If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
altering exposure on an image
When merging photographs (e.g. for a panorama)
it is desirable to use a camera where the exposure can be locked, so that the multiple images are all taken with the same exposure. Let's assume one either can't (or more likely didn't) do this. How can I correct for either variable shutter speed, or variable aperture, or both? I don't think I can just linearly scale the data, since in a JPEG file from a digicam; I think the samples are in a log space, with gamma applied. So I believe I would need to "ungamma" and "regamma" before and after any scaling. Does anyone have actual details? The exif data for my camera does not have this value. I plan to use this: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pnmgamma.html and move into and out of 16 bit representation for accuracy: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pamdepth.html whilst using this (easy!) for the scaling itself: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pamfunc.html I think the scaling for aperture is a simple linear model where quantity of light is linearly proportional to time, but would welcome confirmation. Does anyone know how f-stop relates to quantity of light e.g. what the light level ratio between f5 and f8 would be? BugBear |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
altering exposure on an image
bugbear wrote:
When merging photographs (e.g. for a panorama) it is desirable to use a camera where the exposure can be locked, so that the multiple images are all taken with the same exposure. Let's assume one either can't (or more likely didn't) do this. How can I correct for either variable shutter speed, or variable aperture, or both? [] BugBear Use program like Autostitch and it does it all for you..... http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html What I tend to do for my pano shots (all less than 180 degrees) is to take exposure from one fixed point (usually the mid point of the set) and, having set the exposure, swivel to the next image in the set. So I start with the middle picture, take it, re-expose (half-press), swivel left and take, revert to the middle, half-press, swivel right and take, and so on. Easier to do than describe. Cheers, David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
altering exposure on an image
bugbear wrote:
When merging photographs (e.g. for a panorama) it is desirable to use a camera where the exposure can be locked, so that the multiple images are all taken with the same exposure. Let's assume one either can't (or more likely didn't) do this. How can I correct for either variable shutter speed, or variable aperture, or both? I don't think I can just linearly scale the data, since in a JPEG file from a digicam; I think the samples are in a log space, with gamma applied. So I believe I would need to "ungamma" and "regamma" before and after any scaling. Does anyone have actual details? The exif data for my camera does not have this value. I plan to use this: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pnmgamma.html and move into and out of 16 bit representation for accuracy: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pamdepth.html whilst using this (easy!) for the scaling itself: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pamfunc.html I think the scaling for aperture is a simple linear model where quantity of light is linearly proportional to time, but would welcome confirmation. Does anyone know how f-stop relates to quantity of light e.g. what the light level ratio between f5 and f8 would be? BugBear With a canon, when shooting in stitch mode exposure and white balance are set after the first shot. This seemed to work fine for me the few times I've used this feature. A f-stop step doubles/halves the exposure. Dave Cohen |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
altering exposure on an image
Dave Cohen wrote:
bugbear wrote: With a canon, when shooting in stitch mode exposure and white balance are set after the first shot. This seemed to work fine for me the few times I've used this feature. Yes; my question relates to photographs taken *without* such features, or equivalent precuations. A f-stop step doubles/halves the exposure. Yes, but what about f-numbers? It appears http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm that area of the aperture is the key thing, and that area has a square (or inverse square) relationship to f number. Therefore the ratio of f5 to f8 for light gethering is 8^2/5^2 = 64/25 = 2.56 The numbers for 22 vs 16 = 484/256 = 1.89 which is close enough to 2 to make me happy. Can anyone confirm my analysis and/or conclusion? BugBear |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
altering exposure on an image
bugbear wrote:
Dave Cohen wrote: bugbear wrote: With a canon, when shooting in stitch mode exposure and white balance are set after the first shot. This seemed to work fine for me the few times I've used this feature. Yes; my question relates to photographs taken *without* such features, or equivalent precuations. A f-stop step doubles/halves the exposure. Yes, but what about f-numbers? It appears http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm that area of the aperture is the key thing, and that area has a square (or inverse square) relationship to f number. Therefore the ratio of f5 to f8 for light gethering is 8^2/5^2 = 64/25 = 2.56 The numbers for 22 vs 16 = 484/256 = 1.89 which is close enough to 2 to make me happy. Can anyone confirm my analysis and/or conclusion? I'm no mathematician so I did a spreadsheet and it works like this: Assume 50mm focal length, it really doesn't matter, then the diameter of the aperture is fl/f-stop 50/5 & 50/8 so 10 & 6.3 then to get area of the apertu pi*r^2 or in excel: =PI()*((B2/2)*(B2/2)) so 79 & 31 now the difference in stops is the two areas divided: 1.3 stops difference. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
altering exposure on an image
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:01:08 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in : bugbear wrote: When merging photographs (e.g. for a panorama) it is desirable to use a camera where the exposure can be locked, so that the multiple images are all taken with the same exposure. Let's assume one either can't (or more likely didn't) do this. How can I correct for either variable shutter speed, or variable aperture, or both? [] BugBear Use program like Autostitch and it does it all for you..... Likewise hugin, which is both excellent and free. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
altering exposure on an image
bugbear wrote:
Dave Cohen wrote: bugbear wrote: snip A f-stop step doubles/halves the exposure. Yes, but what about f-numbers? Ideally, each f-stop step either halves or doubles the area of the apeture opening. This means that the f-stop ratio should go up or down by the square root of 2 (1.414). An absolutely "ideal" f-stop series would look something like (if accurate to 1 decimal place): f1:1, f1:1.4, f1:2, f2:2.8, f1:4, f1:5.7, f1:8, f1:11.3, f1:16, f1:22.6 and so on. The only real difference is that there is traditionally a half-stop between f1:2.8 and f1:4 at f1:3.2 and the numbers are usually rounded to the nearest whole number higher in series (eg: f1:11 and f1:22). In practical terms it makes no difference, as film/sensor sensitivity only steps in whole stops (eg: ISO 100 to 200 to 400) and the small percentage error caused by rounding f-stop numbers (which may be in whole stops in the mechanics of the apeture and only marked around the apeture ring on the lens-barrel in the traditional way) has little or no effect. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
altering exposure on an image
bugbear writes:
When merging photographs (e.g. for a panorama) it is desirable to use a camera where the exposure can be locked, so that the multiple images are all taken with the same exposure. Let's assume one either can't (or more likely didn't) do this. How can I correct for either variable shutter speed, or variable aperture, or both? I don't think I can just linearly scale the data, since in a JPEG file from a digicam; I think the samples are in a log space, with gamma applied. No, the samples are in gamma-corrected space, *not* log space. To a first approximation, the values in the file are proportional to light intensity raised to the 0.45 power. To make the image (for example) one stop brighter if it was in linear space, you'd multiply all pixel values by 2. In gamma-corrected space, you multiply all pixel values by 2^0.45 = 1.37. The effect is the same. So I believe I would need to "ungamma" and "regamma" before and after any scaling. Does anyone have actual details? The exif data for my camera does not have this value. For a quick test, you don't need to undo and redo gamma correction; just multiply the pixel values. But in reality, the camera encoding process may have used an exponent somewhat different from 0.45, and it may have compressed the highlights by using a lower gamma for that portion of the tonal range. For the highest quality results, you should undo the effects of any such processing in the camera. But first you'd have to figure out what the camera did. I plan to use this: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pnmgamma.html and move into and out of 16 bit representation for accuracy: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pamdepth.html whilst using this (easy!) for the scaling itself: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pamfunc.html If you don't have a model for how the camera encoding departed from the power-law encoding described above, staying in gamma-corrected space works just as well. I think the scaling for aperture is a simple linear model where quantity of light is linearly proportional to time, but would welcome confirmation. Does anyone know how f-stop relates to quantity of light e.g. what the light level ratio between f5 and f8 would be? F-numbers are inversely proportional to the diameter of the lens entrance pupil. Light throughput is proportional to the *square* of entrance pupil diameter. So to compare light flux for two different apertures, take one over the square of the ratio. For example, going from f/5 to f/8 reduces the light by a factor of 0.39. Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Image deblurring using dual exposure (low & high iso) | frederick | Digital Photography | 3 | July 20th 07 01:57 AM |
Canon SD1000 - 15 sec exposure -- time delay exposure | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 2 | June 12th 07 06:44 PM |
Adam's Exposure Formula contracts with the Addative Photographic Exposure System (APEX) | Steven Woody | In The Darkroom | 6 | January 15th 07 03:32 AM |
Thinking of altering lens line-up | Frank B | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | March 21st 06 12:57 AM |
Digital Exposure Question -- Middle Gray vs Exposure At Highlights | MikeS | Digital Photography | 1 | June 24th 04 08:04 AM |