Best techniques for multi-row panoramas using tilt/shift lens

[fike]

I never get it about this viewing distance stuff...whenever I see a big print the first thing I do is walk up close to it to look at the details. Is it only me?

Kevin

Me too.

[Ellis Vener]

Me too.

Great painters do the same thing - and then step back to take in the whole thing again.

Keith Cooper has a great article on "ideal" resolution and print viewing distances @ http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/print_viewing_distance.html

[theguywitha645d]

Quite a few folks don't understand viewing distance and its significance. Not knowing something is hardly an argument against that.

[fike]

Quite a few folks don't understand viewing distance and its significance. Not knowing something is hardly an argument against that.

I am not sure what your point is about not knowing something. 

When I make a large print I expect the viewer to walk up and view it from 12 inches or less.  For that reason, when I print large, I choose 300 DPI.  The OP needs to make the same decision about their large print.  You are of course correct that if they prevent viewers from coming close by putting up a velvet rope 5 feet from the print, it will look fabulous at 150 DPI (I think I pointed that out yesterday.) and sharpness due to depth of field issues would be much less critical. 

I am not sure a 10 foot square image made from a single frame from a D800e (even with all those pixels) would be that impressively sharp, even at 5 feet, but that is just my gut feeling.  Between the unneeded oversampling of that sensor (assuming shooting from a tripod at base ISO) and the limited resolving power of most lenses, I would think lots of detail would not be captured that could be shown at 10' x 10'.

[Ellis Vener]

Fike, Do you print with Canon, Epson or HP? And on what media?

[fike]

Fike, Do you print with Canon, Epson or HP? And on what media?

I am not sure what the OP uses, but I print with an espon 7880 and 2400 generally using Ilford Gold Fiber Silk or a variety of canvases.

[Ellis Vener]

I am not sure what the OP uses, but I print with an espon 7880 and 2400 generally using Ilford Gold Fiber Silk or a variety of canvases.

Have you tried other printing resolutions (180, 240 or 360 dpi)  on your various sub-strates? I mostly pritn with a Canon iPF 6300 which works best at either 300 or 600 dpi (and yes i do know the difference between ppi and dpi). My understanding is that the Epson's work at either 180, 360, 720 or 1440 and that when fed something at a different ppi internally interpolate to the closest of those dpi resolutions. Check with Jeff Schewe on that.

Also how do you sharpen for capture and output?

[fike]

Have you tried other printing resolutions (180, 240 or 360 dpi)  on your various sub-strates? I mostly pritn with a Canon iPF 6300 which works best at either 300 or 600 dpi (and yes i do know the difference between ppi and dpi). My understanding is that the Epson's work at either 180, 360, 720 or 1440 and that when fed something at a different ppi internally interpolate to the closest of those dpi resolutions. Check with Jeff Schewe on that.

Also how do you sharpen for capture and output?

I am a Qimage printer, so the output resolution is handled by the app (quite well I might add).  I do capture sharpening and then very light print sharpening...leaving the last run of sharpening to Qimage. 

I am familiar with Jeff's work. His book is quite interesting and helped me learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.

[Ellis Vener]

I am familiar with Jeff's work. His book is quite interesting and helped me learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.

First time I've heard Jeff linked to Dr. Strangelove! Bruce Fraser seems better cast in that role. Maybe Jeff as General Turgidson and Martin Evening as Group Captain Mandrake, J-P Caponigro as Major "King" Kong,  Andrew Rodney as Lt. Zogg?

[theguywitha645d]

I am not sure what your point is about not knowing something. 

When I make a large print I expect the viewer to walk up and view it from 12 inches or less.  For that reason, when I print large, I choose 300 DPI.  The OP needs to make the same decision about their large print.  You are of course correct that if they prevent viewers from coming close by putting up a velvet rope 5 feet from the print, it will look fabulous at 150 DPI (I think I pointed that out yesterday.) and sharpness due to depth of field issues would be much less critical. 

I am not sure a 10 foot square image made from a single frame from a D800e (even with all those pixels) would be that impressively sharp, even at 5 feet, but that is just my gut feeling.  Between the unneeded oversampling of that sensor (assuming shooting from a tripod at base ISO) and the limited resolving power of most lenses, I would think lots of detail would not be captured that could be shown at 10' x 10'.

Sorry, but printing a 10x10 foot image from a 300ppi file is excessive. I print 40MP files at 44x60 inches and panos at 44x144 (about 125 ppi) and a viewer can walk up to those (certainly closer than 5 feet) and still not see all the detail in the file. The prints are very sharp.

[theguywitha645d]

I also think we need to put this image into perspective--it is 10 feet by 10 feet. (I am not going to get on my hands and knees to look at the bottom of it nor climb a ladder to look at the top.) It would be helpful if the OP could put some context to where this print is going to be displayed.

[the_ether]

I also think we need to put this image into perspective--it is 10 feet by 10 feet. (I am not going to get on my hands and knees to look at the bottom of it nor climb a ladder to look at the top.) It would be helpful if the OP could put some context to where this print is going to be displayed.

This is a fine art project. This photo will be one piece amongst other contemporary art pieces in a gallery. Don't take the 10x10 feet as a definitive size. I haven't decided on the exact dimensions but it will be of a similar scale and displayed as a triptych.

I also haven't decided on how to print and mount it. What I am considering is inkjet printing it onto textured paper to accentuate the grittiness of the scene, but that might end up over-egging it. I'll do a couple of test prints before making my final decision. I envisage the mounting to be on aluminium panels with no glass fronts, each floating in their own wooden frames.

The scene is actually a beach; mud once the tide has receded. Attached is a (very) rough shot I took whilst passing the scene some time ago for use as an aide memoire. I've been planning to go back with the right kit for some time and take the shot properly.

As others here have said, at this scale and the gallery setting, people will need to stand back quite a distance to see the whole image. However, they will walk up close to see the fine details - just as one would do with a painting to examine the brush strokes. The scale and level of detail should make for an immersive experience. Hopefully a pleasant one.

[theguywitha645d]

I would start by figuring out how this is going together. If you are not doing your own printing, and I assume at 10 feet, that will not be you, go to your printer and see if you can see some large examples and the specs for the file. See what they suggest. The surface you print on will have a bigger impact on the detail of the image than the number of pixels. I would imagine the specialized printers that can handle a 10ft roll would also add limitations. Once you know the final size of the work, then you can start making choices for the image specification.

I actually do a lot of printing for different folks on a 44" printer for work that ends up being 12 feet long (and hung in galleries). Basically, the files they send simply hold together no matter the size we print them at. Naturally, there is real reason to have more pixels, but it has nothing really to do with the final print size but rather the "look" of the image.

[BernardLanguillier]

Just saw this.

The image mentioned by the OP was captured with a combination of DoF stacking and stitching.

Cheers,
Bernard

[the_ether]

Just saw this.

The image mentioned by the OP was captured with a combination of DoF stacking and stitching.

Cheers,
Bernard

Thanks Bernard.

[elf]

Make sure you have enough overlap when DoF stacking.  Almost nothing is worse than having out of focus bands or areas where they are unexpected.  I'd recommend using a CoC between the width of 1 to 1.5 pixels on your sensor.  Another point to consider is how the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus is handled.  If the line is really abrupt, then it won't look natural. 

Another form of DoF stacking is to use the aperture to change the focus.  Start the set using your sharpest f-stop, then shoot the last image at a smaller aperture. When you're doing the stacking you can use the last image to blend the in-focus line naturally. 

This thread has a good example of extreme DoF stacking: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4864

[the_ether]

Make sure you have enough overlap when DoF stacking.

Thanks for the advice. I'll look at aperture stacking.

I was planning to take 2 or 3 shots at different focus points, each at f/11, with 100% overlap for each tile in a row. I would then have say, 40% overlap between neighbouring columns and rows. In post-processing I would first stitch the stack of focal point tiles then stitch the stacked tiles from left to right along one row and finally stitch the rows together. I will no doubt suffer from repetitive strain injury after all this. There will be a lot of shots to take.

But I'll also read up on aperture stacking.

[fike]

Keep us posted on your progress. I am excited to see your work.  Where are you planning to display this piece?

[Ellis Vener]

I hesitate to mention this, but all of the raw processing and post processing manipulations you are palnning on doing to getthe print size and detail resolution you want for this photo are more simply handled by renting a 4x5, a 90mm mm lens and and shooting (assuming your goal is a monochrome print) black & white film or color negative . If B&W use Tmax 400 or 100 and over expose a bit (i.e. meter at ISO 200 or 320 instead of 400).

You may need a little Schiempflug (lens or film plane tilt to get the infinite depth of field you need and maybe a little rise or fall - but if you can find a Sinar P or P2 to rent  and someone to show you how to use it, teh Sinar P's  built in tilt/swing & best aperture for of field calculator will solve all of these problems in an elegant and straight forward mechanical fashion. Afterwards have the best negative scanned on a drum scanner at 6000-8000 dpi ( I recommend West Coast Imaging or http://nancyscans.com/ if you are in the USA) and you'll be good to print.

[Justan]

Bill T recently posted a really good article on DOF stacking and panos.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62513.0