Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Gurglamei on September 01, 2009, 06:07:36 am
-
I currently use a Nikon D700 giving me 12 Mp on a full format Dslr. I bought the D700 waiting for the prise of the D3x to fall, and I see that it is approaching a more acceptable price range.
However, before I buy I really would like to know a bit about the difference in print quality of an image captured by a Hasselblad 50Mp camera and a stitched 50 MP image captured by stitching 3-4 images taken with a 24Mp Nikon D3x? Technically I find that the physiclal size of the sensor in the D3x is more or less exactly half the size of the Hasselblad, hence I guess they are about the same pixel size. Does this translate into same image quality provided the stitching is properly done?
The reason I am asking is that I find that my photography has changed over the years, and I find that I now almost exclusively use my Nikon D700 and 24-70 on a tripod to take stills of nature (not so much sweaping landscapes). I have not done much stitching, however it seems to be a real option for my curent work. However, I guess I also could fairly easily adapt to a heavier and slower camera if it really gives me a much better print. Having read about the drawbacks of MF in the recent articles here on LL, I am somewhat reluctent to buy a MF camera. The lack of weather sealing would be a serious drawback for my work and climate.
I own a 24 inch printer and don´t expect to print any larger than that on a regualar basis.
Comments appreciated.
-
I currently use a Nikon D700 giving me 12 Mp on a full format Dslr. I bought the D700 waiting for the prise of the D3x to fall, and I see that it is approaching a more acceptable price range.
However, before I buy I really would like to know a bit about the difference in print quality of an image captured by a Hasselblad 50Mp camera and a stitched 50 MP image captured by stitching 3-4 images taken with a 24Mp Nikon D3x? Technically I find that the physiclal size of the sensor in the D3x is more or less exactly half the size of the Hasselblad, hence I guess they are about the same pixel size. Does this translate into same image quality provided the stitching is properly done?
The reason I am asking is that I find that my photography has changed over the years, and I find that I now almost exclusively use my Nikon D700 and 24-70 on a tripod to take stills of nature (not so much sweaping landscapes). I have not done much stitching, however it seems to be a real option for my curent work. However, I guess I also could fairly easily adapt to a heavier and slower camera if it really gives me a much better print. Having read about the drawbacks of MF in the recent articles here on LL, I am somewhat reluctent to buy a MF camera. The lack of weather sealing would be a serious drawback for my work and climate.
I own a 24 inch printer and don´t expect to print any larger than that on a regualar basis.
Comments appreciated.
I have used the D3X and P45+ side by side for about six months now. The D3x is an amazing camera. It is everything a DSLR should be. I have shot both cameras (Mamiya 645AFDIII/P45+) in the studio and shooting landscape. The MF is a bit of a pain to handle and set up not to mention big files. After comparing hundreds of files shot side by side, I think there is no comparison between the two when a large print is produced.
The MF files have a quality that is hard to explain. The detail is nothing short of amazing.They have an almost 3D look and feel.
When I travel I take both cameras usually and I have to take special care of the MF equipment. I always carry it in a Pelican case. The D3X is slung in my back pack where I can get to it quickly and easily.
There are times when I travel to landscape places where I can't take my MF for varying reasons,(Extreme conditions, not enough room, the quality isn't needed etc), but when I want to capture the absolute
best image I can get I always use the MF.
I hope this is some help without going into the technical aspects of the two formats.
Greg
-
I think there is no comparison between the two when a large print is produced.
Thank you, very interesting. However, have you tried stitching images form the D3x and compared that with the P45 - I mean to get the same resolution on the image?
Christopher
-
I used to use Mamiya ZD camera for stitching with great results. The limitation was low ISO - sometimes in the wind and and dim light you do need to go higher. D700 is an easy winner in this case. Paired with prime Sigma 70mm F2.8 - the sharpest 35mm lens I own (and btw, it will blow away Nikon 24-70 in sharpness at any aperture setting in any corner and center - slrgear has a great review) it produces exceptional quality images. There is a slight difference due to AA, but outstanding sharpness of this lens is compensates for it 90%. D700 turns out to be very versatile for stitching. I use ZD when I am limited to a single frame shot. D700 and ZD have a similar large pixel size and pixel sharpness is comparable, files from both sharpen very very well.
Larger pixel size of D700 makes it less diffraction limited at higher apertures, paired with higher base ISO it is ideal for landscape stitching. Mirror lockup mode is also there;)
-
I have both systems and do a lot of stitching. If you have very good lenses and good work flow a 21 to 24Mp stitched image will compare nicely with a 39 or 50Mp single shot image. I can't stress enough that you must use the finest lenses possible. This means either Zeiss or longer Canon/Nikon prime lenses.
This also means that the software must be able to get every bit of detail out of the raw files - I only use Raw Developer. The stitching software is also very critical - I only use PTGui and I've tried them all.
Last but not least there is the cost factor. At 1/3 the cost of a MFDB it may almost seem like a no brainer and at times it is. There is however, to my eye, always an advantage that the MFDB has over stitched DSLR images. Its not processed as much and has a cleaner look. Whether or not this advantage outweighs the cost and weight differences only you can say. I have printed 40 inch stitched images on my 9900 that are stunning. I would certainly encourage you to explore stitching before investing major amounts of money into a MFDB. You can always rent a MFDB if you want to make comparisons.
-
Well executed stitched D3x images have the potential to be superior to single frames from MF digital backs, but the difference will only show in large prints.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2591/3851961923_0ce1078870_o.jpg)
You can stitch with both, but there are many good reasons why stitching with the d3x is a superior solution, I have listed up a few here.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....t=0#entry305674 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37140&pid=305674&mode=threaded&start=0#entry305674)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you, all your input is very interesting.
If I understand you correctly, there is only a marginal though noticable, increas in print quality when using the MF compared to stitching. I don´t have much experience with stitching though. Yeah, prehaps I should just stay with the D700 for a while longer and try out how I actually perform and like the process. I guess this would give me both the chance to really make a stab at getting good at stitching and at the same time finding out if I really need all those pixels to create the prints I want. Finally, I could rent a MF system some time later and compare.
Since the quality of lenses has already been mentioned what focal lengths do you use for stitching? I can understand that a lens with distortion would be less suitable for stitching. The Sigma 70 2.8 macro was mentioned as a good candidate, and it really has a nice price and review. I have the 200 f2 which gives really fantastic images, and I was sort of thinking of using this for the stitching on an eventual D3x or also the D700. I am not familiar with the Zeiss linup. 200 mm intuitively sees a bit long for some images, and I would probably want a good smaller telephoto in addition to the 200mm I already have.
Do you use specialized stitching heads for your tripods? (Like really Right Stuff panoheads etc?)
Christopher
-
Hi,
I have some write up here: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...a-and-stitching (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/panorama-and-stitching)
There are a lot of good comments on a posting I made on LL-forums: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=36973 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36973)
Best regards
Erik
Thank you, all your input is very interesting.
If I understand you correctly, there is only a marginal though noticable, increas in print quality when using the MF compared to stitching. I don´t have much experience with stitching though. Yeah, prehaps I should just stay with the D700 for a while longer and try out how I actually perform and like the process. I guess this would give me both the chance to really make a stab at getting good at stitching and at the same time finding out if I really need all those pixels to create the prints I want. Finally, I could rent a MF system some time later and compare.
Since the quality of lenses has already been mentioned what focal lengths do you use for stitching? I can understand that a lens with distortion would be less suitable for stitching. The Sigma 70 2.8 macro was mentioned as a good candidate, and it really has a nice price and review. I have the 200 f2 which gives really fantastic images, and I was sort of thinking of using this for the stitching on an eventual D3x or also the D700. I am not familiar with the Zeiss linup. 200 mm intuitively sees a bit long for some images, and I would probably want a good smaller telephoto in addition to the 200mm I already have.
Do you use specialized stitching heads for your tripods? (Like really Right Stuff panoheads etc?)
Christopher
-
Thank you, all your input is very interesting.
If I understand you correctly, there is only a marginal though noticable, increas in print quality when using the MF compared to stitching. I don´t have much experience with stitching though. Yeah, prehaps I should just stay with the D700 for a while longer and try out how I actually perform and like the process. I guess this would give me both the chance to really make a stab at getting good at stitching and at the same time finding out if I really need all those pixels to create the prints I want. Finally, I could rent a MF system some time later and compare.
Since the quality of lenses has already been mentioned what focal lengths do you use for stitching? I can understand that a lens with distortion would be less suitable for stitching. The Sigma 70 2.8 macro was mentioned as a good candidate, and it really has a nice price and review. I have the 200 f2 which gives really fantastic images, and I was sort of thinking of using this for the stitching on an eventual D3x or also the D700. I am not familiar with the Zeiss linup. 200 mm intuitively sees a bit long for some images, and I would probably want a good smaller telephoto in addition to the 200mm I already have.
Do you use specialized stitching heads for your tripods? (Like really Right Stuff panoheads etc?)
Christopher
Christopher,
I have shot with both the P45+ on a Phase One 645 and Cambo RS, as well as the Canon 5D to shoot panos. I love my Canon for it's portability and speed, but can see a incredible difference when I shoot with the P45+. The dynamic range and detail that the P45+ offer on the Cambo RS are unparalleled. I will attach a 3 stitch shot (P45+ / Cambo RS) I did when Capture Integration hosted a workshop in Carmel with Ken Doo. The great thing about the RS is that you can shift the digital back instead of the camera or lens. It allows for much easier alignment and minimizes distortion.
If you would like the full size 720 MB file I can send you a disc if you like. For download / upload reasons I'm only posting a small file.
[attachment=16347:Carmel_P...opy_copy.jpg]
Chris Lawery ()
__________________
Sales Manager, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 404.234.5195
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)[/font]
-
You should rent both to see what format you prefer. I can't emphasize this enough.
I did this myself earlier in the year, and even went so far as to make two (non stitched) 18x23 inch inkjet prints from a D3X and P65+. The subject was landscape.
The overall tonality on the P65+ print was slightly smoother, but my eyes couldn't differentiate more than that. I critically examined from 4-5 inches away as well as stood back a few feet for my analysis.
I only went with the P65+ b/c I make much larger prints.
MS
The lack of weather sealing would be a serious drawback for my work and climate.
I own a 24 inch printer and don´t expect to print any larger than that on a regualar basis.
Comments appreciated.
-
Thank you, all your input is very interesting.
If I understand you correctly, there is only a marginal though noticable, increas in print quality when using the MF compared to stitching. I don´t have much experience with stitching though. Yeah, prehaps I should just stay with the D700 for a while longer and try out how I actually perform and like the process.
In all fairness, not every subject is easy to deal with with stitching, but in terms of quality, the truth be told, the opposite of what you write is true.
There is without any possible doubt a clear advantage in favour of stitching that can range from small to huge depending on print size and the amount of images you stitch. I have many 1.5 m wide pano prints that make Imacon scanned 4x5 look painfully soft. That is something that you will never get with a P45+ and the P65+ will not take you much closer, whatever our Phasone one friends claim.
The following link is a res down 60 megapixel pano (original is 6 times more) shot with a d3x and Zeiss 100 mm f2.0. I didn't use HDR techniques to achieve this result...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...720762/sizes/o/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3833720762/sizes/o/)
Since the quality of lenses has already been mentioned what focal lengths do you use for stitching? I can understand that a lens with distortion would be less suitable for stitching. The Sigma 70 2.8 macro was mentioned as a good candidate, and it really has a nice price and review. I have the 200 f2 which gives really fantastic images, and I was sort of thinking of using this for the stitching on an eventual D3x or also the D700. I am not familiar with the Zeiss linup. 200 mm intuitively sees a bit long for some images, and I would probably want a good smaller telephoto in addition to the 200mm I already have.
The Zeiss 100 mm f2.0 is IMHO the best stitching lens around if you know what you are doing:
- best in class sharpness accross the frame (clearly outresolving the d3x sensor by a good margin at f5.6-f8),
- very little light fall off (close to none between f5.6 and f8),
- very accurate manual focus with live view (no AF lens can get close).
The 200 f2.0 is both a bit too long and much too heavy to use as a standard stitching lens. I do stitch quite a bit with a 300 f2.8, but it is pretty much limited to single row panos for a variety of reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Christopher,
I have shot with both the P45+ on a Phase One 645 and Cambo RS, as well as the Canon 5D to shoot panos. I love my Canon for it's portability and speed, but can see a incredible difference when I shoot with the P45+. The dynamic range and detail that the P45+ offer on the Cambo RS are unparalleled. I will attach a 3 stitch shot (P45+ / Cambo RS) I did when Capture Integration hosted a workshop in Carmel with Ken Doo. The great thing about the RS is that you can shift the digital back instead of the camera or lens. It allows for much easier alignment and minimizes distortion.
[attachment=16347:Carmel_P...opy_copy.jpg]
Chris,
Very nice image, but with all due respesct, how is this showing the DR capability of the backs? There is no detail whatsoever in the sky, any mid range DSLR could capture good details in these rocks if you give up on the sky, the rest is just about applying the right curve in PS.
Besides the 5D is far behind the best DSLRs in terms of DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think the main argument here is that you tend to make prints no larger than 24inches. I can't see how you notice much (if any) difference between the systems with stitiched prints at this size.
I just had a a few large prints made for a corporate client through the 11000 series Epson running off a great rip. They were a mix of 5Dmk2 prints (stitched files) and MFDB (stitiched also). The prints were around 96 inches...
I asked the printer (he did not know in advance) which files appeared better to him (and he has one of the best eyes for this stuff of anyone I have worked with) and he chose the Canon files...
On the other hand, I have some 4m prints from stitched files from MFDB on exhibition at the moment and at that size the clarity, smoothness, tonality and crispness of the files is better than 8" x 10" IMO.
I think if you are enlarging to 24inches or to only say 48inches and stitching, I would only be purchasing a MFDB if I had money to burn and wanted to slow down the actual process of shooting images.
Cheers
Murray
-
I would only be purchasing a MFDB if I had money to burn and wanted to slow down the actual process of shooting images.
Cheers
Murray
Very, very good advice......
The OP was asking about the differences between a one shot MFDB file and a DSLR stitched file. One of the things that is difficult for the poster to realize is that there is a 'real' difference in format dimensions (unless the MFDB file is cropped). A stitched image is almost always elongated in one direction as compared to a one shot image. I usually don't try to do very elongated images. My preference is 2X1 or thereabouts (but that's just my preference). That translates to an image of about 10,000 pixels by 5600 - my usual image. Do you realize that to get to 40 inches at 360 ppi this image STILL has to be upsized? There's lots of processing going on and lots of steps to make a really good pano. But, to me, its really worth it and very gratifying.
I shoot with the same lenses that Bernard shoots with. The Zeiss 100 F2 is a superb lens. I also shoot with a Zeiss 50 f2 Macro planar that is also very sharp. Lenses and work flow are critical to a good pano.
I have both systems (MFDB and DSLR). I have shot pano's with both systems. Yes there is a difference but NEVER worth the money - and the difference can only be seen side by side and even then not always discernible.
Don't go spending any big bucks…. have fun and learn with what you have….. but for sure get yourself some good lenses and some decent pano gear.
-
I think the main argument here is that you tend to make prints no larger than 24inches. I can't see how you notice much (if any) difference between the systems with stitiched prints at this size.
I just had a a few large prints made for a corporate client through the 11000 series Epson running off a great rip. They were a mix of 5Dmk2 prints (stitched files) and MFDB (stitiched also). The prints were around 96 inches...
I asked the printer (he did not know in advance) which files appeared better to him (and he has one of the best eyes for this stuff of anyone I have worked with) and he chose the Canon files...
On the other hand, I have some 4m prints from stitched files from MFDB on exhibition at the moment and at that size the clarity, smoothness, tonality and crispness of the files is better than 8" x 10" IMO.
I think if you are enlarging to 24inches or to only say 48inches and stitching, I would only be purchasing a MFDB if I had money to burn and wanted to slow down the actual process of shooting images.
Agreed.
- Stitching is the only solution to go real big but that doesn't happen often for many people,
- Once you start stitching, all good enough systems look mostly the same (we all differ as to what is good enough),
- You might as well go for the cheaper solution, knowing that the DSLR will also enable you to shoot this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3877641637/sizes/o/) during that same trip where you shot that (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3852103573/sizes/o/).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I own the P65+ and the D3X with Zeiss glass (not limited to the 100mm F2) and have created large inkjets from both systems. While the D3X affords much more versatility, at this point I disagree that a DSLR-fashioned 30x40 inch print (3+ vertically stitched captures required to match MF sensor size) will rival a MF non stitched print. Sadly, I am not technical enough to provide a satisfactory answer but the tonality and liveliness of MF has something (more than just the lack of filter) magical. Can someone help me out here with technical support?
Bernard or Murray, would you please explain to me how it is possible for a sensor 60% smaller (vertically stitched with the Zeiss 100mm f2) to rival a newer Phase One + back? I want to be a believer, truly. I dropped well over $50k on my last MF digital purchase. But I think this may only work in limited instances (no movement in image, perfect shifting technique, perfect exposure blending, etc). And how would one DSLR stitch in double rows?
Murray, please tell me what the subject matter was on your 96 inch corporate 5D2 print that your printer liked better.
Have a good evening everyone.
In all fairness, not every subject is easy to deal with with stitching, but in terms of quality, the truth be told, the opposite of what you write is true.
There is without any possible doubt a clear advantage in favour of stitching that can range from small to huge depending on print size and the amount of images you stitch. I have many 1.5 m wide pano prints that make Imacon scanned 4x5 look painfully soft. That is something that you will never get with a P45+ and the P65+ will not take you much closer, whatever our Phasone one friends claim.
The following link is a res down 60 megapixel pano (original is 6 times more) shot with a d3x and Zeiss 100 mm f2.0. I didn't use HDR techniques to achieve this result...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...720762/sizes/o/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3833720762/sizes/o/)
The Zeiss 100 mm f2.0 is IMHO the best stitching lens around if you know what you are doing:
- best in class sharpness accross the frame (clearly outresolving the d3x sensor by a good margin at f5.6-f8),
- very little light fall off (close to none between f5.6 and f8),
- very accurate manual focus with live view (no AF lens can get close).
The 200 f2.0 is both a bit too long and much too heavy to use as a standard stitching lens. I do stitch quite a bit with a 300 f2.8, but it is pretty much limited to single row panos for a variety of reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I own the P65+ and the D3X with Zeiss glass (not limited to the 100mm F2) and have created large inkjets from both systems. While the D3X affords much more versatility, at this point I disagree that a DSLR-fashioned 30x40 inch print (3+ vertically stitched captures required to match MF sensor size) will rival a MF non stitched print. Sadly, I am not technical enough to provide a satisfactory answer but the tonality and liveliness of MF has something (more than just the lack of filter) magical. Can someone help me out here with technical support?
Marc,
Are you comparing equal size files of equal FoV taken with equal focal length of lens at equal F stop? (The pixel size of the D3X is the same as that of the P65+).
If you are, and you still see a difference, I'd suggest the following reasons, because it's certainly an interesting question worth exploring. Never having used either a D3X or P65+, I perhaps shouldn't be commenting. However, I do know from personal experience with other cameras, that the RAW converter used can have a dramatic effect on factors such as vibrancy and sparkle etc, depending on how the presets have been designed and how they work in relation to certain models of cameras.
I was very disappointed when Adobe took over the RAW converter RSP. It was my favourite converter at the time, and I still have the last version of RSP, before take-over, installed on my system. This version works with my 20D and 5D RAW images, but not 40D or 50D of course.
Sometimes, there's no doubt in my mind that RSP produces a more pleasing result than the latest version of ACR with my Photoshop version of CS3E. I have gone through the exercise of trying to emulate in ACR the precise effect I get with RSP, and after a lot of stuffing around with various adjustments and trial and error, I find that I can get very close, but not exactly.
The last RAW converter I trialed was Bibble. I was surprised to find that it produced noticeably sharper results than ACR with my 20D and 5D files, a bit like the difference between having an AA filter and not having one, perhaps.
However, I soon noticed a trade-off. The extra bite in the image was due to less noise reduction. Even the lower mid-tones had more visible noise than the ACR conversion with all noise reduction (both luminance and color) at zero.
Again, after some stuffing around with the detail, sharpening, clarity and vibrance controls in ACR, I was able to fairly closely emulate the result of Bibble using ACR, but not exactly.
In the world of advertising, time is money. $50,000 is perhaps not a significant amount to pay, if one can save time in processing one's images and get a very pleasing result for the client because Phase One has tailored its Capture One software to produce outstanding results with its DBs.
Just my own observation and thoughts on the matter. I could be way out.
-
I own the P65+ and the D3X with Zeiss glass (not limited to the 100mm F2) and have created large inkjets from both systems. While the D3X affords much more versatility, at this point I disagree that a DSLR-fashioned 30x40 inch print (3+ vertically stitched captures required to match MF sensor size) will rival a MF non stitched print. Sadly, I am not technical enough to provide a satisfactory answer but the tonality and liveliness of MF has something (more than just the lack of filter) magical. Can someone help me out here with technical support?
Bernard or Murray, would you please explain to me how it is possible for a sensor 60% smaller (vertically stitched with the Zeiss 100mm f2) to rival a newer Phase One + back? I want to be a believer, truly. I dropped well over $50k on my last MF digital purchase. But I think this may only work in limited instances (no movement in image, perfect shifting technique, perfect exposure blending, etc). And how would one DSLR stitch in double rows?
I have never said that 3 images from D3x could equal a single frame from a P65+. The back has slightly sharper pixels, and it probably takes 80MP from D3x image to capture the same level of detail, my view has always been that you probably need at least 6 in two rows with a proper pano head (like the Really Right stuff head I have been using).
One key aspect here though is the quality of the capture with the D3x. I find that only the most robust tripod, head and pano head (I have been using a Gitzo 5531s) have enough rigidity to ensure panoramic stitching withouth vibrations with the D3x. So yes, it requires a good technique and not to make any mistake. A P65+ is for sure an easier solution to use, if you have the cash and want to use it that way.
I find either C1 or Raw Developper to be needed to extract the detail and sharpen properlly D3x files, once this is done they get real close to back level pixel sharpness.
As far as tonality goes, could you please share images of a given subject shot with the 2 cameras? If you can provide the raw images of the d3x I'd love to see if I can get closer to what you see with your back.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I own the P65+ and the D3X with Zeiss glass (not limited to the 100mm F2) and have created large inkjets from both systems. While the D3X affords much more versatility, at this point I disagree that a DSLR-fashioned 30x40 inch print (3+ vertically stitched captures required to match MF sensor size) will rival a MF non stitched print. Sadly, I am not technical enough to provide a satisfactory answer but the tonality and liveliness of MF has something (more than just the lack of filter) magical. Can someone help me out here with technical support?
Bernard or Murray, would you please explain to me how it is possible for a sensor 60% smaller (vertically stitched with the Zeiss 100mm f2) to rival a newer Phase One + back? I want to be a believer, truly. I dropped well over $50k on my last MF digital purchase. But I think this may only work in limited instances (no movement in image, perfect shifting technique, perfect exposure blending, etc). And how would one DSLR stitch in double rows?
Murray, please tell me what the subject matter was on your 96 inch corporate 5D2 print that your printer liked better.
Have a good evening everyone.
Marcs,
I own both systems and totally agree that MFDB has a different quality to DSLR. It's just that to actually make that extra quality apparent I have found that the files have to be pushed to their limits either through enlargement to huge sizes and or by pushing the limits of 'quality' (a very subjective term). For someone 'considering' either system I would say they are so close in terms of the final print that paying 10 times as much simply can't be justified...I always thought you should feel completely constrained by one bit of gear and clearly know how and why the planned purchase of new gear will alleviate that constraint before trading up.
I can't answer the technical questions properly but have relayed my experiences working with both systems - and yes, assume all proper exposure and stitching techniques were used.
I dropped the same $$ as you on a MFDB system and then bought the 5d2 when it was released. Horses for courses - but soon I realized that for my commissioned work, very few of clients could tell the difference between the results of both systems - in fact my clients seemed happier with the 5d2 images in general as:
1. more images were produced on the shoot as it's faster to work with,
2. the files required less work straight out of the camera for some reason (result - quicker post processing = cheaper) and
3. The viewfinder was better in the 5d2 so the compositions were better in environments where shooting faster was essential ie when the client is watching the clock. I also found myself more inclined to 'play' and take risks when I could see the shot quickly through the DSLR finder.
All that only applies to the situation where the client commissions the work.
When shooting my own work the MFDB is always used or the 8" x 10" because the work is usually printed quite large and aesthetic quality while not the point of the work can ruin a shot if it's not there. I am considering replacing the 8" x 10" all together with P65+ - but still not sure. Speed is really not an issue either.
The 96" prints were landscapes over a farm at dawn.
Also, don't forget the role of the rip in all this and the printer's workflow in general as well as choice of materials etc etc. So many variables and all of this is so subjective.
Cheers
Murray
-
Ray please don't even start on that FoV discussion again. We had that long enough on a differnet topic, we don't need it again.
-
Many, many thanks to all.
From what I read it seems that for my prints - 24 inch printer - there is little to be gained in print quality form buying a MF system compared to propperly done stitches from a D3x. Maybe I with time can approach even better quality with stitches as Bernard suggests is possible. Time will show..
So, I have decided to go for the stitching option. Thanks for helping out Saved me a lot of money!
Christopher
-
Thanks for the clarification, Bernard. I am curious to learn more about your dual-row stitching process and use of technical aids, if you do not mind sharing. It sounds tedious, but perhaps you have mastered the technique. I will likely avoid the process since I like digital backs, but I am curious nonetheless.
Once I return to NYC I will mail you several discs with the raw image files you requested. Give me a couple weeks. Please PM me your coordinates.
MS
I have never said that 3 images from D3x could equal a single frame from a P65+. The back has slightly sharper pixels, and it probably takes 80MP from D3x image to capture the same level of detail, my view has always been that you probably need at least 6 in two rows with a proper pano head (like the Really Right stuff head I have been using).
One key aspect here though is the quality of the capture with the D3x. I find that only the most robust tripod, head and pano head (I have been using a Gitzo 5531s) have enough rigidity to ensure panoramic stitching withouth vibrations with the D3x. So yes, it requires a good technique and not to make any mistake. A P65+ is for sure an easier solution to use, if you have the cash and want to use it that way.
I find either C1 or Raw Developper to be needed to extract the detail and sharpen properlly D3x files, once this is done they get real close to back level pixel sharpness.
As far as tonality goes, could you please share images of a given subject shot with the 2 cameras? If you can provide the raw images of the d3x I'd love to see if I can get closer to what you see with your back.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Murray for sharing your experiences. I, for one, would be very interested in seeing some of the stitched work you have created using your DSLR. But I imagine most of it is commercial, and therefore confidential, such as the 96 inch Canon file. If not, please PM me.
Best,
MS
Marcs,
I own both systems and totally agree that MFDB has a different quality to DSLR. It's just that to actually make that extra quality apparent I have found that the files have to be pushed to their limits either through enlargement to huge sizes and or by pushing the limits of 'quality' (a very subjective term). For someone 'considering' either system I would say they are so close in terms of the final print that paying 10 times as much simply can't be justified...I always thought you should feel completely constrained by one bit of gear and clearly know how and why the planned purchase of new gear will alleviate that constraint before trading up.
I can't answer the technical questions properly but have relayed my experiences working with both systems - and yes, assume all proper exposure and stitching techniques were used.
I dropped the same $$ as you on a MFDB system and then bought the 5d2 when it was released. Horses for courses - but soon I realized that for my commissioned work, very few of clients could tell the difference between the results of both systems - in fact my clients seemed happier with the 5d2 images in general as:
1. more images were produced on the shoot as it's faster to work with,
2. the files required less work straight out of the camera for some reason (result - quicker post processing = cheaper) and
3. The viewfinder was better in the 5d2 so the compositions were better in environments where shooting faster was essential ie when the client is watching the clock. I also found myself more inclined to 'play' and take risks when I could see the shot quickly through the DSLR finder.
All that only applies to the situation where the client commissions the work.
When shooting my own work the MFDB is always used or the 8" x 10" because the work is usually printed quite large and aesthetic quality while not the point of the work can ruin a shot if it's not there. I am considering replacing the 8" x 10" all together with P65+ - but still not sure. Speed is really not an issue either.
The 96" prints were landscapes over a farm at dawn.
Also, don't forget the role of the rip in all this and the printer's workflow in general as well as choice of materials etc etc. So many variables and all of this is so subjective.
Cheers
Murray
-
Many, many thanks to all.
From what I read it seems that for my prints - 24 inch printer - there is little to be gained in print quality form buying a MF system compared to propperly done stitches from a D3x. Maybe I with time can approach even better quality with stitches as Bernard suggests is possible. Time will show..
So, I have decided to go for the stitching option. Thanks for helping out Saved me a lot of money!
Christopher
If you really want to answer this question the only way to do so would be to shoot both yourself.
At a dealer like ours you could do so for free. You could also attend one of the workshops we work with (e.g. GetDPI's upcoming Oregon workshop) where you could use just about every camera on the market (canon, nikon, sony as well as several Phase One backs).
IMO (and its only that, opinion) composition through pan+tilt+stitch removes a lot of the hands-on feeling that photography gives me. You can't really compose; you just point the camera in the right general direction and take a composition much looser than you think you want because you can't be confident where the frame edges will end up after you apply the geometric distortions to merge them together. It feels too abstract and removed from the actual process of photography.
Also keep in mind that while Bernard says six total images from the D3X (captured with excellent technique) will come close to a P65+ that many of our P65+ shooters are using a tech camera which allows them to shoot 180+ megapixel images which would imply the need for 18 frames from a D3x (again assuming the technique was perfect); the stitching on a tech camera requires no geometric distortion since the lens and camera remain static and the back simply moves to capture different parts of the same image circle. This means on a tech camera that 180 megapixel image requires no elegant stitching, distortion correction, or cropping - so you can actually compose at the time of capture.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
-
composition through pan+tilt+stitch removes a lot of the hands-on feeling that photography gives me. You can't really compose; you just point the camera in the right general direction and take a composition much looser than you think you want because you can't be confident where the frame edges will end up after you apply the geometric distortions to merge them together. It feels too abstract and removed from the actual process of photography.
Also keep in mind that while Bernard says six total images from the D3X (captured with excellent technique) will come close to a P65+ that many of our P65+ shooters are using a tech camera which allows them to shoot 180+ megapixel images which would imply the need for 18 frames from a D3x (again assuming the technique was perfect); the stitching on a tech camera requires no geometric distortion since the lens and camera remain static and the back simply moves to capture different parts of the same image circle. This means on a tech camera that 180 megapixel image requires no elegant stitching, distortion correction, or cropping - so you can actually compose at the time of capture.
Doug,
you make some good points but I think they need expanding a bit...
Composition
It's a clunky way (and reason) to stitch to use a longer lens on a smaller sensor just to build up the megapixels instead of shooting wider on a larger sensor. Stitching really comes into it's own where the field of view required is so large it either cannot fit into a single frame or the lens required is so wide the resulting 'stretch' in the corners starts to dominate the subject matter. When you are shooting compositions with FOVs that extend beyond any available lens then you have to learn to predict the final composition even though you can't see it while shooting. Naturally, the 'hit rate' drops - but it's the only way and it's quite amazing how we can train our minds to 'see' this kind of stuff in advance.
Megapixels
It's fine to have all those extra megapixels, achieved either through stitching or through a larger sensor, but as discussed above, unless you are actually looking for differences in even a large-'ish' print, they are all going to appear pretty similar assuming good printing and exposing technique. I don't know if this is what you were saying, but the inherent lens distortion in most DSLR lenses will be cancelled out in the stitching stage with programs like Auto Pano Pro.
The difference between a good DSLR and a MFDB very large print is nothing like comparing say 35mm film and 8" x 10" film enlarged big. IMO it's more like comparing 4" x 5" and 8" x 10" and if the DSLR is stitched then it will be hard to see the difference at all.
Cheers
Murray
-
Also keep in mind that while Bernard says six total images from the D3X (captured with excellent technique) will come close to a P65+ that many of our P65+ shooters are using a tech camera which allows them to shoot 180+ megapixel images which would imply the need for 18 frames from a D3x (again assuming the technique was perfect); the stitching on a tech camera requires no geometric distortion since the lens and camera remain static and the back simply moves to capture different parts of the same image circle. This means on a tech camera that 180 megapixel image requires no elegant stitching, distortion correction, or cropping - so you can actually compose at the time of capture.
Fair statement Doug, totally agree with that.
It is for sure true that stitching has some risk inherent to it, and you can never be 100% sure that you didn't mess up with something that could compromise the quality of the result (although it happens less and less the more you use the technique). It is obvious that for commercial applications where the need to deliver 100% of the time is a central requirement, a back provides - on top of all its core qualities - some peace of mind that is for sure worth a good bunch of $.
I guess that for fine art where there is more freedom to use those images that worked and to get rid of the rest, this is a bit less critical.
In the end, there is no solution that is better for everybody I guess, but Phaseone dropping their prices significantly would make it easier to consider all these alternatives purely based on their technical merits.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you really want to answer this question the only way to do so would be to shoot both yourself.
IMO (and its only that, opinion) composition through pan+tilt+stitch removes a lot of the hands-on feeling that photography gives me. You can't really compose; you just point the camera in the right general direction and take a composition much looser than you think you want because you can't be confident where the frame edges will end up after you apply the geometric distortions to merge them together. It feels too abstract and removed from the actual process of photography
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Sounds like the experience of a technical camera that you always espouse(i.e., a $50k point and shoot but without the benefit of Live View), except that stitching with a D3X, you can precisely focus the lens and see the exact effects of a wide angle or telephoto lens on your photograph through the lens.
-
The following link is a res down 60 megapixel pano (original is 6 times more) shot with a d3x and Zeiss 100 mm f2.0. I didn't use HDR techniques to achieve this result...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...720762/sizes/o/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3833720762/sizes/o/)
Bernard, amazing crispness and sharpness, maybe the best from a DSLR I've seen.
Just wondering, what RAW converter did you use?
That image alone could sell me on the D3x and the Zeiss 100 f/2, but I won't be buying anything for a little while...
-
Bernard, amazing crispness and sharpness, maybe the best from a DSLR I've seen.
Just wondering, what RAW converter did you use?
This was converted using C1 Pro 4.8.2.
Keep in mind that this image was originally 360 megapixel downsized to 60. The pixel per sharpness of the original tiffs was excellent, the resulting 360 mp pano also, but the downsized version you are looking at is still a bit better.
I am generally surprised by the softness of 100% crops from other 20+ megapixel DSLRs that are often posted around here. A stronger AA, poor raw conversion (ACR)/sharpening are of course part of the reason, but I believe that many shooters surprisingly under-estimate the importance of a very robust tripod.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Mostly well reasoned discussions, but one fatal flaw. The whole experience should be the end result, the photograph. The 35mm style of camera allows me to takephotographs in places and situations where MF will or should not go. Add the aqvailability of extreme WA and telephoto lenses and for me it ends right there. I fully understand the pleasure of looking at a print from 8x10 film or a high end DB, but who is the intended viewer? Very few peole have the ability to appreciate the higer quality, I'm certainly not advocating acceptable mediocrity but with a bit of restraint regarding print size, I believe that the guy with the nice shot wins.
-
The difference between a good DSLR and a MFDB very large print is nothing like comparing say 35mm film and 8" x 10" film enlarged big. IMO it's more like comparing 4" x 5" and 8" x 10" and if the DSLR is stitched then it will be hard to see the difference at all.
Cheers
Murray
Agreed, but the thing that turns me off too much stitching is a point you made earlier Murray. The variety of shots you get with your 5D2 is often more valuable than a single, staggeringly sharp image comprised of 6 or 9, or whatever, images. I think that a single capture is always more desirable than having to do a stitch - if possible. 180 degree views always need stitching, and it's a great look, but to use multiple stitches where a single capture could be done is putting technique ahead of creativity and variety.
I always found those early hi-res digital captures from scanning backs to be utterly soulless - they took so long to make that there was only time for one or two shots. I can think of a particular well known photrographer whose Betterlight back work leaves me cold but is no doubt technically awesome.
From a prefessional's point of view it is often better to shoot creatively, freely and with variety than to lock into a single shot and spend hours on it both shooting and in post.
-
Have to agree and more importantly you lose the look of what the nice effects a wide angle lens has on certain subjects. Not to mention anything about time and movement. Stitching is very nice but it also extremely limited to subject and perspective of the look in the image. Sorry I will take a MF camera any day over stitching a DSLR to get a near result. None of this takes in effect the DR , Tonal range and look that MF provides. Now stitching MF is awesome. This one is a 3 shot Pano stitch with a P30 and 150mm lens
-
Agreed, but the thing that turns me off too much stitching is a point you made earlier Murray. The variety of shots you get with your 5D2 is often more valuable than a single, staggeringly sharp image comprised of 6 or 9, or whatever, images. I think that a single capture is always more desirable than having to do a stitch - if possible. 180 degree views always need stitching, and it's a great look, but to use multiple stitches where a single capture could be done is putting technique ahead of creativity and variety.
I always found those early hi-res digital captures from scanning backs to be utterly soulless - they took so long to make that there was only time for one or two shots. I can think of a particular well known photrographer whose Betterlight back work leaves me cold but is no doubt technically awesome.
From a prefessional's point of view it is often better to shoot creatively, freely and with variety than to lock into a single shot and spend hours on it both shooting and in post.
True, but it really depends on the intended usage of the images also. A single 35 mm image will often just not cut it for high quality large fine art prints, at least not if it is displayed next to one shot with sufficient resolution. If you are shooting for an expo that will have some very large stitched/LF images, those single frame ones really look like they don't belong.
Besides, I would argue that it is often possible to resolution-stitch images that have creatively vizualized with the right stitching gear and technique. My view is that the unconvenience gap is about the same between hand held vs tripod than it is between tripod single frame vs tripod stitched. Another thing is that stitching can also be used successfully hand held in many cases, it doesn't make the shooting that much faster than it is with a good pano head, but it shortens the set up.
Either way all stitching techniques are for sure a lot lighter footed than scan backs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Stitching is very nice but it also extremely limited to subject and perspective of the look in the image.
Guy,
Can you ellaborate on this? I understand how stitching can be limited subjectwise (although it is a lot less than it seems), but as far as perspective and look I don't get it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nick and Guy,
couldn't agree more - stitching is no replacement for shooting more fluidly with a single frame. It's primarily useful when the FOV is too wide for any lens or the super wide stretch in the corners is not desired. Just stitching to raise the mpx count is cumbersome and clunky.
Guy, stitching MFDB is quite special I agree, but to really see a major difference in the print, I have found that the print has to be pretty big...
Cheers
Murray
BTW Guy- what a beautiful 'glow' that shot has - the tonality is quite special!
-
... And how would one DSLR stitch in double rows?
The image below was stitched from 37 frames 12 megapixel each. Frames were captured in 3 rows.
AutoPano team added a new feature per my request to allow layer-based color correction.
This allowed me to maintain underexposure of the sky to be preserved during the stitching process.
(http://www.michaelezra.com/temp/postings/ll/CO.2006.D4.749.jpg)
-
Guy,
Can you ellaborate on this? I understand how stitching can be limited subjectwise (although it is a lot less than it seems), but as far as perspective and look I don't get it.
Cheers,
Bernard
Forcing the perspective to front objects and such like you can do with wide angles. Something like is a good classic case of giving the room more space. Now if i pulled back with a longer lens and stitched I would be compressing that space. So when you want to force the perspective like this only a wide angle can give you that big foreground to small background effect
Now Bernard we can go around till the cows go home on glow and tonality but in all my years MF has it better with the great DR from shadow detail to detail in the highlights the tonal range i think is much better. Before you get into all that let me add I shot every system and every format there is including the D3x and granted it is a sweetie and finally Nikon has some real glass to go with it about freaking time I may add. Obviously a lot cheaper to get in as well and more versatile but end of the day MF just looks better to my eye in every way. Everything has it's place in this industry. This was a Mamiya 28mm
Now we can go round and round on this very subject but you would never convince me otherwise. Sorry
Oop's loaded the same image twice
-
Forcing the perspective to front objects and such like you can do with wide angles. Something like is a good classic case of giving the room more space. Now if i pulled back with a longer lens and stitched I would be compressing that space. So when you want to force the perspective like this only a wide angle can give you that big foreground to small background effect
Now Bernard we can go around till the cows go home on glow and tonality but in all my years MF has it better with the great DR from shadow detail to detail in the highlights the tonal range i think is much better. Before you get into all that let me add I shot every system and every format there is including the D3x and granted it is a sweetie and finally Nikon has some real glass to go with it about freaking time I may add. Obviously a lot cheaper to get in as well and more versatile but end of the day MF just looks better to my eye in every way. Everything has it's place in this industry. This was a Mamiya 28mm
Now we can go round and round on this very subject but you would never convince me otherwise. Sorry
Oop's loaded the same image twice
Not quite. Stitching with a longer lens from the same position will give you more detail, but the perspective will be the same. If you move back and stitch, then the perspective will change, but depending on the lens you may still get more detail.
-
Sorry that is absurd, there is no way in hell you can match a forced perspective with it's inherent distortion with stitching with a longer lens. The part with the detail really baffles me unless you are talking a single image compared to 12 stitched.
-
Sorry that is absurd, there is no way in hell you can match a forced perspective with it's inherent distortion with stitching with a longer lens. The part with the detail really baffles me unless you are talking a single image compared to 12 stitched.
Try it. You may surprise yourself.
-
Forcing the perspective to front objects and such like you can do with wide angles. Something like is a good classic case of giving the room more space. Now if i pulled back with a longer lens and stitched I would be compressing that space. So when you want to force the perspective like this only a wide angle can give you that big foreground to small background effect
Perspective is not impacted the least bit by focal lenght, it is only a function of the relative position between camera and subject (distance). When you do not stitch, the need to encompass the whole scene will force you to move back if you use a longer lens, which changes perspective. It is not the case with stitching.
Stitching for resolution only reduces the DoF, that's it.
Now Bernard we can go around till the cows go home on glow and tonality but in all my years MF has it better with the great DR from shadow detail to detail in the highlights the tonal range i think is much better. Before you get into all that let me add I shot every system and every format there is including the D3x and granted it is a sweetie and finally Nikon has some real glass to go with it about freaking time I may add. Obviously a lot cheaper to get in as well and more versatile but end of the day MF just looks better to my eye in every way. Everything has it's place in this industry. This was a Mamiya 28mm
Now we can go round and round on this very subject but you would never convince me otherwise. Sorry
I cannot argue with that and I am sure that most people would agree when looking at renditions from C1 Pro that does a great job curvewise for the backs. I should really do an apple to apple comparison one of these weekends. I'll look for a P65+ to rent.
I used to own the Mamiya 28mm, nice lens indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perspective is not impacted the least bit by focal lenght, it is only a function of the relative position between camera and subject (distance). When you do not stitch, the need to encompass the whole scene will force you to move back if you use a longer lens, which changes perspective. It is not the case with stitching.
Agreed! Bernard. This is a point which often causes much confusion amongst photographers. We're all familiar with the distorted perspective that wide-angle lenses can produce. Take a portrait with a 15mm lens on a FF DSLR, from a distance of 1 foot, and the subject will likey appear to have a huge honker. Not very flattering.
However, on a P&S camera, a 15mm lens would be ideal for portraiture, but from a significantly greater distance of course.
From the same distance with the 15mm lens on the FF DSLR, the perspective would be the same, but significant cropping would be required and the final portrait would likely be of much lower resolution than the P&S shot from the same distance.
-
We're all familiar with the distorted perspective that wide-angle lenses can produce.
The only thing that is determining perspective is distance/position. Wide-angle lenses don't produce distorted perspective, the distance they allow you to shoot from combined with their FoV does. That was what you were trying to say, I think?
-
it does surprise me how many professional photographers do not know the definition of photographic perspective and which are its influencing factors. One could expect from a professional earning money to know that perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the lens and its focal length, that the so-famous and among photographers wide-spread "wide angle perspective" does not exist, and that all is related to the view point, the shooting distance/angle, respectively to the reproduction scale.
Thierry
-
It's more about the look of compression. From exactly the same spot with a longer lens stitched compared to a wide angle the longer lens compresses the look the wide angle does not compress the look from foreground to background like a longer lens does. Our wording is just different . In this case with the interior that back door will appear closer to the foreground when you stitch with a longer lens from the same distance. With a wide angle that back door does not compress and actually recedes. Take any 50mm normal lens than take any 24mm lens and compare the same framing and the normal lens compresses the scene more compared to a wide angle.
-
Perspective distortion (photography)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Perspective correction.
This simulation shows how adjusting the angle of view of a camera, while varying the camera distance, keeping the object in frame, results in vastly differing images. At narrow angles, large distances, light rays are nearly parallel, resulting in a "flattened" image. At wide angles, short distances, the object appears distorted.
In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length. Perspective distortion can typically be seen in images shot using a wide angle of view, where an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, or in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, where the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects and more distant objects may look exceptionally large, when such images are viewed with a typical viewing angle.
-
It's more about the look of compression. From exactly the same spot with a longer lens stitched compared to a wide angle the longer lens compresses the look the wide angle does not compress the look from foreground to background like a longer lens does. Our wording is just different . In this case with the interior that back door will appear closer to the foreground when you stitch with a longer lens from the same distance. With a wide angle that back door does not compress and actually recedes. Take any 50mm normal lens than take any 24mm lens and compare the same framing and the normal lens compresses the scene more compared to a wide angle.
The same framing with a 50 and a 24 (on the same format) means different distances and therefore a different perspective. Would you use the same distance/position and crop to the same framing the perspective would be the same.
-
The same framing with a 50 and a 24 (on the same format) means different distances and therefore a different perspective. Would you use the same distance/position and crop to the same framing the perspective would be the same.
Same spot don't move the camera. Just crop in to see the 24mm lens framing equal to the 50mm and look at the different compression from subject to background.
I'm not talking about moving a camera from the same spot in that interior take the 28mm wide angle shot than take 6 80mm stitched shots to equal the same framing of the 28mm and the foreground to background look is completely different in LOOK. That is all I said from the beginning period.
-
it is not true, Guy!
your word "compress" is actually and only ANOTHER reproduction scale/ratio.
Now I would like to invite you to make a little test which explains and proves it all:
- take 2 shots with 2 different lenses, e.g. a 28mm and then e.g. a 300mm, from the very same distance/angle
- enlarge those 2 shots to the very same size/reproduction scale of the suject
You shall notice 2 facts:
- both shots, when enlarged to the same ratio (subject same size), do absolutely overlap
- in addition the 2 shots do even have the same DoF (which destroys another wide-spread belief among photographers, that a short lens has more DoF than a longer one).
Best regards,
Thierry
It's more about the look of compression. From exactly the same spot with a longer lens stitched compared to a wide angle the longer lens compresses the look the wide angle does not compress the look from foreground to background like a longer lens does. Our wording is just different . In this case with the interior that back door will appear closer to the foreground when you stitch with a longer lens from the same distance. With a wide angle that back door does not compress and actually recedes. Take any 50mm normal lens than take any 24mm lens and compare the same framing and the normal lens compresses the scene more compared to a wide angle.
-
EXACTLY, Dustback.
We should open a school.
Thierry
The same framing with a 50 and a 24 (on the same format) means different distances and therefore a different perspective. Would you use the same distance/position and crop to the same framing the perspective would be the same.
-
There we are: different distances.
Therefore, nothing to do with focal length. And if you want to get the same ratio inside your capture surface, then you obviously have to take a longer, resp. a shorter lens. Then you can't compare perspective anymore, you have to compare from the same distance/angle.
BTW, definition of perspective:
The representation/rendering of the 3rd dimension (depth) of a subject on a 2-dimensional capture medium (film or digital sensor): your eyes can see 3 dimensions BECAUSE you have 2 eyes, a 2 dimensional film/sensor can't, thus the 3rd dimension of your subject is not longer there, you need to "simulate" this 3rd dimension (the depth of the subject) with converging or diverging lines. That can only be done by changing the view point/distance to subject.
Thierry
... At narrow angles, large distances, light rays are nearly parallel, resulting in a "flattened" image. At wide angles, short distances, the object appears distorted.
-
Good glad you got it all figured out and please go teach it by the book in school, I will take a different approach and actually teach it in the field and I'm damn good at it. Have a great day have much more important things to do but we see this completely differently.
-
Guy, did you have a bad day, or woke up with the wrong foot?
I kindly ask you not to start your usual way to speak to me: I did not aggress you, nor mention your name. Simply putting things straight which are of common knowledge (or should) and trying to explain with simple words something which always seems to confuse some people.
I do not live by the books, but it seems to me an essential basic knowledge, when one calls oneself a professional photographer: actually the first thing one learns, when handling and playing with lenses.
Best regards,
Thierry
Good glad you got it all figured out and please go teach it by the book in school, I will take a different approach and actually teach it in the field and I'm damn good at it. Have a great day have much more important things to do but we see this completely differently.
-
This simulation shows how adjusting the angle of view of a camera, while varying the camera distance, keeping the object in frame, results in vastly differing images. At narrow angles, large distances, light rays are nearly parallel, resulting in a "flattened" image. At wide angles, short distances, the object appears distorted.
In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length. Perspective distortion can typically be seen in images shot using a wide angle of view, where an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, or in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, where the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects and more distant objects may look exceptionally large, when such images are viewed with a typical viewing angle.
Key words in bold.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Guy, did you have a bad day, or woke up with the wrong foot?
I kindly ask you not to start your usual way to speak to me: I did not aggress you, nor mention your name. Simply putting things straight which are of common knowledge (or should) and trying to explain with simple words something which always seems to confuse some people.
I do not live by the books, but it seems to me an essential basic knowledge, when one calls oneself a professional photographer: actually the first thing one learns, when handling and playing with lenses.
Best regards,
Thierry
Love your insults. Photographers learn by doing and most never opened a book in there life on it. I don't go by any book but what I see
What you have completely ignored is taking apart this 28mm image and putting it into 6 squares that from the same position shot with a 80mm lens the look would be different from each shot. Look at each shot or section and think how a 80mm would render that than put it back together as one and that look would not match the 28mm look. That is ALL i said from the beginning. You can't get any one of those sections to look like they do with a normal lens they are have a forced perspective due to the distortion of the lens. The foreground to background is different
BTW you have insulted me and every photographer around by you your last comment several posts back. You still don't have a grasp on how you come across. People are here to make a living and insulting people because they think in a totally different way and not your way is unfair and wrong. I had enough of this bullshit
-
my God, here we are again.
Yes, photographers learn by doing, where is your point?: one can understand what I have explained only by doing and trying.
You have really some problems, and can't take it to be contradicted in any way.
I was thinking you had better and more important to do, but actually insults come from you, and you don't miss an opportunity. It doesn't seem that I have offended somebody else, but only you. You have not lost your tendency to generalize.
And please leave me alone with your remarks about "how to come across": my knowledge is that you are too well known in the different places to be a "bit" out of place to make such a remark.
Thierry
PS: I won't comment any longer on your way to see things: simply apply your technic and knowledge for your images, if you are happy with it.
Love your insults. Photographers learn by doing and most never opened a book in there life on it. I don't go by any book but what I see
What you have completely ignored is taking apart this 28mm image and putting it into 6 squares that from the same position shot with a 80mm lens the look would be different from each shot. Look at each shot or section and think how a 80mm would render that than put it back together as one and that look would not match the 28mm look. That is ALL i said from the beginning. You can't get any one of those sections to look like they do with a normal lens they are have a forced perspective due to the distortion of the lens. The foreground to background is different
BTW you have insulted me and every photographer around by you your last comment several posts back. You still don't have a grasp on how you come across. People are here to make a living and insulting people because they think in a totally different way and not your way is unfair and wrong. I had enough of this bullshit
-
it does surprise me how many professional photographers do not know the definition of photographic perspective and which are its influencing factors. One could expect from a professional earning money to know that perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the lens and its focal length, that the so-famous and among photographers wide-spread "wide angle perspective" does not exist, and that all is related to the view point, the shooting distance/angle, respectively to the reproduction scale.
Thierry
No this is how you started it by insulting me and every other Pro that works for money. So please don't twist things around to make you look like the good guy. This is EXACTLY what you do on every thread I have seen you in and start with the god like superiority complex. We ALL have had enough of it. It ends here. If I am wrong than you can be polite but you simply do not know how to do that to me and others as well. This conversation is over
-
the only thing to add, is that it seems that you're the only one not knowing, looking at how many have corrected your way to understand it!
So again, please don't generalize, I have insulted nobody, but can understand YOU feeling to be (insulted). And I still do feel sorry that a "professional" photographer does not know his basics.
I have no superiority complex, but you seem to have an inferiority one, that's what transpire through all your remarks and sentences, each and any time somebody dares to say differently than you, here and elsewhere.
It ends when I wish it, not when YOU ask me to end it: I hope this is clear.
Thierry
No this is how you started it by insulting me and every other Pro that works for money. So please don't twist things around to make you look like the good guy. This is EXACTLY what you do on every thread I have seen you in and start with the god like superiority complex. We ALL have had enough of it. It ends here. If I am wrong than you can be polite but you simply do not know how to do that to me and others as well. This conversation is over
-
Calm down, please...
Best regards
Erik
-
Why do you guys try to demonstrate the truth? If somebody can't or doesn't want to understand it is not nice for the others to see a zillion posts trying to explain it. Specially when the other part doesn't want to be explained at all.