• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

The traffic lights and trees in the way conundrum!

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
_MG_0162fromjpg800.jpg


I removed one pole. I won't admit how long it took to do perfectly.

Here's the dilemma: utility poles, trees and traffic lights in front of a building for which a clean architectural photograph is required! I believe that the system required two pictures from either side and then the structures in front could by removed so easily. What software do you know that might do that? Have you seen that capability in CS4. I am using CS2. Until now, I've had no issues I couldn't tackle with what I have and I hate just getting new software every year like a tax!

Asher

P.S. Today, I took a bunch more pictures, hopefully with less intervening poles, I just climbed much higher. I'll be looking at my new pics in the am.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Asher,

_MG_0162fromjpg800.jpg


I removed one pole. I won't admit how long it took to do perfectly.

Here's the dilemma: utility poles, trees and traffic lights in front of a building for which a clean architectural photograph is required! I believe that the system required two pictures from either side and then the structures in front could by removed so easily.
What system are you referring to? Was that just a conceptual observation about the process? That would certainly make sense.

Is there any chance that some of the sophisticated panoramic image management software might be able to be employed to this end?

Best regards,

Doug
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
Adobe demonstrated something similar and very clever the other year, but for now, Alain has made panos by moving the camera in a linear fashion rather than rotating around the lens nodal point -

Mike
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Adobe demonstrated something similar and very clever the other year, but for now, Alain has made panos by moving the camera in a linear fashion rather than rotating around the lens nodal point -
Mike,

Do you have the links? Where's this picture by Alain. Is that Alain Briot?

Asher
 
Dear Asher,
poles, lights, trees, wires (as well as cars and pedestrians) are primeval evil (primevil? ;-) of the urban architectural photography.
The last two can often be eliminated by taking same frame several times over the course of a few minutes.
However, the rest is rather pesky. One way to go, as you have already discovered, is to take a higher vantage point. However it's not always possible. The only ultimate solution is to use "parallel pano" technique, when you move your camera in a direction parallel to your focal plane instead of rotating it. This way you're pretty much guaranteed to have enough "almost" identical images to be able to use clone tool on each offending object. Combine this with some vertical offsets (i.e. raising/lowering your camera), too - and you'll be golden.
HTH
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
Asher, there is only one Alain!!

I don't have links, but think he posted something on here from Grand Canyon?? I'm not sure if he had to deal with foreground effects, but it should be achievable. If I get chance in the next couple of weeks I'll have a go.

Mike
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks Mike, Nik and Doug for your comments,

I have decided to go higher and also to find a sweet spot where I can still get the tall red brick buildings but minimize the poles to be removed subsequently.

This is a pano from higher up hand held and stitched in AutoPano Pro 1.3. (1.4 wont work on my G5!)

2009_04_Pano Colburn_High_MG_0568-Small.jpg


© Asher Kelman

I'll post some more views and then it will be clean up time!
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Asher,

Just some observations on the geometry involved if you were to use a "lateral-shift" multiple image approach to being able to readily suppress undesired foreground objects.

• Assume that the greatest width of the interfering object, as seen from the camera) is 2' (of course the poles in your project are not that great in diameter, and the luminaire clusters probably have a rather greater span; this is just an example).

• Assume that the interfering object is 1/5 the way from the intended subject surface to the camera.

Then, to provide the material needed to "clone out" the interfering object in the most obvious way, the lateral distance between the two camera vantage points would need to be a little over 10'.

Generally, the relationship would be:

x = w•(D/d)

where x is the needed lateral shift in camera position, w is the actual maximum width of the interfering object (as seen from the camera), D is the distance from the camera to the subject surface, and d is the distance from the interfering object to the subject surface.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
.... to provide the material needed to "clone out" the interfering object in the most obvious way, the lateral distance between the two camera vantage points would need to be a little over 10'.

Generally, the relationship would be:

x = w•(D/d)

where x is the needed lateral shift in camera position, w is the actual maximum width of the interfering object (as seen from the camera), D is the distance from the camera to the subject surface, and d is the distance from the interfering object to the subject surface.
Thanks, that's a useful formula. The distances are the width of the Avenue and also the width of the sidewalk. So assuming that's 60 feet and 10 feet then wIf the pole diameter was 1 foot, then you would have to move at least 6 feet for the pole proper. Etc.

Asher
 
Is there any chance that some of the sophisticated panoramic image management software might be able to be employed to this end?

Yes, that's the way I do it if there are some poles or traffic signs to be eliminated.
Many panorama stitchers allow to tweak a lateral offset parameter, as if the sensor plane was shifted sideways. One shoots the scene, sidesteps until the hidden background is revealed, and shoots again. Then an additional parameter is added to (included in) the optimization routine, which compensates for the perspective distortion of the more or less planar surfaces. To compensate for differences in magnification as well, the stitcher must also allow to optimize the 'focal length' or FOV parameter. PTAssembler (Windows platform only) is the tool I use for that.

It doesn't always work, e.g. when objects are relatively wide and a lot of lateral displacement is needed, but it is sometimes the only way to create a realistic facade (cloning doesn't always work if realism needed).

Moving objects are easier to remove, because the camera can stay put, and 'time' will allow to blend successive shots.

Bart
 

Daniel Buck

New member
If there are alot of polls and you want to experiment with a different technique, maybe look at photogrammetry. Tou would basically take photos of the building (buildings work great for this) from several different angles, then in your photogrammetry software you line them up with several key-points to make a rough 3d model of the building. Once you have this, you could then paint out the polls using the data from one of the other angles that has the poll in a different position. You could also move the camera to a different location for your final render :)

You would probably loose image quality doing this, but if you are looking for something fun to experiment with, this might be it :)

Removing polls isn't the purpose of photogrammetry, but it might work. (the purpose is to get a rough 3d model of the object you are shooting, building work great for this because they are usually very boxy, and easy to approximate)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Yes, that's the way I do it if there are some poles or traffic signs to be eliminated.
Many panorama stitchers allow to tweak a lateral offset parameter, as if the sensor plane was shifted sideways. One shoots the scene, sidesteps until the hidden background is revealed, and shoots again.
Thanks Bart,

I wonder whether or not PTGUI does it? I have done it by hand, correcting for size too. The photograph is handheld just to get the shooting position chosen so that the red brick towers are revealed. (Existing pictures at the very front of the school can't include the towers as one cannot go back far enough; there's a drop of 30-50 feet to a parking lot, LOL! Still, I might get a 20ft ladder!)

Original:

Pano_MG_0437-10905x6023_700 pixels.jpg



© Asher Kelman: Poles minimized in shot, still front of building
marred by signs, lampost, 4 bins and ghost car in front of the entrance




Edited:

Pano_MG_0437-10905x6023signremoved700 pixels wide.jpg


© Asher Kelman: Clutter in front of building removed but cloning adjacent structure.

I have to check if this is the angle and then might re-photograph with no cars! I may remove the rest of the signs then and the yellow buildings in the back right.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher

its called viewpoint - you definatly need more than a shot. Look where it says. "A nadir shot was taken to cover this hole: "
Michael,

That's seems to be just for completing the sphere without getting one's feet or shadow in. Here we want to use two different viewpoints and obliterate that feature that moves with respect to background. I know someone has done it already!

Another interesting way might be be to mark it in CS4 as a structure one wants to lose and then shrink the image until the unwanted parts vanish and then expand again to have the brick structure and windows get rebuilt from fractals.

Asher
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Here we want to use two different viewpoints and obliterate that feature that moves with respect to background. I know someone has done it already! Asher

Well, look then into my "shooting arround a column, maybe two years ago...

Edith: with viewpoints, you' ve two cam positions as well:
- the standart for the pano
- the 2nd for the nadir...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, look then into my "shooting arround a column, maybe two years ago...

Edith: with viewpoints, you' ve two cam positions as well:
- the standart for the pano
- the 2nd for the nadir...
Michael,

I fully remember your wonderful problem of taking the photograph of a massive painting behind several pillars. However, this was a simple problem compared to odd shaped and curving poles and complex angled and recessed 3D surfaces. You did a great job!

At the moment as shown above, I can do it by hand pretty well, (see post #13), but it would be much nicer to have the software take care of shading and blending better.

This problem is not new and I'm sure has been adequately solved. Just we need the references!

Asher
 
Top