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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
"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. -- Måns Rullgård |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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." -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 I used PTGui for the stitching, greatly improved in the newest version. The camera is set to manual focus and no instant review, this speeds up the shooting a lot. 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...goryNavigation The photo I posted was made from 3 rows and 12 columns, 36 photos all together. I used a 8 MP Sony camera and ended up with a 95 MP photo, 288 MP - 95. Part of this is from down sampling to get a bit sharper photos and part is from the overlap. When shooting people it helps to have overlap to take care of the case when someone moves, I can adjust what part of the photo comes from which of the 36 photos, in this way I can clean up any problems from people moving. I have been surprised at just how little problems there tends to be shooting people. PTGui now does a really go job of correcting for lighting changing from photo to photo, it has some limits but it is pretty impressive. I know there is one person who shoot a GP photo, he used 196 photos. http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm 155 MP should be enough for a 3 x 4 foot print at 300 ppi, something that I would kind of like to have. Scott |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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? -- Paul ============} o o // Live fast, die old // PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution photos from a digital camera.
Nice work! I like the doggy.
|
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 01:32 AM |
digital camera storage conundrum - Answered! | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 12th 05 03:51 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 10:51 PM |