High resolution photos from a digital camera.

Annika1980 wrote:
Nice work! I like the doggy.

That is one cute dog is it not?

Scott

you will get "barrel" panorama images if you swing the camera and stitching
won't be accurate. move the camera parallel to the scene in each shot is
preferred.

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

PcB wrote:
I am not trying to tell people that this is a better way to take photos
then using a large format camera, all that I am trying to say is that
some of the limitations that many people believe digital cameras have
are not real limitations at all.

You are correct in what you say and the following is not said simply to
disagree with you. However, isn't there a major difference between
shooting
one frame with a 5x4 camera (complete with lens tilt, etc) and stitching
several frames taken on a 35mm or equivalent (digital or film, doesn't
matter), i.e. parallax error. There will be a different amount of
parallax
"creep" between the shot taken parallel to the ground and a shot taken at
45
degrees to the ground. I haven't done too much with stitched panoramas so
maybe this isn't an issue?

You need a really good tripod head, one that rotates the camera around
the nodal point of the lens. I use this one.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...tegoryNavigati

Basically what you are doing to mapping angle in both azimuth and
elevation to pixels in one or more of the photos. If can then
reconstruct the a photo for any given pointing and any given field of
view, assuming you cover a large enough area with your photos.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yesterday I took a 95 MP photo using my digital camera, here is a link
to a overview photo along with a small 100% crop from the photo.

One would think your camera resolution was 95MP by the way you wrote, but I
think I see what you mean.
What was the MP value of each frame? 3.3?

pch wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yesterday I took a 95 MP photo using my digital camera, here is a link
to a overview photo along with a small 100% crop from the photo.

One would think your camera resolution was 95MP by the way you wrote, but I
think I see what you mean.
What was the MP value of each frame? 3.3?

Each frame was 8 MP, there is a lot of overlaping between photos, and I
also resample smaller to sharpen the final image just a bit.

Scott

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 16:41:25 GMT, PcB wrote:

I am not trying to tell people that this is a better way to take photos
then using a large format camera, all that I am trying to say is that
some of the limitations that many people believe digital cameras have
are not real limitations at all.

You are correct in what you say and the following is not said simply to
disagree with you. However, isn't there a major difference between
shooting one frame with a 5x4 camera (complete with lens tilt, etc)
and stitching several frames taken on a 35mm or equivalent (digital or
film, doesn't matter), i.e. parallax error. There will be a different amount
of parallax "creep" between the shot taken parallel to the ground and a
shot taken at 45 degrees to the ground.

Yes, but the parallax can be minimized if it's possible to take
the pictures from a much greater distance from the building using a
longer lens. If there's too much obstruction, as from surrounding
buildings, there may be a problem. But even then, it might be
possible to get access to multiple rooms in one of the surrounding
buildings (in the same vertical line) and take the shots to be
stitched together from evenly spaced heights.

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 16:41:25 GMT, PcB wrote:

I am not trying to tell people that this is a better way to take photos
then using a large format camera, all that I am trying to say is that
some of the limitations that many people believe digital cameras have
are not real limitations at all.

You are correct in what you say and the following is not said simply to
disagree with you. However, isn't there a major difference between
shooting one frame with a 5x4 camera (complete with lens tilt, etc)
and stitching several frames taken on a 35mm or equivalent (digital or
film, doesn't matter), i.e. parallax error. There will be a different amount
of parallax "creep" between the shot taken parallel to the ground and a
shot taken at 45 degrees to the ground.

Yes, but the parallax can be minimized if it's possible to take
the pictures from a much greater distance from the building using a
longer lens. If there's too much obstruction, as from surrounding
buildings, there may be a problem. But even then, it might be
possible to get access to multiple rooms in one of the surrounding
buildings (in the same vertical line) and take the shots to be
stitched together from evenly spaced heights.

There will be no parallax if you rotate the camera around the nodal
point of the lens, this will be close to the front surface of the len,
normally back in a bit.

You don't want to use evenly spaced heights, that would be a cause of a
lot of parallax.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
I have a tripod head that rotates the camera
around the nodal point of the lens, this avoids parallax.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=293646&is=REG

Talk about a pricey niche product - whew! You must really like doing
panoramic stitching. I get the gist of what it does, but I'll need to
find a better description of how it works. Do you know if anyone makes
a motor-controlled pan & tilt version? (I can imagine the price...)

I can adjust what part of the photo comes from
which of the 36 photos

I imagine that'd be an effective way to erase people from a busy scene,
too (as long as they're moving).

155 MP should be enough for a 3 x 4 foot print at 300 ppi, something
that I would kind of like to have.

As a point of interest, here's info on a company that does 300dpi wallpaper:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...cb98d8e5eefad0


So, how well does PTGui work on things like water - are the seams
noticable? I didn't notice any in the small version, but I'm not
curious enough to download the full-sized print to check. :-)

Cheers,
Richard

..

If people are moving around too much they might end up in several
places in the picture.

--

A technique that produces interesting pictures. Stand on the beach and take
photos of a child running into the sea, pan the camera. Stich them together
and get the child in 4 or 5 different places.

John

..

If people are moving around too much they might end up in several
places in the picture.

--

A technique that produces interesting pictures. Stand on the beach and take
photos of a child running into the sea, pan the camera. Stich them together
and get the child in 4 or 5 different places.

John

Richard H. wrote:
Scott W wrote:
I have a tripod head that rotates the camera
around the nodal point of the lens, this avoids parallax.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=293646&is=REG

Talk about a pricey niche product - whew! You must really like doing
panoramic stitching. I get the gist of what it does, but I'll need to
find a better description of how it works. Do you know if anyone makes
a motor-controlled pan & tilt version? (I can imagine the price...)
Pricey but worth it, at least to me. I can get photos with it that I
could not get without. It does cost less
then the Canon 10-22 zoom that I have been looking at.


I can adjust what part of the photo comes from
which of the 36 photos

I imagine that'd be an effective way to erase people from a busy scene,
too (as long as they're moving).

155 MP should be enough for a 3 x 4 foot print at 300 ppi, something
that I would kind of like to have.

As a point of interest, here's info on a company that does 300dpi wallpaper:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...cb98d8e5eefad0
Very cool indeed, thanks for the link

So, how well does PTGui work on things like water - are the seams
noticable? I didn't notice any in the small version, but I'm not
curious enough to download the full-sized print to check. :-)

Water is normally not a problem, this really surprised me at first..
Sometime I have to do a bit of a custom blend between images with water
but only rarely.