Getting images w/ different zoom/focal lengths to match up?

Hi! I recently shot some star trails the other day with a 20 second shutter speed. i ended up with around 150 pictures but when i went to blend them, the trails didn't match up! i later discovered that when i went outside to clean off the lens (which was every 10 mins) that i accidentally zoomed in a little each time i cleaned it (ranging from 11mm to 13.6mm). I put all the images into photoshop and blended the ones that were shot with the same focal length (i ended up with 5 layers)I was wondering if there was a way/feature or if you guys knew any tips or tricks that would crop the image and line it up to match the other trails for me automatically or help me crop the images to the right size. Thank you and any help is much appreciated!! (:

Do your images have any easily identifiable landmarks in the foreground - buildings, trees, etc.? If so, you could use the Measure tool, and figure the necessary scaling from there.

Similar Messages

Pixelated images in different zoom levels

Hi, since yesterday I´ve got a mystic problem when zooming my images. In the 100% view the images look sharp, clear and smooth. But when I zoom out and reach the 30% the images is pixelated like there is to much sharpness in it. The view doesn´t smoth the edges and the image look very hard. This effect comes from one zoom level to another (alt + scroll mouse) and zoomong back the image is smoth again. In Lightroom the images look clear and smooth in every zoom level.
I´ve got an iMac 27" and OpenGL is activated. I´m using Photoshop CC and I think that at the beginning the problem wasn´t there, but since a view days it is...
Any ideas??
Best
Sven

You can scale the small clips up to the same size of the larger one... but you will get a quality loss.
Using Motion or Scale to Frame Size commands
Better to scale the large ones down to a Sequence that matches the smaller clip dimensions.

Lens information and focal length (35mm) not showing up

I'm using a Canon 20D with several L lenses and I have yet to see any information show up in the Focal Length (35mm) field, or any of the lens information fields. I would think this would be a pretty common combination and I'm wondering if there is anything I can do to get this information.
For focal length, since it does know my camera type (i.e. 20D) can't they just multiply all the lens focal lengths by 1.6 my FOVCF?

the sensor size in the camera does not alter the focal length of the lens - it just results in an image with a different field of view to a different sensor size. Focal length is a characteristic of the lens and has nothing whatsoever to do with the camera body it is attached to.
The lens will always be a 28mm or 50mm etc so why would Aperture or any other software say it is a 45mm or 80mm lens? The image will not look the same as if you had taken it with an actual 45mm or 80mm lens, so it would be incorrect to show it as such...
Aperture should simply show the actual focal length for each image - we translate that to whatever is helpful for us to understand the results.

Smart Folders and Filtering based on Focal Length

Can we please be given the ability to create Smart Folders and be able to Filter images based on focal length?
Doing so based on Lens alone does not take into account that more and more people rely on zoom lenses. When you have 16-35, 27-70, 35-135 and 70-200 lenses, one could benefit from having the ability to search for images created in wide-angle, normal, zoom and tele-zoom ranges.
Providing this feature would be greatly appreciated.
Regards, JML

Thanks Colin, I will try it.
Sounds like it may work - however bit awkward solution in otherwise ergonomic LR environment :-(
I really do not understand why this value is not among the filtering metadata when LR recognizes it and shows it on every corner. Especially considering the fact LR is supposed to be full WF solution and certain development settings cannot be effectively applied without selecting images only with certain focal length values.
The very last feature I am missing on this SW designed to cover entire WF (since LR1) is the distortion/perspective control and ability to apply corrections based on lens/focal length used.
b Does anyone have an idea if Adobe plans to eventually implement this feature?
I do not want to be forced to use DxO which always means interruption of the WF and inevitably generated new files on disk.

IPhoto 6.0.5 Get info regards focal length of picture taken???

When I display a photo and want info on that photo I go to Photos, get info and focal length. A small number 7.19 mm seems to refer to a wide angle view while a larger number 28.81 mm refers to a telephoto view I think. If this is true what is the multipler that gives me the numbers that apply to a non-digital camera. 35 mm and 200 mm make more sense to me than 7.19 or 28.81 mm. If the numbers do not refer to this what do they mean and where can I find the 35, 200, 400mm numbers. Well, stupid me, just plugged some #s into the calculator and it appears that a 4.86 multipler works out to be 35 and 140 mm the G5's focal length. Now another question instead. Can I change in preferences somewhere a setting that will make that calculation and display the 35mm, 140mm numbers instead?

ef1:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. No, the information is added to the image file by the camera and iPhoto just reads it. There's no way to recode iPhoto to add the multiplier. Just the nature of the beast. If you wanted to edit each file individually to change the number to reflect the value you want. There's an application that will let you edit those fields. It's called Reveal.
Otherwise, create a jpg with a table of converted focal lengths and include it in iPhoto for quick reference.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application, iPhoto dB file backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar

Filter by lens focal length?

I would like to get an idea of how frequently I use different focal length settings on a particular zoom lens. The focal length used on each shot is in the metadata. I can see it shown right under the histogram in Library mode. Is there some way to build a custom filter to select photos with a focal length between 24-32 mm, for example?

Jeffrey Friedl has written a LR plugin that should address your needs:
Taken from his page:
"This plugin is designed to fill a specific hole in Lightroom's “Grid
Filter”, adding new fields by which you can filter images: “Focal
Length” and “Focal Length in 35mm”. The
former is the raw focal length of the lens, while the latter is viewed in
terms of the frame size of a 35mm film frame."
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/focal-length-sort

Feature Request - better croping, focus patterns,focal length selections?

Tool specific Keyboard shortcuts: It would be helpful to have popup clues about keyboard shortcuts. For example, when using the crop tool, it is not obvious that typing an "X" will change the crop tool from a portrait to landscape mode or repeatedly pressing "O" will cycle through a number of grids. (Thank you Matt!)
Crop at other than "Fit" setting: Other crop tool request - allow crop to work on image at settings other than "fit" I may be able to get a more accurate crop at 1:2, etc. Otherwise I have to crop an image roughly, make a virtual copy and then crop again. Is there a better way to do this?
Show Focus Points on request: If you shoot wildlife with a long lens, a slight error in focus can ruin the shot. I review my bad shots to determine patterns of error in focusing. It would be helpful to see the focus points that were used in Lightroom, (e.g. killer whales move differently than an egret....) I assume this is stored in the metadata. I'd love to be able to do this in Lightroom.
Add Focal Length to filterable metadata fields: It would help to be able to see the various focal lengths used during a shoot, just like you can look at apertures (i.e. select folder for shoot, turn on filters, select aperture in the metadata and wallah! you can see the distribution of apertures used during a shoot.) This reminds you to mix it up and/or helps with lens selection. Is there a way to do this now?
My apologies if these features are available and I just haven't found them yet.
-TAB, a lightroom fan
P.S. Thank you for the wonderful new features. I can't wait to convert my existing catalogs. I love the new import dialog. Now I can organize my backup copy in a logical fashion. When I'm in the field on a multi-day shoot, I don't want to risk reorganizing the backup. Now I don't need to. Enough has been said about noise reduction and better rendition. Thank you!!!

There is a corresponding idea at the feedback forum: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/add_image_direction_in_map_module
Anyone who wants this feature should also vote over there...
BTW: +1
Edit: P.S. I think it is generally a better idea to post feature wishes in the feedback forum (or comment on existing ones there) because it's regularly monitored by Adobe employees, while that is not necessarily the case for the user-to-user-forum here.

How to shoot fixed focal length lenses?

Hi,
I wonder how I am supposed to best shoot fixed focal length lenses.
Currently I just shoot one set of 9 images, just because it is a fixed focal length lens and if I want it to be good, I shoot the same set again with different apertures.
But the documentation says: "For prime lenses, shoot at (1 × minimum focus distance) and (5 × minimum focus distance) focus distance positions with a fixed f/11 aperture."
My problem here is to understand how I am supposed to shoot with different focus distances while using a fixed focal length lens?
As far as I have understood until now, I have to put the test chart fully on the picture so it fills something about 1/2 to 1/3 of the picture, leaving room everywhere. I also input the type of chart I used in the software.
If I do this, then moving the camera to say 5 times the first distance makes the second set of picture agaisnt the rules since obviously the test chart will show only much to small.
If I do it the other way around (first 5x then 1x min) then the second set will only show fractions of the chart.
As added difficulty I wonder how to handle macro lenses... the minimum focus distance there usually allows for a 1:1 magnification. That would either require a test chart total size (!) of less than 1/2 an inch (fun printing) or you would only get to see a fraction of a test-chart-square.
So how do I do it?

No, I am not confunsing these terms. I thought of it exactly as you described, but that seems not in sync with reality or guidance given - for the following reasons:
1. I do actually own a 35mm macro lens with minimal focus distance which I want to create a profile for. Minimum focus distance is 13cm with magnification 1:1. The latter means that the picture is completely filled by any object that is as big as the sensor. --> The full test chart needs to be less than 2cm small.
In that regard your example of a 400mm lens is the easy thing because of the 12 feet distance. Anything is easy to shoot from 4m aways as you can use normal charts.
2. As I described the guide says that the chart should fill about 50% of the picture and you should use one chart. Even in your example obviously the size of the chart on the picture will vary in a real big way if you shoot the same chart with a 400mm lens from 12 feet and from 60 feet. I just wonder if that is what is correct or one should choose a different chart for each distance (I dont believe that).

Get image file name

Hi ALL,
I want all image file naming like a caption in my source document. Source document contains more than 100 images.
But i got a script through the forum and tuned for my script. Still, the file naming comes for the Ist page image only.
From second page onwards the file naming not comes like a caption.
Trying script:
//To Get image file name
var tgt = app.activeDocument.rectangles;
for (i=0;i<tgt.length;i++){
    myCaption = app.activeDocument.textFrames.add();
    myCaption.textFramePreferences.verticalJustification = VerticalJustification.TOP_ALIGN
    myCaption.contents = tgt[i].graphics[0].itemLink.name
    myCaption.paragraphs[0].justification = Justification.CENTER_ALIGN;
    bnds = tgt[i].visibleBounds;
    myCaption.visibleBounds =
        [bnds[2]+12, bnds[1], bnds[2]+4,bnds[3]];
        //[bnds[0]-6, bnds[1], bnds[0]-1,bnds[3]];
        myCaption.fit(FitOptions.FRAME_TO_CONTENT);
Thanks in advance
BEGINNER

If you use the add() method in conjunction with the document without specifying the page or better the spread, all objects added will end up on the first spread of your document.
But your testing scenario is also too narrow. You are expecting:
1. All your graphics are sitting in Rectangle objects (what about Ovals or Polygons?)
Therefore: All graphics placed in ovals or polygons are left out.
2. That really ALL rectangles in your document contain graphics
You are in trouble, if there happen to be empty rectangles on a page. I would suggest to test that with your script. It will give you an error, because there is no graphics[0] for this specific rectangle, where you can draw the "name" for the "itemLink".
3. That there are no graphics in anchored objects or pasted inside other objects; left alone graphics inside table cells.
And who can say that thiese three restrictions exist in all documents you want to run this script against?
So, if you want to get to all image files in the document, why don't you start with the images in the first place?
Let's see:
the Document object has an "allGraphics" property.
Use that as a starting point and you will not missing a single graphic.*
Iterate through "allGraphics" will get you:
the "name" of the placed image through its itemLink.name property;
the container of the graphic, that's the "parent" of the graphic.
Now you need one other thing:
the page, or even better(!) the spread where the graphic is located. Imagine a graphic sitting outside of a page.
If you want to handle thiese, you must know the spread.
If writing this script for InDesign CS5 or above, you are in luck. There is a "parentPage" property of the "Graphic" object, you could use for your add() method. For graphics outside of pages this property will be "null".
And another important thing:
if a graphic is copy/pasted from e.g. PhotoShop to InDesign, the "itemLink" property of that graphic is also "null".
We can handle that in a try/catch scenario…
//Scope: all graphics on all pages
//(that includes graphics of anchored objects, active states of MSOs, graphics in table cells as well)
var tgt = app.activeDocument.allGraphics;
for(var i=0;i<tgt.length;i++){
    //Narrow the scope to all graphics on pages only:
    if(tgt[i].parentPage != null){
        //What to do with graphics, that are pasted directly from none-InDesign files:
        //the caption will read "Undefined"
        try{
        var myName = tgt[i].itemLink.name;
        }catch(e){var myName = "Undefined"};
        //targets the page of the graphic:
        var myPage = tgt[i].parentPage;
        //adds a text frame to the page of the graphic:
        var myCaption = myPage.textFrames.add();
        myCaption.textFramePreferences.verticalJustification = VerticalJustification.TOP_ALIGN;
        myCaption.contents = myName;
        myCaption.paragraphs[0].justification = Justification.CENTER_ALIGN;
        //Why visible bounds and not geometric bounds?
        var bnds = tgt[i].parent.visibleBounds;
        myCaption.visibleBounds = [bnds[2]+12, bnds[1], bnds[2]+4,bnds[3]];
        myCaption.fit(FitOptions.FRAME_TO_CONTENT);
*Not exactly true, because it is missing graphics in not-active states of MultiStateObjects.
Since MSOs were introduced in InDesign CS5 the DOM documentation left out this fact so far.
//EDIT: in the first version I had a comment on a different scope. Since Document Objects have no "graphic" property, I removed that comment. Sorry.
Uwe
P.S. And a Happy New Year to all!
Message was edited by: Laubender

Rotated image at 120% zoom

Hi Framers,
I use Frame 7.1p116 and have some small graphics of arrows in my text. These are imported by reference, Anchored Frame, At Insertion Point.
When I display at 100% ot 140% (or other values) the display is just fine. But at 120% one of the arrows is suddenly changed from a Left arrow (correct) into an Up arrow. The printed PDF is just fine.
It's not a big deal, although it cost me a few minutes when I thought I had imported the wrong image. Has anyone seen anything like it before?
Here are the three zooms and the Object Properties. They are straight screen grabs, cropped and with a red circle added afterwards.
Any ideas?
--- Derek

Thanks Sheila and Arnis,
Today I opened the project to try different zoom settings and the problem has vanished; I get the correct arrow at zooms of 100, 120 and 140%.
Likely a bug somewhere deep in Frame's innards. Anyway we've ordered TCS3 so soon I'll be using FM10. Thanks anyway.
--- Derek

Library Filter: Metadata Browser: Add Focal Length

Please add Focal length as an available Meta data to browse in the Library Filter.
Purpose:
I'm currently considering to buy a new zoom lens. To determine the best zoom range for the lens, I like to see which focal length I use most often by profiling my existing images.
The information is already available in the images exif data, it only needs to be exposed in the Lib Filter.
Reinhard

A few posts before yours:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3bc46ae7
...and dozens of others can be found if you had taken the time to look.

Focal length in Metadata panel

I notice that in the metadata (Info) panel one can see the focal length used and below that, a blank field for the 35mm focal length. Is there any way to get Aperture to fill in that empty field with the 35mm equivalent to the lens's actual focal length?

Thanks for that. I did as you suggested, but my current libary has only recent images all from one camera, which doesn't produce RAW fles, the Ricoh CX4. I will go back to an earlier library where I have several cameras involved included two whose raw files are processed by Aperture, and i'll bet I'll see the 35mm equivalent.
Is there any way I can tell Aperture the formula for my CX4 lens such as that its minimum focal length of 4.9mm is equivalent to 28mm on a 35mm camera?
In any case, I am happy to know what you just told me, because I will be using Aperture to process images from two other cameras it does recognize. By 'recognize' I mean it will process their raw files.

Image size different in debug and publish

My project is purely actionscript based movie. I am trying to
display an image file (jpg) that is received from the movie server.
The image file displays with corect zoom dimensions when in
development environment but after the movie is published...the
image displays full size (612x494). It gets more
wierd...occassionally it works correctly (displays image with
correct zoom) after several tries of publishing the movie.
Any ideas what might be the cause of this? Please help!!!
regards,
staylor
>>>>>>>>>More
Info:>>>>>>>>>
the following code is executed to size up the image after
image load is complete.
viewPort_width_ = 450;
viewPort_height_= 350;
var zoom : Number = 1;
var scale : Number = 100 * zoom;
image_.scrollRect = new Rectangle(0 / zoom,0 /
zoom,viewPort_width_ / zoom,viewPort_height_ / zoom);
image_._xscale = image_._yscale = scale;

The image on the left in PS looks the same in Picasa Image
Viewer (I selected it to be color managed based on the monitor profile), looks the same in Windows Image Viewer, and looks the same in the thumbnail. The image on the right in LR is how the picture looks when I look at my image in Firefox but in Internet Explorer and in Chrome, the image looks like the image on the left in PS. The image below shows how the thumbnail looks different from the actual picture when it's double clicked and viewed in Picasa. The thumbnail (which shows the subjects having green skin) would be how I saw it online while the double clicked version is how I saw it in PS, even though it was sRGB (I checked the image properties to make sure of the color space).
I have a ATI 5470 GPU on my ASUS 17.3 inch laptop. Not sure about the drivers.

Image size different in debug and in publish

My project is purely actionscript based movie. I am trying to
display an image file (jpg) that is received from the movie server.
The image file displays with corect zoom dimensions when in
development environment but after the movie is published...the
image displays full size (612x494). It gets more
wierd...occassionally it works correctly (displays image with
correct zoom) after several tries of publishing the movie.
Any ideas what might be the cause of this? Please help!!!
regards,
staylor
>>>>>>>>>More
Info:>>>>>>>>>
the following code is executed to size up the image after
image load is complete.
viewPort_width_ = 450;
viewPort_height_= 350;
var zoom : Number = 1;
var scale : Number = 100 * zoom;
image_.scrollRect = new Rectangle(0 / zoom,0 /
zoom,viewPort_width_ / zoom,viewPort_height_ / zoom);
image_._xscale = image_._yscale = scale;

The image on the left in PS looks the same in Picasa Image
Viewer (I selected it to be color managed based on the monitor profile), looks the same in Windows Image Viewer, and looks the same in the thumbnail. The image on the right in LR is how the picture looks when I look at my image in Firefox but in Internet Explorer and in Chrome, the image looks like the image on the left in PS. The image below shows how the thumbnail looks different from the actual picture when it's double clicked and viewed in Picasa. The thumbnail (which shows the subjects having green skin) would be how I saw it online while the double clicked version is how I saw it in PS, even though it was sRGB (I checked the image properties to make sure of the color space).
I have a ATI 5470 GPU on my ASUS 17.3 inch laptop. Not sure about the drivers.

Metadata browser: focal length?

I can't figure out how to browse/search for images by focal length. Any
hints?
Herb

>Herb,
>IMO that would have been impossible. For example, think how many different focal lengths one would generate for a 70-300mm lens. The metadata panel would be gigantic. My Canon 20D reports every mm of focal length for every photo. 70mm, 71mm, 72mm, 73mm, 74mm, 75mm etc. I have a 10-22, 50, 17-55, 70-300, 24-105 lenses. So 10-300 range in 1 mm increments or 290 values.
>
>Of course I could be wrong.
>
>Mel
There are billions of possible combinations of letters in a text based metadata field -- a numeric field like this would only have a few thousand at most. What am I missing here?
By the way, does anyone know the status of the "35mm equivalent" focal length field? Is there any word on when it might start working?
Thanks,
Larry

Getting images w/ different zoom/focal lengths to match up?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for