It depends on how much distortion you like, what kind of distortion you like, and the angle of view of the final panorama. spherical, cylindrical or rectilinear) should I use to best simulate a wide-angle lens? For landscape usage, in the f/8-f/16 arena, chances are that depth of field won't be noticeably different, but stitching will sometimes create more background blur with longer lenses at wider apertures, which is why portrait photographers sometimes go Brenizer Method.įor my tastes, ultrawide and wide angle lenses tend to exhibit more "funk", while a stitched panorama (assuming a not super-wide typical landscape pano) exhibits greater "calm." One isn't necessarily better than the other but they do taste a little different.Īnd, of course, there's the issue of ghosts/clones with moving subjects with any post-processing method that involves combining multiple images. A stitched panorama typically won't have the "feel" of a wide angle lens, because it won't have the barrel distortion such a lens typically exhibits, and the DoF will be determined by the lens/aperture setting/subject distance you're using. The differences are those dictated by the lens. in terms of relative proportions of near and far objects and depth of field? What differences will I get if I shoot the scene with a narrow-angle lens (from the same position as I would have done with the wide lens) and stitch the images with Hugin or Autostitch, e.g.
0 kommentar(er)
