My bad on the perspective mode-- as I said, I don't rent lightroom, and was looking at a much older page apparently.
Please post your individual frames and a sample of the distorted final image. saying "it don't work" and "there is no distortion" can only go so far in allowing us to help.
Definitely curious what the difficulty is stitching essentially flat continuous scans of the same frame.
Well, why don't you try it? Stitch a panoramic frame with different stitching modes and you will see that all resulting panoramic pictures will be different. Obviously, OP wants to know which mode is the best (being the closest geometrically to a picture that was scanned on a scanner that can scan the entire panoramic frame in one go).
Exactly. I was hoping there is a simple tool that preserves the geometry while stitching.
I don't want perspective correction. I shoot with minimal distortion lenses and scan with XAS scanner. But I dont want the software stitching to change the geometry of my 3 scan panorama.Are you saying the geometry is not perfect from multiple flat scans of one frame of film? So much so that the mildest of perspective correction cannot make it straight? Curiouser and curiouser indeed . . .
I don't want perspective correction. I shoot with minimal distortion lenses and scan with XAS scanner. But I dont want the software stitching to change the geometry of my 3 scan panorama.
I am in a middle of a war zone at the moment and can not overlay layers in photoshop to check the acuracy of photomerge in photoshop. But Lightroom panorama defenetally introduces distortions.
First of all, I wish you the best given your situation. That concern obviously negates all others!
If I understand what you did, you have one long piece of film that was scanned in three parts. I anticipate each one to be perfectly flat and square - no additional perspective issues introduced in the scans. Hence no perspective corrections needed. In this case, I expect to simply overlay the scans and have no perspective issues introduced at all. Given the nature of scans, I can expect some possible differences in brightness or perhaps even color that may be apparent in the overlap areas. Another way to address color/brightness is during the scan if your software has the feature of disabling autoexposure so that all three scans will be perfectly the same in that regard. If not, MS ICE also compensates for these exposure differences as well.
Out of curiosity, what is the size of that film?
Thank You. I am good at the moment.
I am using 135 film inside Fuji GSW690III 65MM F5.6. I scan it RAW with a lot of overlap on a pacific image scanner so no brigthness or contrast difference when I stitch. Just the overcomplicated panorama stitching on all programs I used.
I will try PhotoMerge in photoshop when I get the chance. I will even try to just manually align the picture in photoshop.
I was hoping to get some simple cheap tool so I dont have to pay for lightroom and photoshop.
You didn't say but did you try the MS ICE in the link I posted earlier? It's better than cheap . . .
It seems to me that there is a real possibility that the geometric distortion observed by Radost would be visible in a single contact print of the film. The challenge being experienced is that Radost is attempting to straighten something that isn't straight in the film in the first place.
Nope. My horizon is strength in most of the pictures. Just don’t want the stitching software to distort.
Does noritsu scan panorama. It might be easier to just send my panorama pictures to Richard’s.
A Noritsu scanner can scan a full 6X9 film so it can scan your film in one pass.
Noritsu can scan 6x12 (if you purchase additional software extension from Noritsu) on 120 film. But Radost has 135 film and you can’t feed that into the MF carrier without a lot more trouble than a simple stitch. Frontier SP-2000/3000 manual MF carrier should be a fair bit easier to do that, imho.
Anyway, I’ve shown here how to do it properly with absolutely no distortion, but some people just can’t be helped…
Obviously, OP wants to know which mode is the best (being the closest geometrically to a picture that was scanned on a scanner that can scan the entire panoramic frame in one go).
Exactly. I was hoping there is a simple tool that preserves the geometry while stitching.
The challenge being experienced is that Radost is attempting to straighten something that isn't straight in the film in the first place.
No, OP is claiming no mode works-- every mode is producing distorted images.
In software that he used (or was able to figure out how to use it). Lightroom and Hugin (afaik, haven't worked with it much), indeed, can't do what he wants to do.
I haven't used lightroom in a really, really long time (version 1.0), but the idea that it can't stitch flat images together without creating distortion is just nonsensical. Similarly, Hugin (which the OP has difficulty with), while complex, can correct just about any possible distortion. The resulting image may have bits and pieces sticking out, but can certainly be cropped to a rectangular image free of (most) distortion.
Either the software is being used incorrectly, or the source images are providing their own distortion.
I don’t want it to correct distortion!!!!
I don’t want them to change the geometric integrity of my photos.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?