Yes, because we know that embedding multimedia in web pages is a wonderful idea.
now you don't have that problem with getting your finger in the picture, it's your whole arm instead!
[[guess the reality is that you should always focus at infinity, but that often implies a low shutter speed]]
Unless I'm missing something, I don't believe there is a relationship between your focus distance and the amount of light you can gather. Unless you mean you're seeing the effects of a shallow depth of field due to a larger aperture?
Yeah, really what I meant was "focus at infinity with a really high F stop."
Have you ever considered doing HDR techniques with this lens? I'd be willing to bet that you could deal with some of the washing out and exposure issues you are having.
However, the previously mentioned lack of a good tripod would make any HDR work next to impossible.
Barring a purchase of a new tripod, I'd recommend simply underexposing the shots by at least a full stop (set the exposure compensation to -1) possibly more and then bringing up detail in the shadows in Photoshop or Lightroom. You'll get more noise in the shadow areas, but it would be interesting to see what the final output would be...
I think if SeÃ±or Zawinksi is going to sport for a posh lense he should consider forking over for a posh tripod. ;-)
Or even a cheap tripod so long as it, you know, actually freaking works.
When I'm pretending to play with other people's money I prefer to think big.
I think he should use a crane.
It'd be interesting to try some of those wacky "painting with light" techniques with something like this. I assume it doesn't take the image all at once? It'd be interesting to try and match up (or affix) a light to the frame as it rotates.
It doesn't rotate: the camera points straight up into a parabolic mirror. The raw images look like the one on the right, here. The black hole in the middle is the post holding up the mirror.
Hmm. I was thinking of the ones that used a rotating platform to take pictures of all sides of a stationary object. Same QTVR plugin, different format.
With a long enough exposure, and a tripod, you could still probably have some fun with light painting.
You can also create QTVRs by taking multiple shots and pasting them together; there are special tripod heads that make this easier. Doing it that way would let you have different exposures for different sides of the scene, but they wouldn't be simultanious, and fading over the borders can be a pain.
Ah, so you just need a good photo stitcher, now you've got the QTVR software.
It seems odd that there isn't a way to make a flood light track with the mirror from the far side of the stand.
Reduce tentacle-flare with a circular polarizer.
The spirally lens flare is cool -- my first thought was "cthuloid" -- but I suppose it's more a heavenly vision of the FSM.
These images are pretty cool.
This is very cool. I am intrigued, and want to play with this technology. There is potential for great beauty here.
I think you've mentioned this before and, well of course, they haven't actually released the software yet, but have you seen the tech demo of photosynth? By no means is it a seamless panoramic but what they seem to be accomplishing is at least fun to play with. Maybe they'll even release the damn application sometimes.
Though it has already been mentioned, a solid tripod really should be your next investment. Make sure you get one with a couple of bubbles for levelling.
The resolution thing really does make sense considering you are panning across the image in a QTVR, but I agree that it seems like you should get a bit more room than you do.
Great tests! I think with a good tripod and a remote shutter release (which would get rid of some of the shake during long exposures) you'll be able to solve most of the problems you've been having.
Also consider averaging the exposure readings and then slightly under exposing the image (the opposite of film) to help with some of the uneven exposures. Digital photography is more forgiving with under exposed images than over, film being the other way around. Play around with it and see what combinations work best. Of course, then use photoshop to lighten/darken the areas of the image that don't match to even it out.
There's my $0.02...that cost me substantially more...
[[Digital photography is more forgiving with under exposed images than over, film being the other way around.]]
Negative film yes, but slides handle exposure in ways similar to digital.
Digital also has a tighter dynamic range than flim, possibly for being linear in response.
This means that what would've been a highlight on film is bloomed out, depending how you meter.
It's true that it's easier to extract detail in postprocessing from dark noise than 'all ones.'
I theorize that an appropriately tuned polarizer might cancel out slightly more light from, say, the graffitti than it will in dark areas. One of those gradient neutral density filters might also work; turn it to put more filter factor in front of the bright side.
This assumes there's a way to mount filters under the post.
A self-timer is the poor man's remote release. Enable it (annoyingly, some digitals don't let you keep it on and bury the option in menus), tap the shutter and stand back.
Lock up the mirror first if it's a SLR and not kind enough to do it for you.
fast-moving clouds are a bitch.
How shitty a tripod?
A ghetto but stable Targus can be had at Big Lots here on the right coast for about $10. Similar quality at Wal-Mart isn't much worse, etc.
Of course, if you're using heavy Nikons, I can see how the head might not hold up in the arrangement you need. Making a bracket wouldn't be unpossible.
See also panoramic video.