Panorama (multi phot) joint artifacts (PS CS3)

Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part of 4 images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are visible (although "softened" by photo.net).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg
Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Alan Browne wrote:

Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part of 4 images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are visible (although "softened" by photo.net).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg
Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Reminder to self: flatten the image before reducing in size.

Alan Browne found these unused words:

Alan Browne wrote:

Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part of 4 images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are visible (although "softened" by photo.net).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg
Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Reminder to self: flatten the image before reducing in size.

Don’t know how you make your pans, but I use a 12 pixel feather for the overlaying layer and use the hand lasso to draw irregular paths, staying in darker areas if possible.

Yes FLATTEN before any sizing operation – though I always keep the -=original=- with its layers.

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Alan Browne found these unused words:

Alan Browne wrote:

Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part of 4 images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are visible (although "softened" by photo.net).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg
Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Reminder to self: flatten the image before reducing in size.

Don’t know how you make your pans, but I use a 12 pixel feather for the overlaying layer and use the hand lasso to draw irregular paths, staying in darker areas if possible.

Being lazy I entrust the process to PS CS3’s Photomerge process which, as far as I can tell, does not allow the user to control the width of the stitch feather area. Given the 11 photos for this pano, I wouldn’t want to attempt it manually.

Yes FLATTEN before any sizing operation – though I always keep the -=original=- with its layers.

I don’t, though I suppose it’s a good idea. Really though, I’d rather not come back to it!

Forgetting to flatten was only slightly dumber than posting a request for help before thinking it through.

Alan Browne found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Alan Browne found these unused words:

Alan Browne wrote:

Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part of 4 images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are visible (although "softened" by photo.net).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg
Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Reminder to self: flatten the image before reducing in size.

Don’t know how you make your pans, but I use a 12 pixel feather for the overlaying layer and use the hand lasso to draw irregular paths, staying in darker areas if possible.

Being lazy I entrust the process to PS CS3’s Photomerge process which, as far as I can tell, does not allow the user to control the width of the stitch feather area. Given the 11 photos for this pano, I wouldn’t want to attempt it manually.

Yes FLATTEN before any sizing operation – though I always keep the -=original=- with its layers.

I don’t, though I suppose it’s a good idea. Really though, I’d rather not come back to it!

Forgetting to flatten was only slightly dumber than posting a request for help before thinking it through.

It’s -=only=- 270*, but …
http://ttrr.org/ac_walk/aw_p12.html

IIRC, some 27 images as I shoot portrait mode to get maximum height.

Sir F. A. Rien found these unused words:

Alan Browne found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Alan Browne found these unused words:

Alan Browne wrote:

Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part of 4 images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are visible (although "softened" by photo.net).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg
Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Reminder to self: flatten the image before reducing in size.

Don’t know how you make your pans, but I use a 12 pixel feather for the overlaying layer and use the hand lasso to draw irregular paths, staying in darker areas if possible.

Being lazy I entrust the process to PS CS3’s Photomerge process which, as far as I can tell, does not allow the user to control the width of the stitch feather area. Given the 11 photos for this pano, I wouldn’t want to attempt it manually.

Yes FLATTEN before any sizing operation – though I always keep the -=original=- with its layers.

I don’t, though I suppose it’s a good idea. Really though, I’d rather not come back to it!

Forgetting to flatten was only slightly dumber than posting a request for help before thinking it through.

It’s -=only=- 270*, but …
http://ttrr.org/ac_walk/aw_p12.html

IIRC, some 27 images as I shoot portrait mode to get maximum height.

Correction – the PSD has 27, what I put on the site is 18 as the additional didnt ‘show’ much other than barren, featureless desert hills. Main reason was showing the Amargosa Canyon.

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien found these unused words:

Alan Browne found these unused
words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Alan Browne found these unused
words:

Alan Browne wrote:

Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part of 4 images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are visible (although "softened" by photo.net).
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg
Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Reminder to self: flatten the image before reducing in size.

Don’t know how you make your pans, but I use a 12 pixel feather for the
overlaying layer and use the hand lasso to draw irregular paths, staying in
darker areas if possible.

Being lazy I entrust the process to PS CS3’s Photomerge process which, as far as I can tell, does not allow the user to control the width of the stitch feather area. Given the 11 photos for this pano, I wouldn’t want to attempt it manually.

Yes FLATTEN before any sizing operation – though I always keep the -=original=- with its layers.

I don’t, though I suppose it’s a good idea. Really though, I’d rather not come back to it!

Forgetting to flatten was only slightly dumber than posting a request for help before thinking it through.

It’s -=only=- 270*, but …
http://ttrr.org/ac_walk/aw_p12.html

IIRC, some 27 images as I shoot portrait mode to get maximum height.

Correction – the PSD has 27, what I put on the site is 18 as the additional
didnt ‘show’ much other than barren, featureless desert hills. Main reason
was showing the Amargosa Canyon.

Nice though I’d prefer a non-framed presentation of it.

Next time I do a pano like this I’ll probably shoot portrait, further I’ll mount a Hasselblad 80mm lens on the camera and shoot a top and bottom row. I used a Monolta 50 f/1.7 in the pano: here is the final result (reduced in size):

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/25606487(Click on small image, zoom in)

(file is 6000 x 382 / 989 kB).
Sony a900, Minolta 50 f/1.7, f/11 1/250, ISO 125.

Alan Browne wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien found these unused words:

Alan Browne found these unused
words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Alan Browne found these unused
words:

Alan Browne wrote:

Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part of 4 images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are visible (although "softened" by photo.net).
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg
Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Reminder to self: flatten the image before reducing in size.

Don’t know how you make your pans, but I use a 12 pixel feather for the
overlaying layer and use the hand lasso to draw irregular paths, staying in
darker areas if possible.

Being lazy I entrust the process to PS CS3’s Photomerge process which, as far as I can tell, does not allow the user to control the width of the stitch feather area. Given the 11 photos for this pano, I wouldn’t want to attempt it manually.

Yes FLATTEN before any sizing operation – though I always keep the -=original=- with its layers.

I don’t, though I suppose it’s a good idea. Really though, I’d rather not come back to it!

Forgetting to flatten was only slightly dumber than posting a request for help before thinking it through.

It’s -=only=- 270*, but …
http://ttrr.org/ac_walk/aw_p12.html

IIRC, some 27 images as I shoot portrait mode to get maximum height.

Correction – the PSD has 27, what I put on the site is 18 as the additional
didnt ‘show’ much other than barren, featureless desert hills. Main reason
was showing the Amargosa Canyon.

Nice though I’d prefer a non-framed presentation of it.

Next time I do a pano like this I’ll probably shoot portrait, further I’ll mount a Hasselblad 80mm lens on the camera and shoot a top and bottom row. I used a Monolta 50 f/1.7 in the pano: here is the final result (reduced in size):

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/25606487(Click on small image, zoom in)

Should be: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/25606487

(file is 6000 x 382 / 989 kB).
Sony a900, Minolta 50 f/1.7, f/11 1/250, ISO 125.

Some other early pans …
http://lephoto.ttrr.org/panorama.html

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Some other early pans …
http://lephoto.ttrr.org/panorama.html

I like those, though perhaps you should update them with higher res versions now.

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Someher early pans …
http://lephoto.ttrr.org/panorama.html

Alan Browne found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Some other early pans …
http://lephoto.ttrr.org/panorama.html

I like those, though perhaps you should update them with higher res versions now.

Rather hard to do as I’m 1200 miles away in retirement! <G>

Have a couple from ‘way up north’ I may add. They’re in much higher res.

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Alan Browne found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Some other early pans …
http://lephoto.ttrr.org/panorama.html

I like those, though perhaps you should update them with higher res versions now.

Rather hard to do as I’m 1200 miles away in retirement! <G>

I assumed you still have the source images.