I think this is the last question for today!  
 
Am I wrong in my thinking that the more shots I take and stitch, the better the resolution?
 
I have read where others shoot far more shots with the same setup.  I am wondering what the advantage to doing so is unless it does indeed give better resolution?
 
I am using a D80 and Sigma 8mm on a 303 sph.  I have been using six shots at about 17°.  This covers everything but the cap.
 
Thanks-Stephani

Stephani
You're right, a camera & lens combination that requires more shots to cover the interior of cube or sphere will tend to have more resolution.
 
This is because it take more shots with lenses with a narrower field of view.  
 
Usually the D80/Sigma 8mm in portrait position only needs 4 shots around and a Nikkor 10.5mm needs 6 shots. That means you have 20 more megapixels to work with
 
There's a lot of other variables, but that's the concept.

That makes sense on the smaller lens-but if I take more shots with the 8mm-will that help at all or am I just wasting time and effort?

If you shoot more shots around horizontal, you'll just get more overlap which may produce a better alignment.
 
With Coolpix 5400 and the FC-E9 I get a circular image with a FOV of 190° horizontally and vertically, so I can cover 100% of the interior of a sphere with just 2 shots.
 
Three shots at 120° becomes redundant because I've already got 100% coverage. Although the center 120° of the lens tends to be sharper and crisper than the edges where focus of all lenses tend to deteriorate a little, fisheyes more so. So the clarity of the image may be better with 3 shots than 2.
 
So with the Sigma 8mm like you have and I just got, 6 shots around horizontal might produce a little sharper virtual image since the software would only need to use the very center horizonatlly of the source images, but the 6 shots would still have the same FOV and wouldn't produce more resolution, i.e. more pixels and a larger image

Thank you-That makes perfect sense!