Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?  (Read 12400 times)

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2015, 08:28:32 am »

...
Unfortunately the enormous number of images required
...

I wonder why they didn't just divide the problem in smaller parts.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #21 on: June 03, 2015, 08:33:05 am »

Diego,

Quote
I wonder why they didn't just divide the problem in smaller parts.

Because manual control point placement would still be required for 70,000 images.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2015, 08:35:22 am »

Diego,

Because manual control point placement would still be required for 70,000 images.

I'm not the one suggesting that "dividing into smaller parts" solves all the problems in this kind of processing.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2015, 08:58:25 am »

Diego,

Quote
I'm not the one suggesting that "dividing into smaller parts" solves all the problems in this kind of processing.

Who do you consider is suggesting that "dividing into smaller parts" solves all the problems in this kind of processing?
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2015, 09:03:16 am »

Diego,

Who do you consider is suggesting that "dividing into smaller parts" solves all the problems in this kind of processing?

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100667.msg826477#msg826477
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2015, 09:24:32 am »

Diego,

In the post you linked to, kers does not claim that "dividing into smaller parts" solves all the problems in this kind of processing. kers addresses your question, which relates to one problem...in this kind of processing.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2015, 09:28:22 am »

Diego,
In the post you linked to, kers does not claim that "dividing into smaller parts" solves all the problems in this kind of processing. kers addresses your question, which relates to one problem...in this kind of processing.

Sure?
You wrote: "the enormous number of images required for such images means that accurate control point placement by manual means is impracticable".
Not impossible: impracticable.
Stitching 70.000 images on a 386 with 4Mb of RAM is not impossible: it's impracticable.

So saying that "any computer can stitch 70.000" is as correct as saying "control point placement by manual means on 70.000 images can be done manually".

Unfortunately, sometimes size does matter.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2015, 09:38:46 am »

hai Diego and Rob,
Thank you both for the remarks,

I just saw on dpreview :
"A team of five photographers has created what they describe as the world's highest definition panoramic photograph by stitching 70,000 digital images together to create a 365 gigapixel photograph. Recorded using a Canon EOS 70D with the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens on a 2x converter, the picture took 35 hours of shooting over the course of 15 days just to capture. A further two months were required in post-production to stitch the images together, creating a 46 terabyte finished product."

So in effect a 1200mm lens. I see now that badly stitched part is only a small problem - the static mountain looks good and well stitched.
Now i think it is a problem to even put the 46 terabyte in your computer, so it simply had to be divided in smaller parts resulting in a zoomable website - the real end product.
Like a google map- tiles are loaded that you need. Coarse tiles and smaller tiles..depending on the zoom level. There is no complete 46 tb photo anywhere, but the building blocks are there to make it.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 09:40:21 am by kers »
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2015, 09:40:38 am »

I bet LR6 could handle the stitch no problem.

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2015, 09:42:53 am »

hai Diego and Rob,
....
so it simply had to be divided in smaller parts resulting in a zoomable website - the real end product
....
How simple it is?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2015, 09:54:40 am »

stamper,

Quote
I bet LR6 could handle the stitch no problem.

Certainly PTGui can stitch as many as 65,536 images on a Mac, according to section 3.18 of its FAQ.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2015, 10:37:03 am »

How simple it is?
i do not know exactly,
The technique is used on all digital maps... i am not an expert, but the technique is there to be used.
Some parts of the image are truly badly stitched - the MontBlanc part is mostly very good..of course.. except for the cabin
The photo is taken from the Italian side- The cabin you see is really nice to take if you are there.
It is purely for the sightseeing- takes 20 minutes and stops now and then to give you a quiet view.
It connects italy and France- moves horizontally and is made by the Suisse if i remember correctly.
Halfway it is only supported once. I have a big picture of the view from it hanging on my wall that i took with a 4x5 inch and i can see even more detail on this panorama...
So must say they photographed the mountain as big as it really is.
Since i do not see any moved or vibrated images, the weather must have been very good and not to much wind.


Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2015, 10:46:00 am »

i do not know exactly,
The technique is used on all digital maps... i am not an expert, but the technique is there to be used.
Are you sure that the same technique that works with 200 images still works with 70.000 images?

A "some terabyte" database can run on a single machine: google databases need multiple datacenters.




Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2015, 11:27:42 am »

Are you sure that the same technique that works with 200 images still works with 70.000 images?
A "some terabyte" database can run on a single machine: google databases need multiple datacenters.
not sure no, but maybe you have an answer here:

https://openseadragon.github.io
it is the javascript engine they used.
cheers PK
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2015, 11:29:22 am »

not sure no, but maybe you have an answer here:

https://openseadragon.github.io
it is the javascript engine they used.
cheers PK


This is the engine to display the "already stitched" tiled image.
The problem is stitching the 70.000 images together.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2015, 12:16:23 pm »

It seems like this photograph is interesting not because of the image but because of the technique used to produce it.

They could have taken 70,000 pictures of a parking lot and still have gotten this "record".
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2015, 01:58:21 pm »

It seems like this photograph is interesting not because of the image but because of the technique used to produce it.

They could have taken 70,000 pictures of a parking lot and still have gotten this "record".
the value of this kind of thing lays much more on the failures than the successes: find out what doesn't work and why is more useful.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 952
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2015, 03:02:41 pm »

About bad stitching: you good people forget that the "photograph" was taken in a course of a week or so. Impossible to expose all 70000 frames at the same instant. That means there will be places where the light (time of the day) is different in connecting frames. They might be exposed days apart.

Solution for the next, better attempt: a giant fill-in flash to even out the light...
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 03:14:37 pm by Petrus »
Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2015, 03:04:02 pm »

It also said the took pictures from different positions which would also explain what look like parallax errors on the cablecar wires.
Logged

tim wolcott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
    • http://www.galleryoftheamericanlandscape.com
Re: 365 gigapixels - enough for you pixel peepers?
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2015, 11:46:49 pm »

I think we all would care if the photo was a great photograph and something worth capturing.  Instead another poor attempt of stitching.  Stitching for the sake of stitching does not make a photo, but a massive amount of space.  Would be nice if it was taken with great lighting, composition and something at least interesting.  T
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up