Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on January 19, 2012, 07:05:07 pm
-
Eye of America (http://www.thefpac.org/)
Edmund
-
http://filmsnotdead.com/2012/01/17/the-colossal-camera-that-will-capture-vanishing-cultures/
-
I mean, you could get the same THEORETICAL megapixel count that is to say stitching say 5x 80mp frames = 400mp image. Although I believe this is inherently flawed way of thinking about it because, you simply extended the image, you didn't add resolution. 400mp implies that the file has 5x the resolution of 1x 80mp image, which isn't true, the image just happens to be larger.
Could you stitch images together and get prints this size? yes. Could you get the tonality, dynamic range, effect and mystique of this camera? no.
-
Hi,
Yes, of course, absolutely!
You can stitch any number of images, regardless of camera format and achieve essentially any resolution. Quality is another question, it depends on the definition of quality. With film there is a need of scanning and grading.
http://www.kolor.com/buy/photo-hardware/motorized-head/kolor-panogear-motorized-panoramic-head-gigapixel-3.html
Best regards
Erik
Eye of America (http://www.thefpac.org/)
Edmund
-
Hi!
When you stitch you would use a longer focal length. If a 200 mm lens is used instead of a 50 mm lens we would need 16 exposures to cover the same area but the amount of information would also be 16 times. So resolution would be four times linear.
Regarding tonality, dynamic range this is about grading. Slide film has very limited DR, I would say five stops on Velvia more on other films. With negative films the situation is different. Negative film has wider dynamic range than slide but may be much harder to handle, look at the image below. The curves are parallell. It is very much possible that blue channel goes into clipping much earlier than the green and red channels.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/Alph900vsAnalogue2/EktarCharacteristicCurve.png)
The curve does not show what happens at exposures pas 20 lux-seconds, but I'd suggest that it is safe to assume color shift will show at high exposures.
Best regards
Erik
I mean, you could get the same THEORETICAL megapixel count that is to say stitching say 5x 80mp frames = 400mp image. Although I believe this is inherently flawed way of thinking about it because, you simply extended the image, you didn't add resolution. 400mp implies that the file has 5x the resolution of 1x 80mp image, which isn't true, the image just happens to be larger.
Could you stitch images together and get prints this size? yes. Could you get the tonality, dynamic range, effect and mystique of this camera? no.
-
Wow, did you read the specs on how they have to light the images? The film is ISO 3 and they are using strobe to light the subject, they need f/32 for depth of field. That's some serious watt seconds.
-
To do the same project by stitching is impossible as the jigsaw will be a collection of non matching ambiance/expressions.
-
Eye of America (http://www.thefpac.org/)
Edmund
Why assume compare to digital???
Should the question not rather be if they could get same image quality using a smaller large format film format?
Assumably the lens for such gigantic film size is not as sharp...
-
As I've never explored the stiching task, I'd like to know how long does it takes in post (an average) to obtain top results.
If it doesn't take too long and the processes and softwares are serious and stable, it could be professionally usable.
But if it's a DIY kind of process that takes days to get perfect results the painfull way, I won't get into it.
Thanks.
Ps: if someone could link here from experience the best software(s) currently available for this task I'd be very thankfull. And if the cherry on the cake is that if it's freeware, even better.
-
Where's your imagination and sense of wonder people? Give it a rest with the diagrams and comparisons already.
-
Where's your imagination and sense of wonder people? Give it a rest with the diagrams and comparisons already.
Faced with a flawed understanding, I feel little imagination and sense of wonder. Then it makes a lot more sense to use diagrams and references, dont you think?
The alternative seems to be bitter, emotional argueing back and forth.
-h
-
Hi Fred -
IMO, the best software is Kolor Autopano Giga ("APG") (http://www.kolor.com)
How long does it take in post? Well, that is determined by a number of factors: how many images you're trying to stitch; how big they are; how powerful your PC is; whether you can feed APG an XML file that provides the yaw, pitch & roll for each image.
Crazy example? Over 4,000 separate 16 MP jpgs took my computer (i7 920, 24GB RAM) around 18 hours to stitch. That was however after I had spent several days manually adding control points where the software had not been able to match images up. End result is a 180 gigabyte file.
But that's a crazy example.
If you're only looking to stitch, say, 10-30 images, and you were careful how you took them, then you're probably looking at just a few minutes with a decent PC to produce a perfectly stitched image. Beyond that, post processing is no different to any other image, except you'll be working with a larger file, and so you want lots of RAM, and fast disks.
Regards,
Gerald.
As I've never explored the stiching task, I'd like to know how long does it takes in post (an average) to obtain top results.
If it doesn't take too long and the processes and softwares are serious and stable, it could be professionally usable.
But if it's a DIY kind of process that takes days to get perfect results the painfull way, I won't get into it.
Thanks.
Ps: if someone could link here from experience the best software(s) currently available for this task I'd be very thankfull. And if the cherry on the cake is that if it's freeware, even better.
-
I may be wrong but I think you guys have fallen into Edmund snares :)
-
It's very impressive; that's undeniable.
But I bet I get better gas mileage with my Canon 5D2. ;D
Eric
-
I may be wrong but I think you guys have fallen into Edmund snares :)
I think so ! ;D
-
The main intended subject matter is portraits, so I doubt that stitching would be viable.
The DOF will be "interesting" too: f/32 in this 6x4.5 (feet) format roughly matching f/1 in 645 MF or f/0.6 in 35mm. Allowing for OOF effects, what part of the subject's faces will actually be recorded in more detail that you would get with a current 16MP+ digital camera? Does anyone have some f/0.95 portraits to post?
-
Where's your imagination and sense of wonder people? Give it a rest with the diagrams and comparisons already.
+1
-
Imago 1:1 for self-portraiture. ...
Now that is the real deal: 1:1 in the Polaroid tradition. If the inspiration behind the "Eye of America" camera was huge prints, then the best justification for not just enlarging but instead building a huge format camera is to avoid that "compromise" of enlarging. So either contact printing, or direct positive recording as with the Imago. The Eye of America 6'x4.5' camera is still intended to be used with 4x enlargement to get the 24'x16' prints for display (Also, that is a strange print shape choice: cropping to a 6'x4' portion of the print?)
P. S. I prefer my "wonder" to be based on the wonders of the real world, not fantasies and misunderstandings. I can admire the passion, even if it is akin to the passion of the model ship builder who gets the details right inside the cabins that no one will ever see.
-
Crazy example? Over 4,000 separate 16 MP jpgs took my computer (i7 920, 24GB RAM) around 18 hours to stitch. That was however after I had spent several days manually adding control points where the software had not been able to match images up. End result is a 180 gigabyte file.
Have you tried the new PT GUI grid stitching capability? Chances are that it could do in a few minutes what took you days to complete.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Have you tried the new PT GUI grid stitching capability? Chances are that it could do in a few minutes what took you days to complete.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard - are you referring to the "Align to grid" feature? I've used that in the past on small panos in PTGui. For ones of this size, PTGui's stitching speed - at least in my experience - is orders of magnitude slower than APG.
Regards,
Gerald.
-
;-) Yes definitively! You always need to read the fine print ;-)
BR
Erik
I may be wrong but I think you guys have fallen into Edmund snares :)
-
Hi Bernard - are you referring to the "Align to grid" feature? I've used that in the past on small panos in PTGui. For ones of this size, PTGui's stitching speed - at least in my experience - is orders of magnitude slower than APG.
Pt gui is for sure a bit slower, but isn't user operation time much more impacting than number crunching time?
I have found that align to grid feature to put pt gui in a class of its own for most cases where manual points creation would otherwise be required. But it is of course not a universal solution for all use cases so I am not sure whether it would have helped with your pano.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Pt gui is for sure a bit slower, but isn't user operation time much more impacting than number crunching time?
I have found that align to grid feature to put pt gui in a class of its own for most cases where manual points creation would otherwise be required. But it is of course not a universal solution for all use cases so I am not sure whether it would have helped with your pano.
Cheers,
Bernard
My Seitz VR Drive generates a Papywizard compatible XML file that APG uses to place the images in the correct locations, in the same way that Align to Grid works in PTGui. However the pitch, roll, and yaw coordinates alone are nowhere near accurate enough to place images without control points for this pano as it was shot with a 300mm lens on a 1.3 crop sensor.
Anyway, I think we should probably leave it at that as we have dragged this poor thread massively off-subject :)
Regards,
Gerald.