If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
Annika1980 wrote: Nice work! I like the doggy. That is one cute dog is it not? Scott |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
"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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
.. 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
On 6 Nov 2005 10:40:23 -0800, Scott W wrote:
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. Are you're talking about *any* camera/lens, or ones that allow tilting & shifting? I'm afraid that if I'm at ground level and rotate *my* camera around any point, nodal or otherwise, so as to get a picture of the top of a tall building, where will be quite a large amount of error. We may be talking about different things, but I thought that I was addressing PcB's concern about the ability of commonly used cameras ("35mm or equivalent (digital or film, doesn't matter)") to not be able to duplicate what can be done with some large format cameras ("5x4 camera (complete with lens tilt, etc)"). If, as I proposed, the pictures could be taken at a greater distance, or from different heights at a close distance, there would still be some distortion, but it would be considerably reduced, making any further corrections in software somewhat easier. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High resolution...through digital interpolation... | Des | Digital Photography | 256 | April 18th 05 02:51 PM |
Price War Hits Digital Photos | MrPepper11 | Digital Photography | 3 | March 19th 05 12:32 AM |
digital camera storage conundrum - Answered! | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 12th 05 02:51 AM |
FA: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1 Digital camera with Leica 12X optical zoom lens | Marvin Culpepper | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 15th 04 01:05 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |