Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: dSLR/Pano folks...  (Read 3303 times)

dwood

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
dSLR/Pano folks...
« on: March 15, 2010, 06:15:30 pm »

Thomas Krüger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 447
    • http://thomaskrueger.eu
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2010, 06:42:31 am »

More serious stuff from Germany: http://www.gigapanbot.de/gigapanbot-en.htm
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2010, 08:57:02 am »

It's funny how when you zoom in on any of these gigapan style images you still see digital-looking crap noise with terrible color and completely non-life-like 2d flat boring renderings with lens artifacts (CA/fringing).

More resolution makes for a nice gimic, but the image quality still sucks.

My opinion only. Probably consumers never notice the difference and it does make a nice gimic!

Thomas Krüger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 447
    • http://thomaskrueger.eu
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2010, 12:07:27 pm »

Also my opinion.

Instead it can be useful for viewing artwork like on the examples of this italian company: http://www.haltadefinizione.com/galleries....1&lingua=en

Quote from: dougpetersonci
It's funny how when you zoom in on any of these gigapan style images you still see digital-looking crap noise with terrible color and completely non-life-like 2d flat boring renderings with lens artifacts (CA/fringing).

More resolution makes for a nice gimic, but the image quality still sucks.

My opinion only. Probably consumers never notice the difference and it does make a nice gimic!
Logged

elf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2010, 04:19:43 pm »

Quote from: dougpetersonci
It's funny how when you zoom in on any of these gigapan style images you still see digital-looking crap noise with terrible color and completely non-life-like 2d flat boring renderings with lens artifacts (CA/fringing).

More resolution makes for a nice gimic, but the image quality still sucks.

My opinion only. Probably consumers never notice the difference and it does make a nice gimic!

I think that's an overly broad comdemnation of stitching.  There's no reason using a robot to take the individual frames will have negative image quality.  What does make a difference is how much effort is expended in post processing to ensure the final image quality.  One thing that stitching brings to the party is wide FOV with detail that can't be matched by any single frame camera, DSLR, MF, or LF.

Logged

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2010, 05:17:30 pm »

Those are pretty cool, but not incredibly practical.  They are heavy and complicated.  Besides bragging rights, there is a practical limit to useful resolution in an image.  This device become a niche product for people who want very high resolution images and intend to display them with something like zoomify.  That can be very cool, but I can do the same thing with a RRS pano head and a decent wide angle lens with much less weight and complexity.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2010, 01:46:09 am »

Quote from: fike
Those are pretty cool, but not incredibly practical.  They are heavy and complicated.  Besides bragging rights, there is a practical limit to useful resolution in an image.  This device become a niche product for people who want very high resolution images and intend to display them with something like zoomify.  That can be very cool, but I can do the same thing with a RRS pano head and a decent wide angle lens with much less weight and complexity.
I agree. And frankly, most of the "gigapixel" images I've seen on the web have been pretty dull once you get past the novelty of being able to zoom in to extreme detail levels. The images themselves are strictly documentary, and seem more about bragging rights than creating compelling photographs.

From a more practical standpoint, even 100-200mp images can be a real PITA to post-process, especially if using a 16-bit workflow with layers and filters in Photoshop.
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2010, 04:45:40 am »

Quote from: dougpetersonci
It's funny how when you zoom in on any of these gigapan style images you still see digital-looking crap noise with terrible color and completely non-life-like 2d flat boring renderings with lens artifacts (CA/fringing).

Hi Doug,

With all due respect, but I don't see how that can be attributed to stitching.

Quote
More resolution makes for a nice gimic, but the image quality still sucks.

Again, image quality is mostly determined by prior Raw conversion and perhaps some tonemapping. Perhaps you are referring to poor choices when being faced with 'impossible' scenarios, such as frontal and backlighting in the same field of view. When the tonemapping is not successful then it has nothing to do with stitching itself but with the skills of the photographer (what's new?).

Quote
My opinion only. Probably consumers never notice the difference and it does make a nice gimic!

I'm not sure why you react so condescendingly? Stitching makes impossible images possible, and also unlocks other potential (e.g. distortion correction). Automated capture devices such as the Gigapan just take the drudgery out of the aquisition stage of the process, and it allows for easier stitching, especially when there are also featureless areas such as blue sky involved, or when e.g. moving clouds can throw off an automated control point optimization.

Is stitching a perfect solution? No it isn't, but sometimes there is no other way of achieving one's goals.

I have no experience with the Gigapan, so I can't comment on the accuracy and longevity of its gearing, or on the quality of its firmware. It does look a bit bulky, which reduces its attractiveness for hard to reach venues.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2010, 01:50:29 am »

Quote from: BartvanderWolf
With all due respect, but I don't see how that can be attributed to stitching.

Again, image quality is mostly determined by prior Raw conversion and perhaps some tonemapping. Perhaps you are referring to poor choices when being faced with 'impossible' scenarios, such as frontal and backlighting in the same field of view. When the tonemapping is not successful then it has nothing to do with stitching itself but with the skills of the photographer (what's new?).

I'm not sure why you react so condescendingly? Stitching makes impossible images possible, and also unlocks other potential (e.g. distortion correction). Automated capture devices such as the Gigapan just take the drudgery out of the aquisition stage of the process, and it allows for easier stitching, especially when there are also featureless areas such as blue sky involved, or when e.g. moving clouds can throw off an automated control point optimization.

Is stitching a perfect solution? No it isn't, but sometimes there is no other way of achieving one's goals.

I don't think we disagree here.

Stitching can do 180 or 360 degree images previously impossible outside of concentric-circle-slit-cameras (I made one of these in college using binder plastic - very impractical and only useful at creating 360 panoramic).

Using Gigapixel or other massive-stitching techniques doesn't mean the technical image quality of the shot is lower.  But most of the stitches I've seen with these machines have been with very low-quality cameras (mostly point and shoots) in regards to lens quality, lens character, 3d or tactile nature of the rendering, dynamic range, tonal smoothness, noise, or color. And taking such a thousand frames from such a camera vastly increases the resolution - but ONLY the resolution - any given crop of the image still has the bad lens rendering, flat 2d feel, poor highlight/shadow detail, choppy tonal transitions, and poor color.

Using Gigapixel or other massive-stitching techniques doesn't mean the creative quality of the shot is lower. However, that's why I see more often than not. Probably because the creative/talented photographers are focused on composition, light, color, etc etc rather than on stitching thousands of point and shoot images to reconstruct (as someone above said - in a very documentary way) a scene with the highest possible resolution.

I couldn't say it better than JeffKohn - when the novelty of ultra high resolution wears out (which is - at least for me - a minute or two at most) there had better be a compelling photographic element to the creation. Whether that is subject, emotion, color, light, composition, or anything else.

I would actually be very thrilled to see someone point towards an online gallery of a true artist using this technique/technology to tell stories, evoke emotion, illustrate abstract concepts, or otherwise do anything other than create really really high resolution recreations of a place. Like any other new photographic tool this could be used as a novelty or a device to further push the creative limits of photography. VERY likely someone is in fact out there is using gigapixel technology or other massive-stitching techniques to create compelling/creative/artist images  - but I've not seen their work. (I've also not been looking for such work - just commenting based on the massive-stitches I've seen come up on forums or other media sites).

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2010, 06:34:51 am »

I think some of you guys have missed the point. The current Gigapan system is currently only compatible with P&S cameras and a very few entry-level, cropped-format DSLRs. They are working on a larger, heavier, more expensive device suitable for 35mm DSLRs, but that's not available yet.

Pixel peeping a gigabyte file at 100% on the monitor is like peering at a print 20ft long and 14ft high (or 40ft long by 7ft high) from a distance of 18 inches.

What do you expect from a P&S at such close scrutiny?
Logged

elf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2010, 05:47:45 pm »

Quote from: dougpetersonci
I don't think we disagree here.

Stitching can do 180 or 360 degree images previously impossible outside of concentric-circle-slit-cameras (I made one of these in college using binder plastic - very impractical and only useful at creating 360 panoramic).

Using Gigapixel or other massive-stitching techniques doesn't mean the technical image quality of the shot is lower.  But most of the stitches I've seen with these machines have been with very low-quality cameras (mostly point and shoots) in regards to lens quality, lens character, 3d or tactile nature of the rendering, dynamic range, tonal smoothness, noise, or color. And taking such a thousand frames from such a camera vastly increases the resolution - but ONLY the resolution - any given crop of the image still has the bad lens rendering, flat 2d feel, poor highlight/shadow detail, choppy tonal transitions, and poor color.

Using Gigapixel or other massive-stitching techniques doesn't mean the creative quality of the shot is lower. However, that's why I see more often than not. Probably because the creative/talented photographers are focused on composition, light, color, etc etc rather than on stitching thousands of point and shoot images to reconstruct (as someone above said - in a very documentary way) a scene with the highest possible resolution.

I couldn't say it better than JeffKohn - when the novelty of ultra high resolution wears out (which is - at least for me - a minute or two at most) there had better be a compelling photographic element to the creation. Whether that is subject, emotion, color, light, composition, or anything else.

I would actually be very thrilled to see someone point towards an online gallery of a true artist using this technique/technology to tell stories, evoke emotion, illustrate abstract concepts, or otherwise do anything other than create really really high resolution recreations of a place. Like any other new photographic tool this could be used as a novelty or a device to further push the creative limits of photography. VERY likely someone is in fact out there is using gigapixel technology or other massive-stitching techniques to create compelling/creative/artist images  - but I've not seen their work. (I've also not been looking for such work - just commenting based on the massive-stitches I've seen come up on forums or other media sites).

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

http://www.light-of-earths.com/
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2010, 10:56:12 pm »

Well, what a coincidence!

About 24 hours ago I got the impression that the GigaPan Epic Pro which is designed for the whole range of Canon, Nikon and Sony 35mm DSLRs, wasn't yet available.

I now see on their website that it is available, at a price of $895. http://gigapansystems.com/gigapan-products...oduct-page.html

However, for me, the weight of the device at 3.3Kg is significantly heavier than any of my tripods. That tends to put me off buying it because one also needs a tripod in order to use the device, and presumably a heavy, sturdy tripod.

Nevertheless, if the device really does do an excellent stitching job in such an automated manner, then it's a marvelous invention.

What would concern me is the fact that the software handles only jpeg, tiff and png. Since none of my DSLRs output tiff or png, I would presumably be shooting in jpeg format when using the Epic Pro.

Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
dSLR/Pano folks...
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2010, 05:54:27 am »

Quote from: Ray
However, for me, the weight of the device at 3.3Kg is significantly heavier than any of my tripods. That tends to put me off buying it because one also needs a tripod in order to use the device, and presumably a heavy, sturdy tripod.

Indeed, it's not the most portable of automated capture devices.

Quote
What would concern me is the fact that the software handles only jpeg, tiff and png. Since none of my DSLRs output tiff or png, I would presumably be shooting in jpeg format when using the Epic Pro.

Another way of looking at it, it is probably best to first use a good Raw converter anyway. That would allow to address issues like chromatic aberration, and vignetting, and stationary dust removal, and White Balance across a large angle of view, much more accurately than a generic solution probably could achieve. Unfortunately that would add to the workload afterwards, but such is life if one seeks perfection.

Cheers,
Bart

Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: [1]   Go Up