Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Bryce Canyon 125 stiched from 45 images  (Read 13383 times)
julian kalmar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« on: March 21, 2007, 10:55:59 AM »
ReplyReply

images original size: 18762x9490
For technic freaks: I have been asked very often, wy I prefer stching instead of making 4x5 or 8x10 larg format. During my studies I did a lot with 4x5 inch and even some 8x10 inch work. The answer is very simple: Stiching 3 or 4 images is very simple and the resolution is much better then 6x7 medium format ( with my 5d) stiching 10 images gives you a bit better resolution then 4x5 inch and still this is not a big game compared with taking a 4x5 inch gear with you. stiching 20 or more images gives you a much better resolution then 8x10 inch but stiching becomes complicate but the result is breathtaking Remember: I only talk about resolution, nothing else (I do not whant to start that stupid conversation if film ordigital is better Many amateurs think that larg format has 10 times more resolution then 35mm. IT HAS NOT!! Why? Well, the answer is simple: the lens has to fill a bigger image circle, and the bigger the circle , the less is the resolution of the lens. If you do not believe, try to make a 100 inch print from a 8x10 inch slide. If you make a 100 inch print from a stiched image with 45 images you get a native resolution of 200 dpi and the image is rasor sharp, even if you look from 30 inch distance
For stiching I used PTGui and the seperate layers I put together in PS
You are alsow welcome to visite my Gallery: http://photoart.lima-city.de/



I forgot to post a 100% crop sorry http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5657039-lg.jpg
« Last Edit: May 23, 2007, 03:09:29 AM by julian kalmar » Logged
steve`o
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2007, 04:58:33 AM »
ReplyReply

very impressive, how long would it take to create that with the software?
Logged
julian kalmar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2007, 07:59:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
very impressive, how long would it take to create that with the software?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I stiched with PTGui but I had lots of mistakes ( especially in the sky)
So I made seperate layers ( and this last much longer then creating the complete image ) and put the pacle together in PS. I think my computer worked  about 3-4 hours (2,8GHz HT 1GB Ram)
Totally this image consists more than 160 shots ( I had to take each image 3-4 times with different exposures and focusing points) From these images I made 45 "perfect" images for stiching
Of course in half an hour the sky was chanching a lot which resulted in problems for stiching. For putting the pacle together I needed 2 month
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 08:03:41 AM by julian kalmar » Logged
AndyF2
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2007, 11:43:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Very impressive image!  It would be difficult to obtain the images you needed, and also have the lighting reasonably the same in all of them, and before the clouds moved.

What kind of tripod head do you use?  Something that has clickstops at each horizontal and vertical interval is probably useful when there are this many images in a grid that must be taken.

Andy
Logged
ddolde
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343


« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2007, 12:29:35 PM »
ReplyReply

The perspective is soo unnatural...I don't find it attractive at all.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2007, 01:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

It is an impressive stitch.  If printed Clyde Butcher big it might be neat but not so much at this size.
Logged
langier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 658



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2007, 01:47:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Great pix, Julian!

With years of hands-on with up to 8x10 film capture and now nearly all digital, I, too, share your observation that digital can equal and in many cases, surpass the resolution of film.

I have on my wall a 12-shot pano of Factory Butte in Utah that would be a royal PIA had I shot it with my 10 inch Cirkut camera. Not only the quality is better, but just processing and printing that 10 inch by 6 feet film was always an adventure and made the darkroom a mess!

With the new image merge in CS3, it's even easier and better than hand stitching!

We're still in the horse-and-buggy era of digital and this will only get better!

I'm printing about 100 prints, mainly 20x30 to 24x26 and longer from the panos right now that rival anything I once got with film. Even the high-res scans from our 645 aren't nearly as sharp as the stuff from our D200 and D2x captures and it takes the added step of scanning.

When you get down to the nuts and bolts, the main reason for large-format in the first place was that was the only way to make large prints at one time. Granted, the lenses today for medium and large format have substantially better than they were in the golden age of both just a few years ago, but Nikon, Canon and the rest did there homework and pushed the envelope. They had to.

If you could get the same image quality from a lens on MF or larger that we get on the current crops of 35 and DX lenses, then there would be no point in shooting the smaller formats. But in reality, there isn't much market to make those lenses.

In the overall scheme of things, though, my Zeiss lenses on the 'blad are awfully nice, and it's hard to get that image quality on anything smaller, but with stitching, it's getting harder and harder to want to shoot film.

Look at Steve Johnson's work with both one-shot and scanning backs. He's on the bleeding edge and is pushing digital limits way beyond what most of us will ever do. But with with what most people have in hand and on their desktops, a little skill and craftsmanship can go a long way in getting into Steve's league.

Go out and shoot some more!
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
sbacon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2007, 02:32:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When you get down to the nuts and bolts, the main reason for large-format in the first place was that was the only way to make large prints at one time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gosh, you mean I've been fussing with movements for nothing?      
Logged
Charlie B
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2007, 03:06:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Great Image. I have been there and feel you captured the place.

Charlie
Logged
julian kalmar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2007, 03:22:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What kind of tripod head do you use?  Something that has clickstops at each horizontal and vertical interval is probably useful when there are this many images in a grid that must be taken.

Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for all the interests! Im using a self build Pano head (those you can buy are either very expensive and heavy, or cheap but not able to hold my camera)
I dont use clickstops because Im faster when I look in my camera ( Its very simple: Im just looking that the seoerate images are crossing each other about one third, so Im always on the save side)
sorry for my bead English, I hope you are able to understand what I mean.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2007, 07:43:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The perspective is soo unnatural...I don't find it attractive at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doug,

You are the re-incarnation of a diplomat, aren't you?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2007, 07:50:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Doug,

You are the re-incarnation of a diplomat, aren't you?

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108732\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, from the picture it looks like two diplomats have been squeezed in there!

It was a very sour comment, wasn't it?

John
Logged

usathyan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 184



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2007, 08:51:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Very impressive - esp. the fact that you included the people for scale is even more impressive!
Logged

--------------
Umesh Bhatt
http://www.8thcross.com/blog/
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2007, 09:25:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with the stated benefits of stitching and do it myself regularly...  However, WRT LF lens resolutions, you are repeating old lens data, not data from the current state of LF lenses.  I have 4x5 and 8x10 lenses that I have tested at 60 line PAIRS per mm -- and this is on par with the best Canon glass I own.  I suspect some MF and 35mm lenses will do better, but even the small pixels on the D2x or 30D sensor are tapped out by about 70 line pairs when the AA filter is factored in.  The other advantage you miss is the movements available on the view camera are useful.  Bottom line is there a point of diminishing returns for stitched images;  certainly a 4 or 6 frame capture can be captured quickly and assembled quite easily for a superb result, but over a dozen and things start to get complicated really quickly.  So IMO film is far from left out.  All you need to do is stick your nose in one of Burtinsky's 60" prints next time his exhibit is in your neighborhood -- talk about detail!  It'll make you want to run out and buy an 8x10 camera...

Cheers,
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2007, 12:00:45 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a curious effect in this image which seems a bit odd. The distant horizon, top of the canyon, doesn't look distant. Perhaps this is due to unfamiliarity with such sharp images. One doesn't expect distant objects to be razor sharp.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2007, 01:27:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is a curious effect in this image which seems a bit odd. The distant horizon, top of the canyon, doesn't look distant. Perhaps this is due to unfamiliarity with such sharp images. One doesn't expect distant objects to be razor sharp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good call Ray.  I didn't know what it was that didn't look quite right, but there is a curious lack of depth for that type image.  Of course it might just have been a really clear day.

(FWIW, it also appears by looking at the crop that the file was over-sharpened on conversion or at least in post.)

Cheers,
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 01:33:32 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Dave Carter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2007, 06:41:25 PM »
ReplyReply

This is a point I have tried to figure out for myself - but I am not sure.  Someone much smarter then me must have thought this through.

I think it is well accepted that using a tele lens tends to give a picture that has a compressed 'Depth of Field Look'.  And using a very wide angle lens can increase the preceived 'Depth of Field Look'.

Therefore, if you take a single picture of Bryce Canyon with a 24mm lens it will have a large 'Depth of Field Look'.  But when you take many pictures with say a 180mm lens and stich them together to get the same angle of view, the same total picture - won't it have the compressed 'Depth of Field Look'?

And isn't that a problem with stiching in general?

Your sane comments on my rational would be appreciated.

And, oh yes, I really like the picture at the start of the thread plus many others on his web site.

Thanks, Dave
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 06:43:30 PM by Dave_C » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2007, 10:02:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Therefore, if you take a single picture of Bryce Canyon with a 24mm lens it will have a large 'Depth of Field Look'.  But when you take many pictures with say a 180mm lens and stich them together to get the same angle of view, the same total picture - won't it have the compressed 'Depth of Field Look'?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dave, I think if you make the stitched 180mm shot have the exact same Angle Of View and take it from the exact same position as the single 24mm shot, then the overall persepctive will be identical in both and in fact the only differences will be image detail...  It gets sticky with Depth Of Field, because we are using a longer lens, but also creating a larger net file, so the two factors kind of cancel each other out for any given aperture. (IOW if we used f8 on both lenses, the net DOF should be similar in both.)  Hence, neither image should have more or less apparant "depth" than the other due to perspoective or DOF.

HOWEVERBUT!  I think the added detail does in fact alter our sense of depth as we can see minute detail structure in every part of the stitched image, but cannot say the same thing for the single 24mm capture.  So perhaps that is what makes the stitch appear to have less depth?

Cheers,
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2007, 07:43:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It gets sticky with Depth Of Field, because we are using a longer lens, but also creating a larger net file, so the two factors kind of cancel each other out for any given aperture. Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I think that's right. Take 4 overlapping shots with a 35mm camera (2 rows of 2 images) and the result is very similar to a single shot with a FF 6x4.5cm format using the same focal length of lens. Take a mosaic of around 64 images with a 35mm camera, using a 350mm lens, and the result would be very similar to a single shot with an 8x10" field camera, using a 350mm lens.... except the stitched image would be much sharper.
Logged
julian kalmar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2007, 07:50:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The distant horizon, top of the canyon, doesn't look distant. One doesn't expect distant objects to be razor sharp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dear Ray,
The answer is very simple. The top of the Canyon is not very distant. Look on the very left side of the image behind the Canyon. That is distant
« Last Edit: March 27, 2007, 07:51:30 AM by julian kalmar » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad