Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Making of a Seven Gigabyte Eight Foot Wide Print  (Read 3985 times)
BCS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« on: March 14, 2009, 10:43:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the sample file, I just printed it out on my HP DesignJet 120 with the 130 inks on HP Premium Plus Satin at 23" wide to have a look at it and am very impressed, I honestly didn't think it would be this good from the JPG. I removed a few sensor dust spots and adjusted levels a bit before printing and a tad of print sharpening in Aperture.

The full size version must be something else.  
Logged
kdphotography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2009, 11:36:06 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a beautiful image---and what's also increible is that MR made the pano from 13 images----handheld!
Logged

imagico
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2009, 01:43:15 PM »
ReplyReply

A very impressive scenery indeed.

The jpeg compression of course kills the shadow detail on the mountain on the right.  Seeing the actual tonality there would probably give a good idea on the capabilities of the P65+ in this aspect.

There is one issue i wondered about though - there are a few dark spots in the large image that look suspiciously like dust on the sensor - on the far left top and in a dark cloud at the very top mid right for example.

Greetings,

Christoph
Logged

Christoph Hormann
photolog / artificial images / other stuff
BCS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2009, 02:13:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: imagico
There is one issue i wondered about though - there are a few dark spots in the large image that look suspiciously like dust on the sensor - on the far left top and in a dark cloud at the very top mid right for example.

Greetings,

Christoph

I noticed a few sensor dust spots also, I touched them out before printing.


Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2009, 02:14:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Micael,

Thanks for the jpg download. Agree it looks spectacular. Haven't printed it yet, but even exporing it on screen is a real treat.

Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
situgrrl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2009, 06:11:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for this Michael, it's cheered me up no end and I look forward to printing it a mere 13" wide once I find out how to print panos on my B9180!
Logged

Sfleming
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2009, 06:46:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Beautiful.  I found myself wondering at the scale of the scene we are looking at.  Particularly the glacial cliff at the left side of the print.  I wonder how high is that face?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2009, 07:23:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BCS
Thanks for the sample file, I just printed it out on my HP DesignJet 120 with the 130 inks on HP Premium Plus Satin at 23" wide to have a look at it and am very impressed, I honestly didn't think it would be this good from the JPG. I removed a few sensor dust spots and adjusted levels a bit before printing and a tad of print sharpening in Aperture.

The full size version must be something else.  

Difficult to say without looking at the sharpness level of the original file, but what came to my mind when reading Michael's essay is "wouldn't the IS based A900 have been a better plaform to shoot this?".

Michael, it would be interesting to have info on the following questions:

- what combination of ISO/shutter speed/stop did you shoot this with?
- how is the pixel level sharpness of the individual images compared to perfect tripod images?
- do you see varying level of sharpness between frames? I very often have this problem when shooting non stabilized panos like this... the first 5 frames are good, but the 6th is a bit blurred,
- why did you decide to use the phase instead of the stabilized Sony? Now I understand that from a marketing standpoint the current story has a lot more appeal and that would be good enough a reason to have selected the Phase, but how about the purely technical reasons?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2009, 09:05:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

The specs are...

1/320 sec
f/8
ISO 100
75mm

With this focal length and shutter speed I saw no problems with achieving absolute sharpness handheld. All frames are critically sharp.

I chose the P65+ because I wanted to produce the highest resolution image that I could. The Sony A900 would have been more than fine, but the P65+ was there, so why not us it?

Also, the Phase back is about more than megapixels, as I've written in my review. Its DR is remarkable.

Michael

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2009, 12:17:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Bernard,

The specs are...

1/320 sec
f/8
ISO 100
75mm

With this focal length and shutter speed I saw no problems with achieving absolute sharpness handheld. All frames are critically sharp.

I chose the P65+ because I wanted to produce the highest resolution image that I could. The Sony A900 would have been more than fine, but the P65+ was there, so why not us it?

Also, the Phase back is about more than megapixels, as I've written in my review. Its DR is remarkable.

Michael,

Thanks for the feedback, I had not gathered that light was that plentiful, in these conditions it does indeed make complete sense.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2009, 02:55:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Just a little nitpick, usually the # of pixels  is used to specify the image size instead of a bloated CS4 file.  In this case, around 280 megapixels.

I'd be interested in seeing this displayed as a Deep Zoom image using Microsoft ICE.  It makes it easy to pixel peep large panos and I believe it's also harder to print or steal the full image.
Logged
imagico
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2009, 11:59:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I was looking for where exactly you took this panorama (Marguerite Bay is large...) and found a lot of indications it was near 68.2 south / 67.0 west at the Neny Fjord - i could be mistaken of course.  I attached a crop from LIMA (http://lima.usgs.gov/) showing this place.  If i am wrong it would be nice if you could tell where it was.

Logged

Christoph Hormann
photolog / artificial images / other stuff
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad