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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
Bruce Chang wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message 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. This is how one of the shots for the highway scene in Matrix Reloaded was taken. They taped the highway and stitched parts together to make it look vacant. I've seen this sort of thing done with a stack of neutral density filters... SERIOUSLY long exposure. Corrected for reciprosity failure by trying multiple exposures. Basically, nothing remained in the field of view long enough to be exposed except "landmarks". It was a picture of a California freeway. NO cars. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
Philip Bailey writes:
Bruce Chang wrote: "Scott W" wrote in message 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. This is how one of the shots for the highway scene in Matrix Reloaded was taken. They taped the highway and stitched parts together to make it look vacant. I've seen this sort of thing done with a stack of neutral density filters... SERIOUSLY long exposure. Corrected for reciprosity failure by trying multiple exposures. Basically, nothing remained in the field of view long enough to be exposed except "landmarks". It was a picture of a California freeway. NO cars. Couldn't the same be achieved by averaging many short exposures? -- Måns Rullgård |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Philip Bailey writes: Bruce Chang wrote: "Scott W" wrote in message 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. This is how one of the shots for the highway scene in Matrix Reloaded was taken. They taped the highway and stitched parts together to make it look vacant. I've seen this sort of thing done with a stack of neutral density filters... SERIOUSLY long exposure. Corrected for reciprosity failure by trying multiple exposures. Basically, nothing remained in the field of view long enough to be exposed except "landmarks". It was a picture of a California freeway. NO cars. Couldn't the same be achieved by averaging many short exposures? I'm kind of a beginner at all this... I'm probably not qualified to answer that question. The shot I saw was made with film. I'm not sure if many short exposures would lend itself to EITHER film or digital. I don't know how the noise adds (or doesn't) for the various techniques. I'd certainly like to hear some opinions! I guess my point was, lots of ND filters SEEMS to me to be easier than trying to "stitch" frames together "around" the moving objects... |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
On 2005-11-06 11:08:56 -0500, "Scott W" said:
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 You would set up your camera at the same spot the guy shooting the 4 x 5 view camera would. With the 4 x 5 camera he can get the whole photo in one shoot, with the digital it would take a number of shoot, the camera stays in the same spot but is aimed at different parts of the church. The software can stitch the photo as if a view camera was being used, at least the shift part which is what corrects for the perspective. Most people do not understand how a shifting lens works, basically the camera lens that is used with a view camera has a much larger field of view then the film, if you want to shoot something like a church you point the camera straight at the horizon and then shift the lens up or the film down. You could get the same effect by using a 8 x 10 sheet of film in the 4 x 5 camera, not shifting the lens and cropping the photo. I think using a view camera is a great way to get a fantastic photo and am not arguing against it. What I am trying to say is that there is a lot more that you can do with a digital camera then many people are aware of. Scott True! But, every time I see a well made 24x from a 4x5, it blows me away... far surpasses anything digital I have seen printed. Find a gallery of accomplished photographers using silver media... I wish I was that good. A 24x is only 6 times enlargement from the 4x5 negative. Enough said. On the computer monitor there is no difference. On a wall, well there is still a difference. -- Jim |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
On $DATE , Jim wrote:
On 2005-11-06 11:08:56 -0500, "Scott W" said: 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 You would set up your camera at the same spot the guy shooting the 4 x 5 view camera would. With the 4 x 5 camera he can get the whole photo in one shoot, with the digital it would take a number of shoot, the camera stays in the same spot but is aimed at different parts of the church. The software can stitch the photo as if a view camera was being used, at least the shift part which is what corrects for the perspective. Most people do not understand how a shifting lens works, basically the camera lens that is used with a view camera has a much larger field of view then the film, if you want to shoot something like a church you point the camera straight at the horizon and then shift the lens up or the film down. You could get the same effect by using a 8 x 10 sheet of film in the 4 x 5 camera, not shifting the lens and cropping the photo. I think using a view camera is a great way to get a fantastic photo and am not arguing against it. What I am trying to say is that there is a lot more that you can do with a digital camera then many people are aware of. Scott True! But, every time I see a well made 24x from a 4x5, it blows me away... far surpasses anything digital I have seen printed. Find a gallery of accomplished photographers using silver media... I wish I was that good. A 24x is only 6 times enlargement from the 4x5 negative. Enough said. On the computer monitor there is no difference. On a wall, well there is still a difference. I'm sorry that I missed the beginning of this thread, and may be recovering old ground, but you can obtain digital backs for some quality MF cameras, but those megapixels come at a very high price and you'd better have a use for them if you expect to recoup your investment. -- Regards, Fred. (Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 08:41:11 -0700, "Richard H." wrote:
Scott W wrote: 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. Interesting test - what did you use for the stitching? How much overlap was there between the shots? Did you use a rigging to take the photos, or was it handheld? Buried on my list of to-dos, I'd like to experiment with very large-scale stitching, with a goal in the 1000MP range (wall-sized high-res print). I expected to do a static scene, and probably make a rig to pan & scan the ~400 images. This could even fit on one memory card, but flash recording time will be the limiting factor for a live scene - capturing a single scene could easily take 2 minutes. Using a bank of several cameras might be an (expensive) idea, if the colors / exposures can be balanced. Your example is encouraging; maybe a live scene is even viable if the images can be captured quickly enough. Perhaps by rapid-firing the live areas and methodically collecting the static portions, then compiling the result - what was your technique?. Cheers, Richard Having only followed this half heartedly, this may be totally redundant and/or unsuited, but here's my own 2 bits worth. I've used my digital cameras for some panoramas, nothing spectacular. The software wasn't anything special either, but just wanted to assure I've tried it. The real point of this subject is using a modest digital camera (like 3 mp or so) to take multiple shots and blend them into something with 100s of MP - but the OBJECT is to increase the depth of detail. For this to be done, the entire image captured with the modest camera must be of a very tiny portion of the overall subject matter. This seems to demand some special lens that covers only a limited field of the total image. Either I've missed how this is proposed to be accomplished, or I've slept thru them. So, I propose a method that makes sense to me. Much of my nature photography is concentrated on what is often referred to as "digiscoping". We use high quality spotting scopes adapted to our digital cameras. Compared to the angle subtended by a normal camera lens, set at equivalent to 50mm on a 35mm camera, which is usually in the 70 degree range - these spotting scope equipped cameras at max. optical zoom subtend very narrow angles. Like maybe a fraction of a degree, up to maybe 2 or 3 degrees. Now if you took this rig and carefully moved it across the desired subject in tiny steps of only a degree or so, then stitched the resulting images, you could get both the detail and magnitude of final image being discussed. Of course the careful movement to cover a large rectangular area must be in both the horizontal and vertical directions. I believe this is how many of the scientific and astronomical photos are assembled, incidentally. But with far more sophisticated gear. Sorry if this is irrelevant. Olin McDaniel |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
Olin K. McDaniel wrote: Having only followed this half heartedly, this may be totally redundant and/or unsuited, but here's my own 2 bits worth. I've used my digital cameras for some panoramas, nothing spectacular. The software wasn't anything special either, but just wanted to assure I've tried it. The real point of this subject is using a modest digital camera (like 3 mp or so) to take multiple shots and blend them into something with 100s of MP - but the OBJECT is to increase the depth of detail. For this to be done, the entire image captured with the modest camera must be of a very tiny portion of the overall subject matter. This seems to demand some special lens that covers only a limited field of the total image. This is simply a long lens, nothing really special about it. The camera motion is done with a special panoramic tripod head. Scott |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com... Olin K. McDaniel wrote: [...] For this to be done, the entire image captured with the modest camera must be of a very tiny portion of the overall subject matter. This seems to demand some special lens that covers only a limited field of the total image. This is simply a long lens, nothing really special about it. In fact, a very long lens presents a couple problems. First, depth-of-field is remarkably shallow so that if the complete object in question is not at infinity (or ideal hyperfocal), then it is refocused for some part(s) of the image, the focal length, thus the image segment(s) change size. Second, for a telephoto lens, the nodal point can be VERY far in front of the lens. Of course, the later can be accomodated using an offset camera mount. That said, somewhere in the literature (I may have it in the lab) is an outstanding study of 'infinite depth of field' algorythms and real-world applications made as part of a dissertation. It is obscure, and brilliant. I am surprised it hasn't seen applications outside of research efforts. I will look for it. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
Lorem Ipsum wrote: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop...icTutorial.pdf Both good referances and ones that I have used. |
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 |