Comments on: Using Stitched Images in Real Estate Photography

By: larry

larry — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:35:16 +0000

Len,
They look good… best limited vertical field of view panoramas I’ve seen. What do you use to stitch?

By: Len

Len — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:06:32 +0000

Check out our 360 Virtual Tours, and you will not see any rounded wall etc.
http://www.customvirtualtours.ca/Tour-Gallery.html

Let me know what you think.
Len

By: Jon May

Jon May — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:30:35 +0000

Hi Larry

Yes, I stitched as you describe then squeezed by eye. I think I may have simply moved the right transform handle inwards until the wardrobe looked OK. With a diagonal structure in the shot, such as that beam or the edge of the bed, you get line breaks, or changes of direction, transforming 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 sections if the lasso intersects the structure(requires rotation to realign – if you’re lucky – and loss of image area on cropping). So if straight diagonals are present, try to include the whole thing within the lasso rather than be a slave to the fractions.

Illustrated here… http://www.flickr.com/photos/8454849@N05/?saved=1

By: Jon May

Jon May — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:30:12 +0000

Hi Larry

Illustrated here….http://www.flickr.com/photos/8454849@N05/?saved=1

By: larrylohrman

larrylohrman — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:30:07 +0000

Jon,
Thanks for the reference. So on the flickr example you sited, I assume that you just photomerged in rectilinear and then squeezed the output of photomerge in the proportions suggested on the tawbaware.com diagram to correct. Is that right? or did you just squeeze it based on what looked right?

By: Jon May

Jon May — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:32:46 +0000

My interpretation of the squeeze technique using Photoshop can be found here.

http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=4250&highlight=squeeze+technique

Max Lyons’s site is a wonderful resource for the panomaniac.

By: Jon May

Jon May — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:36:52 +0000

A 3 shot composite here… http://www.flickr.com/photos/8454849@N05/1383233169/ …each taken portrait, 18mm D70
looks like about 65 degrees horizontal FOV (even though the software says 97).

A method (employed above)to correct the stretching that occurs in wide rectilinear stitches is here…

http://www.panorama-numerique.com/squeeze/squeeze.htm

By: Marc Lacoste

Marc Lacoste — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:33:06 +0000

Cylindrical panoramas seems amateur. If the scene is wider than 120°, change your point of view, walls aren’t more than 120° apart in most cases.

Here is two samples of the same scene with both projections, with approx. 90° Hfov:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/croco/188121570/

I figure mentally perspective projections as the cartographer’s dilemma:
* cylindrical projection (like Mercator) can revolve aroud 360° but curves straight lines and alter surfaces,
* fisheye lenses use some form of azimuthal projection,
* rectilinear projection is conformal, preserves angles and lines, but distort surfaces away from the center.

There is many variations of each, and some other, too.

By: Athol Kay

Athol Kay — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:18:52 +0000

Yeah I hate the curved lines for interior shots, you just know you aren’t looking at “reality”. For landscapes of course you just never know the difference so it’s more acceptable. Plus I suspect the photo stitch thing for panoramas is fine as everyone gets that “it’s outside and outside is big”.

By: » Using Stitched Images in Real Estate Photography

» Using Stitched Images in Real Estate Photography — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:55:53 +0000

[...] You can read the rest of this blog post by going to the original source, here [...]