Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Darkroom > Retouching & Repairing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 2nd, 2009, 11:21 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,302
Default The traffic lights and trees in the way conundrum!



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.
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 3rd, 2009, 02:27 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,121
Default

Hi, Asher,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post


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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 3rd, 2009, 02:48 AM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
OPF Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 3rd, 2009, 11:14 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Shimwell View Post
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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 3rd, 2009, 01:44 PM
Nikolai Sklobovsky Nikolai Sklobovsky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
Posts: 1,181
Default

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
__________________
Nikolai
Sr.Software Engineer
PhotoSoCal, Digital Grin, LA Shooters, NAPP, PPA
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old April 3rd, 2009, 02:45 PM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
OPF Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old April 4th, 2009, 12:47 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,302
Default

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!)



Asher Kelman

I'll post some more views and then it will be clean up time!
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old April 4th, 2009, 06:35 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,121
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old April 4th, 2009, 10:33 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug_Kerr View Post
.... 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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old April 6th, 2009, 06:39 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
OPF Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug_Kerr View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old April 6th, 2009, 07:02 AM
Michael Fontana Michael Fontana is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,557
Default

Asher

if you can't beat them, make'em to your friends....
__________________
http://www.proimago.net
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 6th, 2009, 08:53 AM
Daniel Buck Daniel Buck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 374
Default

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)
__________________
Daniel Buck - Photographer and 3d artist
photography: 404Photography.net - BuckshotsBlog.com
3d work: DanielBuck.net
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old April 6th, 2009, 12:46 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
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:




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:



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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old April 6th, 2009, 12:58 PM
Michael Fontana Michael Fontana is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Thanks Bart,
....I wonder whether or not PTGUI does it? ....Asher
Yep, Asher that's positive.
That tecnique is used too, to hide the tripod on a sphere
__________________
http://www.proimago.net
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old April 6th, 2009, 04:40 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,302
Default If You Can't Beat Them? Use them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Fontana View Post
Asher

if you can't beat them, make'em to your friends....
Michael,

So then here's that approach! Just claim ownership of the lights and use them in a night shot.




Asher Kelman Owninbg the lights at night!
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old April 7th, 2009, 01:27 AM
Michael Fontana Michael Fontana is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,557
Default

Asher

its called viewpoint - you definatly need more than a shot. Look where it says. "A nadir shot was taken to cover this hole: "
__________________
http://www.proimago.net
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old April 7th, 2009, 01:51 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Fontana View Post
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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old April 7th, 2009, 02:05 AM
Michael Fontana Michael Fontana is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
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...
__________________
http://www.proimago.net
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old April 7th, 2009, 02:19 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Fontana View Post
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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Night lights! : Post your best! Nicolas Claris Layback Cafe 79 March 22nd, 2008 08:01 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!