fuschia panorama

[elf]

This is a 3x5 focus stacked pano with 750 total images. Print size 34"x48" @254dpi.
This was harder to stitch than normal because of the big difference in magnification/subject size between the frames. The center part of the image is much closer than the top and bottom and when Zerene Stacker created the front to back stacks, it was quite a bit bigger than its neighbors. There was a big enough difference that ICE wasn't able to resize it correctly. I redid the center section with stacks from back to front and then was able to stitch it together. I need to come up with a method to input the images into Zerene Stacker with the image at the center of the focus depth as the first image and then add the rest of images so they stay within the stacking limits.



Olympus e330
El-Nikkor 50mm reversed
f/5.6
Approximately 1.5X
Microsoft ICE for panorama stitching
Zerene Stacker for focus stacking

100% crop
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/ ... 80001c.jpg

[Planapo]

Nice and clean shot, elf! The black background works very well for this type of picture, IMO.

I wonder that I find the name "fuschia" for this plant so often with google, alongside the one and only we use: Fuchsia, after its describer, the German botanist Fuchs.
(Fuchs means fox and is pronounced as it was written "fooks" in English, with oo like in fool, but the oo a little bit shorter, hence the plant name Fuchsia should be pronounced "fooks-eeh-ah".

--Betty

[elf]

I suspect you see it spelled fuschia because that's the phonetic spelling for the incorrect pronunciation used in the US

I was going to double check my spelling last night, but thought it's getting late and I'm sure it's right

I'll have to try a white background to see if it diminishes the blooming on the edges.

[rjlittlefield]

Very nice, elf. You're really pushing the envelope on combining attractive image and technical wizardry.

The center part of the image is much closer than the top and bottom and when Zerene Stacker created the front to back stacks, it was quite a bit bigger than its neighbors. There was a big enough difference that ICE wasn't able to resize it correctly.

The trick to handling this situation is to tell the stitching tool that different lenses were used for each panel, and let it adjust the focal lengths of those virtual lenses (all but one) to correct for any scale differences. PTgui and hugin would have no trouble with this situation. I've never used ICE, but if it allows multiple lenses, it should have no trouble either.

--Rik

[Aynia]

Really lovely photo!

[elf]

Thanks Aynia, Rik, and Betty. It's really nice when a shot comes through like it's planned. My harddrive has quite a few failures stored

ICE is pretty automated and doesn't have way to modify default settings. Usually this is a good thing, as it rarely has a problem stitching images.

I tried a white background and I like the black a little better for this image. I'd show it, but replacing a black background with white is pretty hard to do and have it look natural. I think it's best/easiest to shoot with a background that's close to what you want the finished image to look like.

[lauriek]

Lovely composite Elf, really nice work!

Betty, thanks _so_ much. I really hate spelling errors and I'm mildly annoyed that I've been misspelling fucshia for years, although on the upside I doubt I've written it down more than once or twice!

A little googling suggests this is a _very_ widely used misspelling, in fact particularly in the context of the colour it seems more English people think it's spelt Fuschia...

I came across at least one phonetic description online which suggested it should be pronounced foo-shia with a silent 'c', but I'm not at all sure that was correct and I don't have that link to hand at the moment.

[ChrisR]

I've been misspelling fucshia for years

AAhem, cough cough.
Correct it and I'll delete my post and perhaps she won't notice?

[lauriek]

Gah a typo to go with it. Doh that's the problem in rushing a post while at work!

[rjlittlefield]

I came across at least one phonetic description online which suggested it should be pronounced foo-shia with a silent 'c', but I'm not at all sure that was correct and I don't have that link to hand at the moment.

Merriam-Webster has it as \ˈfyü-shə\, with an audible to match. So do all the other English language dictionaries I checked.

I think this is a good example of the common case where English spelling preserves the origin of a word, even though the accepted pronunciation is now quite different.

--Rik

[Planapo]

ChrisR wrote:

Correct it and I'll delete my post and perhaps she won't notice?

She did notice! And first thought Laurie would pull her leg , but then supposed that it was just a "slip of the pen".

Herr Kleinfeld wrote:

Merriam-Webster has it as \ˈfyü-shə\, with an audible to match. So do all the other English language dictionaries I checked.

Jeez, that audio file sounds weird. Mr. Fuchs would rotate in his grave, if he could hear what's been done to his name.
Honestly, I would not recognize which plant is meant, if I didn't see the name written down.

Listen mine again:

"fooks-eeh-ah"
or
"foox-eeh-ah", if you like, and what sould sound the same from my understanding.

vs. the audio file of Merriam Webster: "few-shee-ah"?

"Two very different things"! "Not even sounds same!" As cute Aleksandr would put it, headshakingly.

Just read "foox-eeh-ah" alound in your English way of pronunciation, then you've got it. Simples!

--Betty

[Cactusdave]

Very pretty, and an interesting achievement, but is it technical 'overkill' I wonder? I think, unless that's a remarkably small Fuschia flower, I could achieve that depth of focus and overall composition with a conventional 105mm macro stopped down to f22 and careful lighting, probably without need to resort to stacking, let alone panoramic stitching. Please don't take that as a criticism though, it's still a great picture however you took it.

[ChrisR]

But would you get

Print size 34"x48" @254dpi.

CD? You'd need 105,290,112 pixels.
Kodachrome 25, maybe!

Betty, sorry but they're "fyoooshas".
Let all the gardeners in the UK and Germany vote on it. .
The Brits have been nutty about their gardens since the 18th century collecting trips and hot houses, and get haughtily proprietorial about things. It's wittily discussed by wossername, oh yes, Andrea Wulf
Remember that we regularly inform the French that they pronounce the name of their capital wrongly, and also there's that famous newspaper headline:
"Fog in English Channel. Continent Isolated".

[rjlittlefield]

could achieve that depth of focus and overall composition with a conventional 105mm macro stopped down to f22 and careful lighting

I had the same thought. But let's try crunching some numbers. Assume the image has a field that's 72 mm wide and you're shooting 24mm x 36mm format. Then you're working at a magnification of 1/3. At f/22, calculated DOF with COC = diagonal/1500 is a hair over 15 mm. But if the image is 72 mm wide, then the flower is almost that deep. So the f/22 image has much too little DOF. Nothing except the center 1/4 of the flower will be sharp. And even the "sharp" parts will be pretty fuzzy in comparison to the roughly 8X higher resolution at subject that elf gets by operating at higher magnification and wider aperture.

So in fact the f/22 approach does not produce an equivalent image IF you're close enough to appreciate the detail. Here on the web at 700 pixels high, there would be no difference. Print 'em at 4 feet high and stand close, there'd be a huge difference. Likewise for publishing them in a zoomable format.

It's certainly a fair question whether the extra effort justifies the extra quality. For most purposes, perhaps it does not.

On the other hand, I once spent around 1000 images stacking and stitching what you'd imagine (erroneously) was a flat moth wing. That particular print has been hanging on my wall for almost three years now, and I personally think it was well worth the effort to prepare. That image is still online at its full resolution. You can access it through the links in the posting HERE.

--Rik

[ChrisR]

Elf, could you post an 800 pixel crop of part of this?
Chirs