Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laon Cathedral Interior 360x180, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Laon Cathedral Interior 360x180, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 13:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A 360x180 degree equirectangular panorama of the interior of Laon Cathedral in Picardy, France.
 Question Why use ISO 400?. --The Photographer (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note --The Photographer (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, when it´s really dark, you need more than 30 seconds if you use ISO 100, so in this case, you will have within a series of 5 or 7 pictures two, sometimes 3 pictures with 30 seconds. It also depends of the EV-spreading. Or you decide to make the pictures just within half an hour instead of 45 minutes. You can avoid it, when you raise the ISO. In this particular case, there is no noise, even not in the darkest areas. --Hubertl 18:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hubertl is exactly right, there are many reasons to use ISO 400. Mostly I use a higher ISO because it means that completing the panorama is much faster. ISO 400 will complete the panorama 8 times faster than ISO 100. These HDR panoramas are quite time consuming already (10-15 minutes of constant shooting with about 100 images), and doing it at ISO 100 also introduces other problems, like people walking in front of the lens during the exposures. The quicker the panorama can be taken, the more likely it will have no problems like this. And as I said, because of the HDR processing, it usually doesn't have worse noise than ISO 100 (non-HDR). Diliff (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hubertl and Diliff, I really appreciate your answers and are quite logical. IMHO, It has enough sense to save time and sacrifice some quality only slightly. However, again (note) Look the door difference between both door sides (right and left), its not just noise problem, it look like a focus, sharp?. Something wrong to assemble the images resulting in a strange blur --The Photographer (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The slight difference in sharpness in some parts of the image is because I use a 14mm rectilinear lens. It's ultra-wide, and the edges are not as sharp as the centre, so when the images are stitched, the sharp parts are sometimes blended with softer parts. If I used a fisheye lens, the result might be slightly better because the edges would not need rectilinear correction, but I don't own one. I could also use my 35mm lens instead of 14mm but instead of 100 images, it would need 250-300 images. Diliff (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Diliff: Don't you own the Sigma 24mm art lens? Don't you consider using it for spherical panoramics? I made some experiments with my 24-70mm zoom lens at 24mm and found the results quite convincing from a technical point of view (see here). With that lens I needed to take ~40 pictures (without HDR) although probably less would have been sufficient, too. However, 24mm seem to be a good compromise between the number of frames you need and the quality you get. Now I'm considering to get myself a 24mm prime lens for such panoramics because the zoom lens is quite large and heavy for the NN3 Mk II and has some barrel distortion at 24mm which can cause more or less unresolvable stitching errors. --Code (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have the Sigma 35mm, not 24mm. The 24mm might be quite useful for 360 panoramics though, as it is high quality and wouldn't require so many images... But I don't need 3 Sigma Art lenses right now. ;-) Diliff (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the problem now, you need brighter lenses. I made a panorama composed of 349 photos with 35 mm. However, I have kept the RAWs in a folder waiting for my grandchildren someday come together these photos. It is technically almost impossible to do that now. I had not seen the result with ToolServer tool, it was really wonderful. --The Photographer (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, the 'brightness' of the lens has nothing to do with it. To get the maximum depth of field, you need to use f/8 or higher anyway, which nullifies any advantage you might get from a wide aperture lens. It is the slow aperture of f/8 or higher that causes the exposures to be so long. Diliff (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the door is slightly softer than the rest. Perhaps someone bumped it during the exposure. Or the lens edge-softness Diliff mentions. This and the "noise" you see are all pretty insignificant. I can only hope that 4k monitors become standard soon and 5k comes down in price, so these damn pixels become invisible and we can move on to judging the image. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Laon_Cathedral_Interior_360x180,_Picardy,_France_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=184142430"