Digital mosaics as a replacement of the large format view camera

Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:56:09 -0400, Robert Feinman
wrote:



Combining multiple images can be used with film cameras too.
Once the film is scanned then all the steps are the same as
with digital.
I've been doing this for years to produce panoramas where my
objective is a larger field of view (up to 360) rather than
higher resolution. The ease of digital has made panoramas
using this technique a bit of a fad these days. Some cameras
even have built in software to assist with the overlaps.


Indeed, it can be done with [scanned] film, as we both know.

Yes, and it can be done with any size film. Here are two
4x5 (film) images stitched together:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...a+b.c.700.html

Roger

Greg "_" wrote:

In article ,
Robert Feinman wrote:

Not to get into a big philosophical debate, but I find these
super resolution image somewhat off putting. The fact that
so much fine detail is seen in objects in the distance makes
it look unnatural and makes one focus on the detail rather than
on the overall scene.
Conventional photographers who use film-based unsharp masking
give me the same funny feeling.

I completely agree, does anyone remember a few years back there was a
company from Japan marketing super high resolution Laser imaged scenery
in calendars, brilliant saturated colors, and very sharp images. Problem
was after a few minutes the images lost all appeal. I find much color
imagery to be this way-the photographer only concentrating on color or
technique. And composition and a sense light rather lacking.

As with all art, it is in the eye of the beholder.

Many people do not like the look of digital. The high
signal-to-noise and no grain really put some people off.
And even as a film photographer for 40 years, it has
taken me some time to get used to the smooth digital look.
But the real world doesn't have grain, and once I got
used to the look, I find it closer to reality.
And I find as time has goes by, more people are accepting
the digital look.

To be even more controversial, another reason I'm learning
digital is I believe there may be an impending film crisis
coming sooner than people think. There is a rumor Kodak
will stop all film sales next year. Digital is becoming
popular much faster than predicted. Digital camera sales now
surpass film camera sales. Many camera shops that didn't
move to digital are now out of business. The number of film types
is dwindling. Large format film will rise in cost and then
could likely completely disappear, the only question is when?
When it does, digital mosaics and scanning backs may be the only
alternatives for large format photography.

Roger

In article ,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:

Greg "_" wrote:

In article ,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:


Comments welcome.


I don't like the color balance of the ground-too green-yellow, and the
clouds look artificially flat & seem to loose detail.

color balance: I use a color managed work-flow on a calibrated CRT monitor.

Some RGB values:
red green blue
The white flowers in the foreground: 28656 29555 29941
distant white flowers: 27371 27628 29812

Distant snow on mountains: 31740 31354 30069

The late season snow should be reddish as it has a lot of
dust mixed in. There is some pollution in the air from certain
west cost cities, reddening the clouds on the horizon.

The white flowers are slightly bluish, due to the blue sky
contribution. The soil is quite red, so the fields will look
green + red = yellow. That is the way it really was.


clouds look artificially flat & seem to loose detail:
Are you using a calibrated monitor? The cloud intensity values
range from ~17,000 to 32,639 in the full resolution 16-bit image.

Roger

To my eyes its greenish yellow, with out having access to your monitor
who knows.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

"Robert Feinman" wrote in message
...

Not to get into a big philosophical debate, but I find these
super resolution image somewhat off putting. The fact that
so much fine detail is seen in objects in the distance makes
it look unnatural and makes one focus on the detail rather than
on the overall scene.

Philosophy is good, Robert! No problem.

I see remarkable value in things like the Gigapxl Project, namely the same
objective made by landscape documentary (recording) photographers since the
very beginning - to capture as much information as possible for possible
future comparisons.

It's a good thing, but just one of the countless purposes of photography.

Now if 'they' would only use 70mm film more for movies...

(I've been following multiimage digital photography since it was a military
research project in the sixties! It is good that the technology is here for
citizens to practice.)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote

To be even more controversial, another reason I'm learning
digital is I believe there may be an impending film crisis
coming sooner than people think. There is a rumor Kodak
will stop all film sales next year.

Yes, there is a lot of that kind of speculation.

What constitutes a "crisis"? When all film is gone? I won't bet on that
because there will always be film. Always. (My worry is that the quality
will be poor, that people like Kodak will destroy their TMax equipment
rather than let another use it to profit.)

Let's put up a bet. We can have the funds put into a proxy-fund and have it
legally administrated. Seriously. I think people will be less wildly
skeptical if they have to put money on their opinions and guesses.

First, let us put down the specific questions. For starters:

On what date will Koday stop producing all still films?
Points for YEAR, MONTH, DAY

Are you in for say $1,000US? $10,000US?

j wrote:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote


To be even more controversial, another reason I'm learning
digital is I believe there may be an impending film crisis
coming sooner than people think. There is a rumor Kodak
will stop all film sales next year.

Yes, there is a lot of that kind of speculation.

What constitutes a "crisis"? When all film is gone? I won't bet on that
because there will always be film. Always. (My worry is that the quality
will be poor, that people like Kodak will destroy their TMax equipment
rather than let another use it to profit.)

Let's put up a bet. We can have the funds put into a proxy-fund and have it
legally administrated. Seriously. I think people will be less wildly
skeptical if they have to put money on their opinions and guesses.

First, let us put down the specific questions. For starters:

On what date will Koday stop producing all still films?
Points for YEAR, MONTH, DAY

Are you in for say $1,000US? $10,000US?

I'm putting my money into digital photo equipment (but
I did just buy a new 150 mm 4x5 lens too). So I'll
be prepared either way. ;-)

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Digital mosaics...

This is very interesting stuff. I would have thought that about 10
stitched images would have equaled or surpassed a drum scanned 4x5
(based on previous comparisons of single images vs. 4x5 in Luminous
Landscape). So 50-60 stitiched images is pretty amazing, and _seems_
like it may be more comparible to maybe 8x10. The final print must be
pretty amazing.

Have you tried stitching fewer images?

Jay Wenner

j wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote


To be even more controversial, another reason I'm learning
digital is I believe there may be an impending film crisis
coming sooner than people think. There is a rumor Kodak
will stop all film sales next year.


Yes, there is a lot of that kind of speculation.

What constitutes a "crisis"? When all film is gone? I won't bet on that
because there will always be film. Always. (My worry is that the quality
will be poor, that people like Kodak will destroy their TMax equipment
rather than let another use it to profit.)

Let's put up a bet. We can have the funds put into a proxy-fund and have it
legally administrated. Seriously. I think people will be less wildly
skeptical if they have to put money on their opinions and guesses.

First, let us put down the specific questions. For starters:

On what date will Koday stop producing all still films?
Points for YEAR, MONTH, DAY

Are you in for say $1,000US? $10,000US?



Good for you John, glad to see someone is putting a challenge up to this
nonsense.

People floating around unsubstantiated rumours seem to be doing so
because they have an agenda, and not because they have some great
insider information. Seems like every year some self-proclaimed expert
predicts the demise of film . . . probably because they really want that
to happen.

Wouldn't Fuji just be ecstatic that Kodak completely drops out of the
market? Imagine how the stock prices of shares in either company would
reacte to real information like this. Anyone who really knows this type
of thing would either be buying or selling large blocks of stock shares,
having their relatives do the same, or placing futures orders in for one
or the other company (betting up, betting down, or betting both
directions to maximize profits). If Roger is such the insider and sage
he would like us to believe, perhaps he should be investigated by the
SEC. My personal feeling is that Roger should stick to making images and
writing about technology, things he knows better than speculating about
the future of large corporations.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Bjorn A. Payne Diaz wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Digital mosaics...

This is very interesting stuff. I would have thought that about 10
stitched images would have equaled or surpassed a drum scanned 4x5
(based on previous comparisons of single images vs. 4x5 in Luminous
Landscape). So 50-60 stitiched images is pretty amazing, and _seems_
like it may be more comparible to maybe 8x10. The final print must be
pretty amazing.

Have you tried stitching fewer images?

You have to take into account the overlap of the images. It takes
about 100 MP to match the resolution of a really good 4 x 5 image, with
a reasonable amount of overlap between image you can get this with 20
to 30 images. But in Roger's case he was adjusting the focus between
shots so to make the focus smooth he needed more overlap and therefor
more shots. The end result is a photograph with much great DOF then
could be had with a single shot.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
You have to take into account the overlap of the images. It takes
about 100 MP to match the resolution of a really good 4 x 5 image, with
a reasonable amount of overlap between image you can get this with 20
to 30 images. But in Roger's case he was adjusting the focus between
shots so to make the focus smooth he needed more overlap and therefor
more shots. The end result is a photograph with much great DOF then
could be had with a single shot.

With overlap, 10 images ought to be about 35 MP. People have claimed
the 16 MP Canon almost has the resultion of a 4x5. Reichman (sp?) said
about the Phase One (39 MP) back:

"As for the P45, it too has met expectations. I won't say much more at
this point as I have a major multi-back, multi-camera comparison coming
up in the weeks ahead. But, it should be understood that the P45 offers
image quality which I regard to be at least the quality of drum scanned
4X5" film, and with much less work and lower long-terms cost."

Stitching 59 images seems like....a thesis project. Cool idea, but man
it sounds like it takes some patience.

Jay Wenner