High resolution photos from a digital camera.

"Scott W" writes:

Måns Rullgård wrote:
"Eatmorepies" writes:

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.

If that's the effect you want, then sure. If you don't want it,
better be careful. You could also use the technique to entirely
remove moving objects from a photo.
One of the things I want to try sometime it to take a lot of photos of
a very busy road and by combining the right photos together remove all
the cars but leave the people on the sidewalks, I think it might make
for an interesting photo.

That's an interesting idea. It's a theme that has many variations.

--
Måns Rullgård

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
SNIP
One of the things I want to try sometime it to take a lot of
photos of a very busy road and by combining the right photos
together remove all the cars but leave the people on the
sidewalks, I think it might make for an interesting photo.

Stitching can accomplish that, just shoot the images in the opposite
order/direction to the traffic flow.

Bart

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:40:27 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Dave Cohen wrote:
...

I must be losing it in my old age. So I'm standing alongside this guy
who is carefully composing an image of this beautiful old church and
is using the swing and tilt feature of his 4x5 to include the
steeple. Now using the technique described in this post, what exactly
do I do, get close to the subject and take a shot of a few bricks (or
stones at a time), climb up a ladder to shoot the steeple, then
stitch the whole thing together. Since I'm using dial-up, I can't view the
sample. I'm confident it's
very good and I have stitched landscape views myself, so I'm both
aware of and certainly not opposed to stitching as a useful
technique, I just think the rational of this post is missing
something. Dave Cohen

I believe that Scott cover that in his original message: " I am trying
to say is that some of the limitations that many people believe digital
cameras have are not real limitations at all."

Only the solution in that case eliminated one limitation while it
produced another limitation, namely the inability to control things in
a non-static environment while taking
multiple shots. But the technique does work well with distant
landscapes or still-lifes.
-Rich

If Blu-Ray and HD-DVD require players to be hooked-up to
the internet to obtain "permission" for playback (like the
DIVX horror of the late 1990s) people shouldn't buy or rent
the players OR any of the disks. That incarnation of a high
definition format MUST die.

"Rich" wrote:
"Joseph wrote:
Dave Cohen wrote:
...

I must be losing it in my old age. So I'm standing alongside this guy
who is carefully composing an image of this beautiful old church and
is using the swing and tilt feature of his 4x5 to include the
steeple. Now using the technique described in this post, what exactly
do I do, get close to the subject and take a shot of a few bricks (or
stones at a time), climb up a ladder to shoot the steeple, then
stitch the whole thing together. Since I'm using dial-up, I can't view
the
sample. I'm confident it's
very good and I have stitched landscape views myself, so I'm both
aware of and certainly not opposed to stitching as a useful
technique, I just think the rational of this post is missing
something. Dave Cohen

I believe that Scott cover that in his original message: " I am
trying
to say is that some of the limitations that many people believe digital
cameras have are not real limitations at all."

Only the solution in that case eliminated one limitation while it
produced another limitation, namely the inability to control things in
a non-static environment while taking
multiple shots. But the technique does work well with distant
landscapes or still-lifes.

But landscapes and still lifes are the main use of large format, so digital
stitching is actually quite a practical alternative.

My current fantasy is to figure out how to do 3-frame panoramas warped to
rectilinear projection with the added twist that the left and right frames
are taken with a longer focal length to minimize image quality loss
associated with the warping.

I just acquired Lee Frost's "Panoramic Photography", which has a lot of
GX617 and Xpan shots, and I think I prefer rectilinear to cylindrical
projection for a lot of things...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:

But landscapes and still lifes are the main use of large format, so digital
stitching is actually quite a practical alternative.

My current fantasy is to figure out how to do 3-frame panoramas warped to
rectilinear projection with the added twist that the left and right frames
are taken with a longer focal length to minimize image quality loss
associated with the warping.
This should be doable but I don't believe the software I am using will
handle it, it would be nice. For now I just shoot more frames and over
resolve in the center.


I just acquired Lee Frost's "Panoramic Photography", which has a lot of
GX617 and Xpan shots, and I think I prefer rectilinear to cylindrical
projection for a lot of things...

I tend to stick to rectilinear when shot is not too wide angle, if it
goes past around 90 degrees it starts to look very odd.

Scott W wrote:
A while back someone referenced Ken Rockwell's article regarding the
quality of digital vs. film. Ken decided to compare what he was
shooting for digital, a Nikon D70, to a 4 x 5 camera. But a D70 and a
4 x 5 large format camera are not meant for the same uses, so this seem
like a bit of an odd comparison to make, at least to me.

A 4 x 5 camera is used for cases where one is taking the time to get a
high resolution photo, if this same time is used with a digital camera
you can also get a high resolution photos with it.

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.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51841148/original

The photos is 15730 by 6000 pixels, just short of a 100 MP photo, it is
a view of the small beach in front of the King Kamehameha hotel, taken
off the Kailua Pier in Kona Hawaii.

For those who have high speed internet and want to see the whole photo
here is a link to that, I compressed it fairly hard to fit it into a 10
MB file, at normal compression it takes about 27 MB.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51841619/original

The photo is of course stitched, it is a way to get a lot of pixels
using a digital camera. This photos does not even come close to what
some others have done, I have seen a 2.5 GP photo. But the high
resolution stitched photos that I have seen to date have been of pretty
static scenes, I wanted something with a bit of a dynamic feel to it,
something where people are doing things in the photo.

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. The tools to do the stitching are
getting better all the time. I also use a special tripod head that is
designed to take these kind of photos, it cost a fair bit but less then
one good wide angle lens.

BTW the time to take the 36 photos used in the stitching was 1 minute
and 23 seconds.

There are many others that have done far more with stitching that I
have, I thought I would just share the kind of photo that I am takeing
using this method.

Scott

I completely agree. As proof of the difference in purpose: When was the
last time you saw someone taking pictures with a 4 x 5 handheld?

Quite different uses.
Since light changes pretty rapidly, it behooves one taking panos to do
so quickly if possible. Saves time in the stitching process.


--
Ron Hunter

Måns Rullgård wrote:
"Scott W" writes:

The photo is of course stitched, it is a way to get a lot of pixels
using a digital camera. This photos does not even come close to what
some others have done, I have seen a 2.5 GP photo. But the high
resolution stitched photos that I have seen to date have been of pretty
static scenes, I wanted something with a bit of a dynamic feel to it,
something where people are doing things in the photo.

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

Quite true, which is why most panos are of the landscape variety.


--
Ron Hunter

Dave Cohen wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
A while back someone referenced Ken Rockwell's article regarding the
quality of digital vs. film. Ken decided to compare what he was
shooting for digital, a Nikon D70, to a 4 x 5 camera. But a D70 and a
4 x 5 large format camera are not meant for the same uses, so this seem
like a bit of an odd comparison to make, at least to me.

A 4 x 5 camera is used for cases where one is taking the time to get a
high resolution photo, if this same time is used with a digital camera
you can also get a high resolution photos with it.

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.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51841148/original

The photos is 15730 by 6000 pixels, just short of a 100 MP photo, it is
a view of the small beach in front of the King Kamehameha hotel, taken
off the Kailua Pier in Kona Hawaii.

For those who have high speed internet and want to see the whole photo
here is a link to that, I compressed it fairly hard to fit it into a 10
MB file, at normal compression it takes about 27 MB.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51841619/original

The photo is of course stitched, it is a way to get a lot of pixels
using a digital camera. This photos does not even come close to what
some others have done, I have seen a 2.5 GP photo. But the high
resolution stitched photos that I have seen to date have been of pretty
static scenes, I wanted something with a bit of a dynamic feel to it,
something where people are doing things in the photo.

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. The tools to do the stitching are
getting better all the time. I also use a special tripod head that is
designed to take these kind of photos, it cost a fair bit but less then
one good wide angle lens.

BTW the time to take the 36 photos used in the stitching was 1 minute
and 23 seconds.

There are many others that have done far more with stitching that I
have, I thought I would just share the kind of photo that I am takeing
using this method.

Scott

I must be losing it in my old age. So I'm standing alongside this guy who is
carefully composing an image of this beautiful old church and is using the
swing and tilt feature of his 4x5 to include the steeple. Now using the
technique described in this post, what exactly do I do, get close to the
subject and take a shot of a few bricks (or stones at a time), climb up a
ladder to shoot the steeple, then stitch the whole thing together.
Since I'm using dial-up, I can't view the sample. I'm confident it's very
good and I have stitched landscape views myself, so I'm both aware of and
certainly not opposed to stitching as a useful technique, I just think the
rational of this post is missing something.
Dave Cohen


Taking pictures to be stitched involves a lot of forethought, if it is
to be done right, and a nice tripod with pano head is also valuable.
Unfortunately, I am not able to carry things like that around any more.
The perspective issue can be handled, somewhat, by good stitching
software.


--
Ron Hunter

In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:

My current fantasy is to figure out how to do 3-frame panoramas warped to
rectilinear projection with the added twist that the left and right frames
are taken with a longer focal length to minimize image quality loss
associated with the warping.

Panotools will do this. Just tell it about the different lenses and you're
good to go. The best way I've found to date to use Panotools is via the
Hugin front end (hugin.sourceforge.net), which also has the advantage of
being free.

I just acquired Lee Frost's "Panoramic Photography", which has a lot of
GX617 and Xpan shots, and I think I prefer rectilinear to cylindrical
projection for a lot of things...

I suspect it very much depends on your field of view. As you approach 180
degrees, rectilinear starts looking nasty fast.

On 6 Nov 2005 17:56:22 -0800, Scott W wrote:

Both of these photos are stitched from the same 4 photos, I could not
get a wide enough angle view with just one photo and the lens I was
using.

In this first view I have put the view point looking halfway up the
building, like it would be if the shot were taken with normal camera.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51887904/original

In this next view I have put the view point looking at about the door.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/51887863/original

There are real limits as to how much of this you can do before it
starts to look odd, either with a view camera or stitching software.
In fact the photos from both will look the same, really.

That stitching software appears to be quite useful even if it's
not used to stitch anything together. The first "normal" shot
provides a real "bug's eye" perspective, but I think that most
people would prefer the second. Did you use the program others have
mentioned here (Panotools) or something else? With my eagle eye I
spotted the hawk (or whatever). It was considerate of him to remain
in the same position in both photos. g