NN3 mkII + Tokina 10-17 + Canon 50D [Archive] - Nodal Ninja Forum

PDA

View Full Version : NN3 mkII + Tokina 10-17 + Canon 50D



RecorridosVirtuales
05-04-2010, 06:22 PM
Hi everyone!

I'm having trouble calibrating this setup. I'd appreciate to know if anybody is currently using this settings and which measures do you use.

Thanks in advance from the subtropical regions of Mexico

RecorridosVirtuales
05-05-2010, 02:09 PM
Hi everyone!

I've managed to calibrate this setup, and I'll be glad to compare the settings I've obtained with someone else (i'm not 100% I got it right).

I found an A distance of 55mm and B distance of 92mm using the tokina 10-17 at 10mm mounted on my NN3 and Canon 50d.
I'd really appreciate if anybody could confirm this measures.

Thanks in advance from the subtropical regions of Mexico.

hansnyberg
05-07-2010, 04:18 AM
Your A should be more like 58 if you use the Camera Plate.
And your B should be around 95-96.

I use 97 on my 5D with 4 around and it has the same Tripod mount length.
There is no "correct" settings for a fisheye but 92 is to far from the medium if you want the zenith to stitch perfect.

How did you get to the A=55. If you looked through your viewfinder and set the centre point to the rotator you should make sure that the bottom plate of you camera is plain first.
I have 4 Canons from 10D to the 5D Mark II and only the Mark II is plain.

If it is not you have to correct it with some duck tape before mounting it.
This error gave me 51 on my 5D while the correct is 53-54
http://panoramas.dk/panorama/NPP/5d/taped-bottomplate.jpg

You should also make sure that your vertical arm is exactly in 90 degree. A small error in that will give you the same error and my old NN3 had a very big one which also some ducktape cured.

Hans

RecorridosVirtuales
05-07-2010, 10:36 AM
Hi Hans!

I didn't checked my bottom plate! Maybe my measures are wrong, I spent an unusual amount of time calibrating this setup and that might be the reason.

Thanks a lot from the subtropical regions of Mexico

Felipe

RecorridosVirtuales
05-10-2010, 03:19 PM
Hi!

I checked my camera and the camera plate seem well aligned to me: http://picasaweb.google.com/FelipeenFPK/Base50D?authkey=Gv1sRgCN-g3__u0rzLYQ#

Will try to verify my setup later this week, any imput will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

John Houghton
05-10-2010, 11:45 PM
You provide no clues as to how you are checking the panohead setup. You should be able to do this accurately in no more than 10mins by checking the position of the entrance pupil directly. See http://www.johnhpanos.com/epcalib.htm.

John

RecorridosVirtuales
05-12-2010, 10:00 AM
Hi John!



You provide no clues as to how you are checking the panohead setup.


First, I found the "A" value (horizontal displacement bar) by mounting my camera and looking through the viewfinder to center it with NN logo.
The I shot two overlapping objects (one straight in front of the other) to adjust the "B" value (front/back displacement). However, I'm not satisfied with the alignment I got, something doesn't feel right. I usually do test panos on my living room, where I have some very close objects and some far away ones, my resulting pano had some misalignment issue on not so close objects.

I think my setup is perfectible. I will photograph my camera as in the example you linked to check my alignment.

Thanks a lot.

DennisS
05-12-2010, 06:59 PM
Pointing the camera down at the rotator is NOT the way to get the lower rail setting. There are way too many variables involved. The pano head and the camera all have to be absolutely square and plumb. You would also have to be looking exactly straight down into the viewfinder. You could be off a couple of millmeters and not even know it. Although it is a good place to start, it is not where you want to finish.

Follow John's tutorial and you will be fine.

hansnyberg
05-13-2010, 12:41 AM
Denis

Pointing down on the rotator is actually a very good way as it also takes care of errors in the lens.
There is no other way to figure that out.
In reality there can be as much as 2mm difference between lenses.
You will see that when you optimize for shift and get large differences between 2 lenses on the same camera.

What you have to check first is that the camera is level on the bottom plate.
This shows my 5D which is not level but need the adjustment with some ductape
http://panoramas.dk/panorama/NPP/5d/level-camera.jpg

The error you see above gives 2mm error at the front of my 15mm which you can see here.
http://panoramas.dk/panorama/NPP/5d/5d-5dmarkII-error.jpg

However if you look down on the rotator and adjust to center it will be 3-4mm because of the distance.
After adjustment it is perfect. http://panoramas.dk/panorama/NPP/5d/taped-bottomplate.jpg

Thats why I suspect that Felipe's camera may have the same error.
The correct A value for his camera on the NN# is 58-59 mm the same as the 5D .

He may also have a vertical arm that is not in 90 degree angle with the bottom rail.
This will produce the same error.
My old NN3 has that and the only way to correct is with some tape on the bottom plate of the vertical arm.

Hans

hindenhaag
05-14-2010, 12:20 AM
Felipe and Den(n)is(S),

we know there are different ways to go to Rome to take the royal shot with Cesar. Don't we?

As Dennis said, there are a lot more reasons besides non using ducktapes use to find the right LRS. Slight differences in NN production for example.

I never saw Dennis to place "the one and only way to go to Rome" comment. He is experienced, he spend a lot time for developments to hardware and placed his thoughts in several forums. Leading to new NN products with "state of art designs" from Nick. A very good synergy.

Another way to go to Rome: http://www.easypano.com/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=1&TopicID=4162

Felipe, feel free to send pics to proof your LRS.

I am glad, that this forum till now is free to several comments with opposite opinions, being respected. Not 126 threads to produce yourself on one question. Not the "only one way to Rome".

I like this forum to share experience. Without "no other way" solutions.

Let's hope we can keep it this way without hundreds of threads with personal wars like on other forums and "the one and only way and discrediting other comments".

There is a way besides setting comments like "stupid design", "no other way to figure that out" on forums.

With regards, and respect to other opinions, working means to make faults sometimes, use my comments or not,

Bill, Nick, Trausti, DennisS, John, et al are worth to follow comments without the "one and only" solution.



Heinz

DennisS
05-14-2010, 07:56 AM
What I should have said, which reflects my view in a better way, is that pointing the camera down and centering on the rotator is not the only step in the calibration process, but the first. If, after followng John's and Smooth's tutorial, the camera is not pointing directly into the center of the rotator, further adjustment may not be required. Shimming parts that are not square may bring the rotator into the center of view, but might not be necessary in order to get good results. If the image parameters show a lot of variances, then adding shims to the appropriate area may become necesary for the final "fine tuning".

RecorridosVirtuales
05-14-2010, 08:39 AM
I'll be glad to post some pictures of my setup. And my test pictures with it. I just have to find some time to redo the calibration process.

Best regards from the subtropical regions of Mexico.