Magazine recommendations

On 10/17/2015 06:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:

tutorial is a basic lesson in panorama shooting using Photoshop CS3
Photo Merge. That will certainly result in an image of larger size, but
the greater resolution is an illusion. You still have image files of the
native resolution of the camera stitched together (merged) to produce a
physically larger image. For most of us that would be a panorama.

I can certainly create a 8290x4087 (Cropped) image by stitching six over
lapped 2848x4288 images using Photo Merge, but that gives me an increase
in total area/size rather than a true increase in resolution.

Also this tutorial is a little dated (2010) as the Photoshop/Lightroom
Photo Merge algorithms have moved on considerably since CS3. Then the
technique used is a tad questionable, as the photographer has his camera
in portrait orientation on his tripod ball head, which means the lens is
not centered over the rotation point, and will produce some distortion.
This can be corrected, but is best avoided.







Well it's got me all fired up now to experiment.

I've used some simple photo-stitch software before when I had to take a
panoramic shot and did not have a lens wide-angle enough and it was not
possible to step back farther. I was not worried about resolution.


At any rate, my wife always has a recent version of PhotoShop on her
machine and when she is not using it I may experiment a bit.

As to how Michael Schultz did it...I have no idea

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:20:56 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-10-17 22:16:18 +0000, philo said:

On 10/17/2015 05:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-17 16:49:30 +0000, philo said:

He used several cameras typically around 24 MP (or more) and took
several images and stitched them together to create a higher effective
resolution print.

Though I've used photo-stitch software for panorama's I never thought
of stitching together two concurrent vantage points to create a higher
resolution image. The images in the show were incredibly sharp and as
I said...it's dark in there!


That sounds like a 3D/stereoscope capture. or HDR method. It would be
nice to get a better explanation of his actual technique, there is
something missing in what you have told us.


He said he uses full frame cameras,but nothing exotic...the only thing
different is the lens tilt adapter which allows him to shoot as
"straight on" as possible.

That makes sense. A tilt-shift lense is vital tool for architecture shooters.

He did not mention 3D/stereoscopic or HDR

I did a quick Google search and found this though

http://photography.tutsplus.com/tuto...os--photo-4939

That

tutorial is a basic lesson in panorama shooting using Photoshop CS3
Photo Merge. That will certainly result in an image of larger size, but
the greater resolution is an illusion. You still have image files of
the native resolution of the camera stitched together (merged) to
produce a physically larger image. For most of us that would be a
panorama.

I can certainly create a 8290x4087 (Cropped) image by stitching six
over lapped 2848x4288 images using Photo Merge, but that gives me an
increase in total area/size rather than a true increase in resolution.

Also this tutorial is a little dated (2010) as the Photoshop/Lightroom
Photo Merge algorithms have moved on considerably since CS3. Then the
technique used is a tad questionable, as the photographer has his
camera in portrait orientation on his tripod ball head, which means the
lens is not centered over the rotation point, and will produce some
distortion. This can be corrected, but is best avoided.

The guy in the video could have got the whole shot in one 16.5 MPix
go with a wider angle lens. Using the panorama technique he's got
somewhere around 60 MPix (I think he said, but I also think it may be
less than that) for the same general image. That's an increase in
resolution anyway that you look at it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-10-18 01:28:19 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:20:56 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-10-17 22:16:18 +0000, philo said:
On 10/17/2015 05:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-17 16:49:30 +0000, philo said:

He used several cameras typically around 24 MP (or more) and took
several images and stitched them together to create a higher effective
resolution print.

Though I've used photo-stitch software for panorama's I never thought
of stitching together two concurrent vantage points to create a higher
resolution image. The images in the show were incredibly sharp and as
I said...it's dark in there!


That sounds like a 3D/stereoscope capture. or HDR method. It would be
nice to get a better explanation of his actual technique, there is
something missing in what you have told us.


He said he uses full frame cameras,but nothing exotic...the only thing
different is the lens tilt adapter which allows him to shoot as
"straight on" as possible.

That makes sense. A tilt-shift lense is vital tool for architecture shooters.

He did not mention 3D/stereoscopic or HDR

I did a quick Google search and found this though

http://photography.tutsplus.com/tuto...os--photo-4939

That

tutorial is a basic lesson in panorama shooting using Photoshop CS3
Photo Merge. That will certainly result in an image of larger size, but
the greater resolution is an illusion. You still have image files of
the native resolution of the camera stitched together (merged) to
produce a physically larger image. For most of us that would be a
panorama.

I can certainly create a 8290x4087 (Cropped) image by stitching six
over lapped 2848x4288 images using Photo Merge, but that gives me an
increase in total area/size rather than a true increase in resolution.

Also this tutorial is a little dated (2010) as the Photoshop/Lightroom
Photo Merge algorithms have moved on considerably since CS3. Then the
technique used is a tad questionable, as the photographer has his
camera in portrait orientation on his tripod ball head, which means the
lens is not centered over the rotation point, and will produce some
distortion. This can be corrected, but is best avoided.

The guy in the video could have got the whole shot in one 16.5 MPix
go with a wider angle lens. Using the panorama technique he's got
somewhere around 60 MPix (I think he said, but I also think it may be
less than that) for the same general image. That's an increase in
resolution anyway that you look at it.

That is more of an increase in physical file size, and a pseudo
resolution bump.
I can certainly create a 137MB 6542x3495 (Cropped) image by stitching
six over lapped 2848x4288 NEF images using Photo Merge, but that gives
me an increase in total area/size rather than a true increase in
resolution. I guess it all depends on what you cal “resolution�. I
can’t make something out of my 12.3 MP APS-C D300S that it isn’t, but I
can create the illusion that it is something else altogether.

I have posted this photo merge/pano of El Capitan before, but then we
were discussing panos, not creating higher resolution images. I did not
resize, but I compressed the JPEG to 1.7 MB for export.

https://db.tt/IiBgTnDr

https://db.tt/LorX6bQv

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Ken Hart wrote:

On 10/16/2015 03:01 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:00:10 -0500, philo wrote:

On 10/15/2015 04:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
O


snip
I've seen forumposts there people claim to make over 1K clicks per
event. And doing several of them per month. I'm not criticizing that, as
long that you are upfront with the usage of equipment that you sell. I
would like to do their post though!


That's a lot of shooting but I can believe it.
If I'm out all day I may take up to 500.

I have a 32gig card in one camera and a 64 gig in the other...

Have not filled either one yet.

At some all day events such as a day at the race track, or an airshow
where there is a target rich environment, and with moving targets I am
shooting 5-9 frames whenever a car or a plane is making a fast pass of
my position. So I have some events where I have an unsorted 1200-1600
frames. That number is fast reduced when rating and selecting keepers.
Those are unusual numbers for me. I usually find that I am mostly in the
30-200 frame range. Sometimes more sometimes less.





yep...

and if I took 1000 shots a day and *one* was good, I'd be happy.

That sounds almost on a par with monkeys writing Shakespeare. :-)

I started off with plates, and then cut film, and later the
extravagance of 36 exposure 35mm. I now seem to be naturally
parsimonious, especially compared with you. :-(


I agree that in a "target rich environment", most often some type of
sporting event, you take a lot of shots that will not be keepers.

But I also came up through film, and 1200-1600 frames seems difficult to
do at one event. I guess I need to go to an air show!
Back in the day when I shot sports- usually basketball or football- I
selected a "zone" on the playing field and waited for the action to come
into that zone. When I shot auto racing- oval dirt track, the Port Royal
(PA) Speedway- I picked turn one because of the high bank and I could
turn around and get the finish line.

If I took 1000 shots, even 100 shots, and only one was good, I would not
be happy.

But that one could buy you a good steak...

Usually when shooting action, I tried for about 25% "keepers".
In posed work, it was closer to 90%, and that was usually due to
bracketed shots.
--
teleportation kills

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:56:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-10-18 01:28:19 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:20:56 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-10-17 22:16:18 +0000, philo said:
On 10/17/2015 05:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-17 16:49:30 +0000, philo said:

He used several cameras typically around 24 MP (or more) and took
several images and stitched them together to create a higher effective
resolution print.

Though I've used photo-stitch software for panorama's I never thought
of stitching together two concurrent vantage points to create a higher
resolution image. The images in the show were incredibly sharp and as
I said...it's dark in there!


That sounds like a 3D/stereoscope capture. or HDR method. It would be
nice to get a better explanation of his actual technique, there is
something missing in what you have told us.


He said he uses full frame cameras,but nothing exotic...the only thing
different is the lens tilt adapter which allows him to shoot as
"straight on" as possible.

That makes sense. A tilt-shift lense is vital tool for architecture shooters.

He did not mention 3D/stereoscopic or HDR

I did a quick Google search and found this though

http://photography.tutsplus.com/tuto...os--photo-4939

That

tutorial is a basic lesson in panorama shooting using Photoshop CS3
Photo Merge. That will certainly result in an image of larger size, but
the greater resolution is an illusion. You still have image files of
the native resolution of the camera stitched together (merged) to
produce a physically larger image. For most of us that would be a
panorama.

I can certainly create a 8290x4087 (Cropped) image by stitching six
over lapped 2848x4288 images using Photo Merge, but that gives me an
increase in total area/size rather than a true increase in resolution.

Also this tutorial is a little dated (2010) as the Photoshop/Lightroom
Photo Merge algorithms have moved on considerably since CS3. Then the
technique used is a tad questionable, as the photographer has his
camera in portrait orientation on his tripod ball head, which means the
lens is not centered over the rotation point, and will produce some
distortion. This can be corrected, but is best avoided.

The guy in the video could have got the whole shot in one 16.5 MPix
go with a wider angle lens. Using the panorama technique he's got
somewhere around 60 MPix (I think he said, but I also think it may be
less than that) for the same general image. That's an increase in
resolution anyway that you look at it.

That is more of an increase in physical file size, and a pseudo
resolution bump.

Not 'pseudo' at all.

Consider a brick wall. You photograph it with the D300s with a 35mm
lens and find you have captured a 78 x 52 array of (square :-) bricks.
That's 12Mp/(78 x 52) = 2958.58 pixels per brick.

Now you fit a 70mm lens and photograph the same area. Obviously you
can only photograph the reduced area of 39 x 52 (square) bricks.
That's 12Mp/(39 x 26) = 11,834.32 pixels per brick.

If you still want a photograph of 78 x 52 bricks with the 70mm lens
you take 4 photographs in a 2 x 2 array and then put them all together
with photo merge. Now you have your photograph of all the bricks at
the higher resolution of 11,834.32 pixels per brick, as compared to
the original of 2958.58 pixels per brick.

All of this is vastly oversimplified as it doesn't allow for overlap,
lens distortion etc but it does show the technique does generate a
higher resolution image.

I can certainly create a 137MB 6542x3495 (Cropped) image by stitching
six over lapped 2848x4288 NEF images using Photo Merge, but that gives
me an increase in total area/size rather than a true increase in
resolution. I guess it all depends on what you cal “resolution”. I
can’t make something out of my 12.3 MP APS-C D300S that it isn’t, but I
can create the illusion that it is something else altogether.

I have posted this photo merge/pano of El Capitan before, but then we
were discussing panos, not creating higher resolution images. I did not
resize, but I compressed the JPEG to 1.7 MB for export.

https://db.tt/IiBgTnDr

https://db.tt/LorX6bQv
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/17/2015 08:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
X


snip
rected, but is best avoided.

The guy in the video could have got the whole shot in one 16.5 MPix
go with a wider angle lens. Using the panorama technique he's got
somewhere around 60 MPix (I think he said, but I also think it may be
less than that) for the same general image. That's an increase in
resolution anyway that you look at it.




That video was simply the very first hit I found when I Googled for
info, I posted simply to show that Michael Schultz did not need special
equipment to get his excellent results (other than the lens tilt adapter).