (http://www.autopano.net/) who wants – download and try. Valery

Valery, forgive me for urging you again to donate to Usefilm. I see that I already did so (above) but had forgotten this when I commented on your beautiful looooong panorama of the trees with yellow leaves.

I will ask about Autopano Pro in the panorama forum I frequent. There are some very knowledgeable and experienced people there. You certainly seem to be getting good results with it!

Hi Roger. Of course I know you. Maybe it’ll be of interest to you - there are some translations of your articles into Russian in some our sites. About the donation – sure I will when I find a good way of paying. Russia is outside of PayPal system. Don’t ask me why…. Autopano – the best way to test it is to download and test. By the way it has such beautiful features as frames autodetecting and assembling them into a pano that can be geometrically corrected before rendering. Two years ago I was a fool – I shot with aperture priority. Autopano corrects this! And of course excellent batch rendering! Usually I prepare 5-10 panos, put them in queue, then go to watch TV (you can continue working on that computer – it doesn’t seem to mind!!). There some bugs of course, but the French guys work hard at it. And Autopano is panotools integrated! And no need for such programs as Photomatix, Autopano has HDR support!!! And what is that forum you frequent?

Valery

Wow, Valery, that's a really beautiful HDR panorama! Sensationally good!! My own interest is more in immersive panoramas (virtual reality displays of 360 x 180 degree panoramas) rather than very high resolution multi-shot wide-angle images. For my interests, PTgui is probably the best, as it copes with fisheye lenses (of which I have three, Zenitar 16mm x F/2.8, Peleng 8mm F/3.5 and Nikon 10.5mm F/2.8), and it helps to deal with ghosts and blend uneven exposures. But you have interested me very much in Autopano, and when I can find some time I will try it. Two of the above three are former Soviet Union lenses and I love them!

The Yahoo Group to which I belong is generally oriented towards software that uses Panotools, so you would feel at home in it. It is VERY active and there are some great experts from whom I learn things on a daily basis! It is the PanotoolsNG (for "New Generation") group. If you decide to apply, mention it to me and I will admit you at once, as I am one of the moderators. Although the Yahoo interface is pretty awful, you might like to opt for "No E-mails" and "View at the website" as there are a LOT of posts and you could get swamped. Some of them are highly technical and may be of limited interest...

By far the greatest software that i have found is my own brain. I've tried using these software packages to help me with my panoramics, but my fotos require an incredible amount of atencion that a computer does not have. To make the panoramas that i make the computer would run out of memory, and still won't be able to solve problems that a human can solve. I use photoshop with a good scratch disk and stitch all of my images manually. It requires a lot of concentration and you have to sacrifice the time to do it, but the results speak for itself. I'll keep doing it this way until someone or something convinces me otherwise. www.rafaelstudio.com please visit my site to see how i do this.

Yo empecé usando “autostich” ya que es fácil y rápido de usar, aunque como desventaja principal tiene que la resolución de la imagen final no es de buena calidad.
El segundo programa que usé (y sigo usando) es “PicVista”. Ventajas: la resolución es bastante buena, y nunca tuve problemas para ensamblarlas. Desventaja: Creo que ninguna.
El programa que uso actualmente es “Panorama Factory” y es 100% recomendable. Puedes unir fotografías de gran tamaño y obtener una panorámica realmente gigante. Es fantastico el trabajo que puedes realizar en pocos segundos de edición con este software.
El ejemplo que adjunto está hecho con 6 fotos tomadas en forma vertical y unidas por Panorama Factory.
Saludos!!

I've used only a few software packages.

If you want to start trying some for yourself:

If you want to dabble, and "free" is interesting to you, try this:

Google on "Autostitch", it is a free program and is small. It just needs some RAM to go and runs on a PC. You open the preferences, set to 100% scale, 100 JPEG quality, and then open the files. It uses pattern recognition to match the shots, stretch, and blend. I've tried some other programs as well.

If you are digging this, and just want to stitch for a moderate price, then maybe you want this:

Arcsoft Panorama Maker is the next best in my experience. You are constrained by choosing one shot side to side, vertical, or matrix (4x4). You have to manually adjust the matching points. Does a great job.

The big, total, and amazing package of complete awesomeness is PT GUI. This thing does everything including HDR 32-bit output and stitching, or even PST layered files. Saaaaa-whheeeeet! Costs some $$$ and completely worth it. I shoot 12mm handheld and it works every time. I've even stuck my finger in frames to block out the sun and flares and it stitched around my digit for the most part.

Some others that I have used and are now clearly not worth the effort:

Canon's Photostitch is neat - you enter in the mm of the lens (for digital users you have to convert to 35mm equivalent) and it merges and blends. Moderate results because if you do not line up the image plane you are in trouble.

Adobe Elements has Photomerge. Close to the Canon technology, but I just can't get this sucker to work for me. Probably user error.

Let's take a moment about how to take a great stitch without buying a pano tripod head:

- Shoot digital. It's about matching pixels, and digital will get you the most consistent results (sharpness, tones, etc.)

- Use a tripod if you can. You want to match up on the nodal point (where the light flip flops internally in the lens) to get a perfect perspective match as you rotate. However, I find it easier just to use a normal tripod head and move across the image plane (your sensor in your camera or film) along the same fulcrum. This means if you have a mounting point in line with that senor or film the tripod will force you to swivel right down the middle if you shoot in landscape mode. The "flatter" your photo from perspective the less this will matter.

- Remember that wider is not always better. No tripod? It's OK. Perspective is a problem with shooting stitches, the more shifting of near ground elements due to a wide angle means you will have to overlap more. The "flatter" your images, the more two dimensional they are, the less "stretching" the software will have to do, or you will have to do using something like PT lens later on, to flatten the image for merging. Unless I'm using PT GUI or an advanced package I'd at most go to 28 mm at the widest, and in those cases I will do at least 50% overlap. At 70 mm and beyond, 1/4 overlap is the way to go. With PT GUI feel free to go nuts.

- Use a grid system. My viewfinder projects a grid with lines on the quarter and one half as vertical lines and horizontal lines. I look at the cross-hatches where the lines intersect. For example, if I see that there is a tree at the intersection in the middle of my viewfinder, I remember that tree and then put it at the 1/4 intersection when I move the camera over. This makes sure that the perspective is forced to consistency as you turn the camera and everything will join smoothly. If you do not have grid lines you can use your autofoucs "dots" or eyeball it.

- Force everything manual. I look like an idiot by moving my camera around the whole scene, metering F-Stop and Exposure across the scene, and then choose the average and force the same: F-Stop, Exposure, White Balance, sharpening, etc across all the photos. This also means you have a lot less latitude to getting a really nice shot - in bright days the deep shadows and bright sky vary across the landscape. Sorry. Like most photos, the first and last hours of daylight are best. I do allow the autofocus to work, but with landscapes remember to use hyperfocal distance. Google "hyperfocal" if that just whizzed on by you. It just means using F-stop with where you focus to make sure everything winds up in focus. High depth of field (DOF).

If you have an advanced system that can handle HDR and stitch at the same time, you can set bracketing to go two stops above and below as you shoot.

- Lose the filters. Grad filters and polarizers will change the image as you move. IR, UV, ND, and other filters that are consistent are OK.

- Lastly, when you shoot leave room for cropping. Stitching programs love to stretch images, and you may find little blank spaces and gaps. The only way is to give a little buffer to your subjects and crop down later on. This is counter to the normal mode of cropping to the image you want in camera.

Have fun. You never know what will pop out until you are done stitching. I've noticed stitches of 20 images and discover that one of them was out of focus messing up the whole thing. Others that I thought would be boring wind up being absolutely great.

Another benefit is that if the image does not look a panorama, the end result is that you can get 18 - 24 megapixel images from a 6 megapixel camera. This means that you can get away with a wonderful 20" x 30" 150 dpi print for your wall.

Marian M.	Srna S.	Jill B.	Nigel W.	dimitar b.	Riny K.	Hassan *.	Jan S.

	Sign Up Now! \| Log In \| Help
	Your photo sharing community!