Propagation of crap examples of panoramic heads - on pano websites!

I keep seeing example panoramas, on sites selling/discussing panoramic heads, but they're all distorted and frankly, look amateurish - I think this is because they're using FE, UWA or WA lenses, and not, perhaps a 50mm. Does anyone have any examples of a panorama captured with a 50 or something longer that looks like a very high res 'envelope' style crop?

I want a proper pano head, but worried what I'm after isn't possible.

Apologies if this is the wrong place for my question!

Why would it be the pano head?

24mm

15 frames, 3 stacked by 5 wide:

Yours is nice, I like it - I don't like the kitchen at the link below;

http://www.red-door.co.uk …which_head.html​#singlerow

my problem is that these panoramas can be very easily made to look tacky - the foreground is twisted, you might not be able to see the stitching, but based on the distortion alone, you can see where the lens was facing.

I'm going to want to print one at one point - I wanted to know what the factors were for avoiding the appearance as in the link - is it ANYTHING to do with the head, or is it all focal length derived? If it's focal length, I'd be grateful if I could see some 50mm panos, should anyone have one.

I think it is a combination of factors. It is a multi-row stitch and the stitching software/projection method selected from within the software. Also, the brains knowledge of the straight lines and right angles in an architectural setting sets of flags when they aren't rendered the way the brain wants to see them.

If your concern is the distortion and/or artifacts there of, then the heads are not to blame. They have no effect on the shot other than whether they're holding the camera in place or not. Anything else would be down to the photographer and their skills/knowledge of shooting/processing those stitched shots.

I am pretty sure the only way in which you would not get distortion is if you picked up the camera and walked far enough down to make another frame at the end of the first frame.

Snydremark wrote in post #17070145
If your concern is the distortion and/or artifacts there of, then the heads are not to blame. They have no effect on the shot other than whether they're holding the camera in place or not. Anything else would be down to the photographer and their skills/knowledge of shooting/processing those stitched shots.

Okay, point taken, it's not the head - lots of people use them, I think I knew deep down there was nothing wrong with the heads (!) (I've used it to make my point), but the fact remains, it appears that websites selling/advertising pano heads seem to commonly use fisheye or WA lenses, so you're basically stitching constantly varying barrel-distorted images that often look unnatural or do not flatter the subject matter, i.e. architectural.

Am I correct in saying that lenses that present neither barrel nor pincushion, i.e. those optically excellent (perhaps the best 50s, certainly macros and short teles) lenses which render a flat field, are the best for panos?

If you stitched images from a lens that projects the 'object' mesh below, the pano would look more natural wouldn't it?

benji25 wrote in post #17070159
I am pretty sure the only way in which you would not get distortion is if you picked up the camera and walked far enough down to make another frame at the end of the first frame.

See above point re: flat field projection from a normal lens.

UKmitch86 wrote in post #17070206
See above point re: flat field projection from a normal lens.

Either way when you rotate the camera on the head the sensor is never exactly parallel to everything in the scene. The distortion isn't from the lens - it is from the slight movement of the camera on the axis.

Software can reduce this but it still happens.

You need to try your best at fixing distortion when shooting ultrawide panoramas.

I created this shot with a 14mm ultrawide, probably a good 150 degree FOV:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ojKg​Sc

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/otLB​wN

Honestly, I don't understand what is the problem here. The OP's link with "distorted" panoramas simply shows properly stitched full sphere panoramas with an equirectangular projection (I believe). This is perfectly normal. There is no "non-distorted" way to project a full sphere panorama on a flat surface, equirectangular projection is often employed, but it does produce sever distortion, for purely geometrical reasons. (For the same reason there is no perfect way to make a map of the whole globe; different projections are used - like Merkator - but they all produce sever distortions.)

The only way to avoid such distortions in panoramas is to not create full sphere panoramas. E.g., if you create a long and narrow horizontal panorama, one can use cylindrical projection to make a normal looking image (no distortion), as long as vertical angle is say less than 60 degrees.

Panorama heads, lens, camera has nothing to do with this effect. This is all about geometry.

Does the camera to foreground or subject distance have anything to do with it? The kitchen foreground and subject distance appears to be a lot closer than in the canyon and cityscape shots posted in this thread.

pulsar123 wrote in post #17070528
Honestly, I don't understand what is the problem here. The OP's link with "distorted" panoramas simply shows properly stitched full sphere panoramas with an equirectangular projection (I believe). This is perfectly normal. There is no "non-distorted" way to project a full sphere panorama on a flat surface, equirectangular projection is often employed, but it does produce sever distortion, for purely geometrical reasons. (For the same reason there is no perfect way to make a map of the whole globe; different projections are used - like Merkator - but they all produce sever distortions.)

The only way to avoid such distortions in panoramas is to not create full sphere panoramas. E.g., if you create a long and narrow horizontal panorama, one can use cylindrical projection to make a normal looking image (no distortion), as long as vertical angle is say less than 60 degrees.

Panorama heads, lens, camera has nothing to do with this effect. This is all about geometry.

This is my take as well, not sure how any one plans to get a full sphere pano to lay perfectly flat with zero distortion. Just imagine taking a rubber ball and cutting it to make it all lay flat, thats what your doing with a full sphere pano.

You can do excellent panos on a ballhead with a nodal slide. You dont specifically need a pano head

DisrupTer911 wrote in post #17071925
You can do excellent panos on a ballhead with a nodal slide. You dont specifically need a pano head

How would you set this up and use it effectively?

Does the ballhead act only to level the setup?