Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Want Need Afford  (Read 30632 times)
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #140 on: August 31, 2009, 04:44:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Yeah, well if you had a Thermos of cappuchino and an iPod full of Mahler symphonies you could sip coffee and listen to a symphony in the great outdoors while each shot processes...............  

Anyhow, thanks for the insight on how they work. I can imagine it being ideal for indoor repro work of inanimate objects where the photog is paid by the hour.
The Betterlight backs take 35 to 110 seconds for full res, and the Seitz about a couple of seconds - fast enough to only slightly blur water spray... not fast enough to catch a vaulter in flight.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 04:47:29 AM by Dick Roadnight » Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8186



WWW
« Reply #141 on: August 31, 2009, 04:55:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
The Betterlight backs take 35 to 110 seconds for full res, and the Seitz about a couple of seconds - fast enough to only slightly blur water spray... not fast enough to catch a vaulter in flight.

True, the Seitz is fast, but the image quality I have seen from it was disapointing, like in "far worse" than what the best DSLRs deliver because high ISO is needed to achieve these fast scan times.

There are obviously very few reports about the Seitz, and anybody with different experiences, please post samples.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #142 on: August 31, 2009, 05:27:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
True, the Seitz is fast, but the image quality I have seen from it was disapointing, like in "far worse" than what the best DSLRs deliver because high ISO is needed to achieve these fast scan times.

There are obviously very few reports about the Seitz, and anybody with different experiences, please post samples.

Cheers,
Bernard
The solution would seem to be to have not three sensors for each row of pixels, not four, (with two green, 1 red and one blue) but 32, or 64, so you can add up the photons for each sensor/pixel for real high ISO.

I have only seen Seitz pictures on their stand at Phocus/NEC/UK, but they looked OK.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #143 on: August 31, 2009, 11:57:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Ray, I must say I too was befuddled with this paragraph and also couldn't see (and still don't) the relevance of pixel count to FOV and DOF. You can have a sensor of any pixel count you want and the FOV and DOFwill still be determined by the focal length of the lens, the F-Stop and the lens to subject distance, whatever the resolving power of the sensor. Stitching DSLR images comes into play where you want higher resolution to cover the same FOV and you're not using a P65. And you'd need a longer lens to capture roughly the same FOV on a MFDB than on a DSLR with the same aspect ratio - if I recall from the film era when you needed an 80mm lens on a Rolleiflex to get roughly the FOV of a 50mm lens on a Leica (aspect ratio excepted). No?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Circle of Confusion (COC). Everyone seems to be leaving it out of their definitions of DOF.

FOV is controlled by the sensor dimensions. This means a smaller sensor camera using the same focal length will have a smaller FOV. By stitching, the smaller sensor camera can attain the same FOV as the larger sensor camera.

If the pixel density of both cameras is the same, therefore using the same COC, the image will be nearly identical. Usually the smaller sensor camera will have a higher pixel density, which means a smaller COC can be used and both DOF and resolution will be larger. Other factors that determine IQ may be more important than resolution.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2883



WWW
« Reply #144 on: August 31, 2009, 12:48:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Ray, I must say I too was befuddled with this paragraph and also couldn't see (and still don't) the relevance of pixel count to FOV and DOF. You can have a sensor of any pixel count you want and the FOV and DOFwill still be determined by the focal length of the lens, the F-Stop and the lens to subject distance, whatever the resolving power of the sensor. Stitching DSLR images comes into play where you want higher resolution to cover the same FOV and you're not using a P65. And you'd need a longer lens to capture roughly the same FOV on a MFDB than on a DSLR with the same aspect ratio - if I recall from the film era when you needed an 80mm lens on a Rolleiflex to get roughly the FOV of a 50mm lens on a Leica (aspect ratio excepted). No?

This is something I have never considered before, since in practicality you do not purchase a camera based on it's stitching characteristics.  After consideration technically Ray is correct on this one.  Again the relevance still escapes me, and that doesn't excuse the fact that he made an incorrect statement trying to claim a depth of field advantage of stitching 5d Mark2 files over using a p65+ back, and then tried to pass that off as some kind of test, instead of  simply admitting he didn't think it through (which we have all done) when he was called on it, because the depth of field advantage of the 5d mark 2 is insignificant.

If two cameras have exactly the same pixel density, and yet different size sensors, to create an exact match in pixel size and field of view will require the exact same focal length lens.  Granted, when stitching one nearly always uses a telephoto lens because the goal is putting the detail of the scene on more pixels when stitching.  I'm not sure who would ever worry about this, because when you decide to stitch you are doing so because the camera you have ... the one you purchased based on your want/need/afford ... doesn't have the resolution to deliver the quality you want when you are printing the file later on.

For me it was easier to understand thinking of it from a little different perspective.  Imagine you have a 4x5 view camera, and for that camera you have two backs, one a 4x5 back that is 8000x10000 pixels in resolution, and the other is a 2x2.5 inch back that is 4000x5000 pixels in resolution.  Both backs have exactly the same pixel density, one is just physically smaller.  If you were to take an image with the larger back, and try and duplicate it with the smaller back, you would simply place the smaller back in each corner and then stitch the four captures into one single capture.  The two captures would be identical in pixel dimensions and FoV, as well as depth of field.  No change in focal length.

If the smaller back had a pixel density greater than the larger back, to match the exact FoV and pixel density of the file would require a slightly wider focal length lens, because the back is capturing more data per projected area than the original back.  This would result in a DoF improvements, although for this to be significant the pixel density would have to be significantly different.

As I said the relevance escapes me ... it's sort of like something I'd expect in a trivial pursuit game.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #145 on: August 31, 2009, 03:01:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: elf
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Circle of Confusion (COC). Everyone seems to be leaving it out of their definitions of DOF.

FOV is controlled by the sensor dimensions. This means a smaller sensor camera using the same focal length will have a smaller FOV. By stitching, the smaller sensor camera can attain the same FOV as the larger sensor camera.

If the pixel density of both cameras is the same, therefore using the same COC, the image will be nearly identical. Usually the smaller sensor camera will have a higher pixel density, which means a smaller COC can be used and both DOF and resolution will be larger. Other factors that determine IQ may be more important than resolution.
When you pan and stitch, you loose a lot of pixels through having to crop back to a rectangle.

To make good use of a higher density sensor (smaller pixels), you need to use a smaller COC, but with smaller pixels and higher density sensors the magnification (reproduction ratio) is lower (smaller image size), and the DOF is higher. (I think DOF depends on COC magnification and aperture), as explained on page 33 of Harold Merklinger's "the ins and outs of Focus" (which was downloadable foc).

A smaller COC gives you a smaller DOF, but (for the same number of pixels) a smaller pixel size gives you a smaller image, a smaller magnification and a bigger DOF.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #146 on: August 31, 2009, 06:49:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
This is something I have never considered before, since in practicality you do not purchase a camera based on it's stitching characteristics.  After consideration technically Ray is correct on this one.  Again the relevance still escapes me, and that doesn't excuse the fact that he made an incorrect statement trying to claim a depth of field advantage of stitching 5d Mark2 files over using a p65+ back, and then tried to pass that off as some kind of test, instead of  simply admitting he didn't think it through (which we have all done) when he was called on it, because the depth of field advantage of the 5d mark 2 is insignificant.

If two cameras have exactly the same pixel density, and yet different size sensors, to create an exact match in pixel size and field of view will require the exact same focal length lens.  Granted, when stitching one nearly always uses a telephoto lens because the goal is putting the detail of the scene on more pixels when stitching.  I'm not sure who would ever worry about this, because when you decide to stitch you are doing so because the camera you have ... the one you purchased based on your want/need/afford ... doesn't have the resolution to deliver the quality you want when you are printing the file later on.

For me it was easier to understand thinking of it from a little different perspective.  Imagine you have a 4x5 view camera, and for that camera you have two backs, one a 4x5 back that is 8000x10000 pixels in resolution, and the other is a 2x2.5 inch back that is 4000x5000 pixels in resolution.  Both backs have exactly the same pixel density, one is just physically smaller.  If you were to take an image with the larger back, and try and duplicate it with the smaller back, you would simply place the smaller back in each corner and then stitch the four captures into one single capture.  The two captures would be identical in pixel dimensions and FoV, as well as depth of field.  No change in focal length.

If the smaller back had a pixel density greater than the larger back, to match the exact FoV and pixel density of the file would require a slightly wider focal length lens, because the back is capturing more data per projected area than the original back.  This would result in a DoF improvements, although for this to be significant the pixel density would have to be significantly different.

As I said the relevance escapes me ... it's sort of like something I'd expect in a trivial pursuit game.

Wayne and Ray, OK, the way Wayne has related these things it now makes technical sense, but so what? If Ray's basic argument is that you don't need to spend 40K to get a high density capture of a large scene because you can stitch - that's true as far as it goes. But it may not go all the way, so to speak, because there are other unaccounted factors which differentiate IQ between these technologies. I've seen a large panorama from a suite of P65 images and it's mind-blowing. I believe there are more factors distinguishing these trechnologies than what we are discussing in this thread; not sure exactly what, but I'll be learning more about that. On the issue of Dof and CoC, I wonder whether diffraction (as a function of f/stop) affects these sensors differently.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8900


« Reply #147 on: August 31, 2009, 07:56:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
After consideration technically Ray is correct on this one.  Again the relevance still escapes me, and that doesn't excuse the fact that he made an incorrect statement trying to claim a depth of field advantage of stitching 5d Mark2 files over using a p65+ back, and then tried to pass that off as some kind of test, instead of  simply admitting he didn't think it through (which we have all done) when he was called on it, because the depth of field advantage of the 5d mark 2 is insignificant.

Okay! I see Im gonna have to save face   .

You do seem to be rather sensitive about this issue, Wayne. I did make the following general statement about DoF, in post #102 repeated below, without specifically mentioning the 5D2 or stitching. However, because the previous discussion had referred to full frame DSLRs such as the D3X and 5D2 being used for stitching, it would be reasonable for anyone reading that statement to assume that my general statement included the 5D2. In that sense the statement was at least partly incorrect and certainly misleading.


"There also seem to be some serious disadvantages to the MFDB system, such as a slow continuous frame rate, (less than one frame per sec with the P65+), reduced performance at higher ISOs (or reduced pixel count as an alternative) and shallower DOF at any given F stop (for same FOV), which is not always ideal for landscapes. (Not to mention poor autofocussing).

For example, in the above panorama of the Himalayas, how would you get both the ladies and the mountains sharp, using a P65+? F22 at ISO 44 in the early hours of the morning?"


So apologies to anyone who rushed out immediately and bought an inappropriate camera for the job, as a result of my misleading statement.


The truth of the matter is, I realised immediately after I'd posted that general statement that it was misleading and that perhaps I should go back and modify the statement. I didn't because I was a bit slack, and also I really did genuinely wonder (God's honest truth!) if anyone would pick that up. You did, but for the wrong reasons.

The last sentence in my statement  in post #102, "For example, in the above panorama of the Himalayas, how would you get both the ladies and the mountains sharp, using a P65+? F22 at ISO 44 in the early hours of the morning?"  could also be misleading, again implying that the 5D2 at F22 would produce greater DoF. But notice I didn't specifically mention DoF here. I used the word 'sharp'.

Having direct personal experience of those conditions up the mountain, I can confirm that at F22 and ISO 44 the heaving bodies of those ladies in the foreground and the swaying grass in the early morning breeze would not have been sharp due to the very slow shutter speed of the P65+ at base ISO. Here again is where the 5D2 would have an image quality advantage. If the depth of field desired required the use of F22 but the shutter speed desired in order to freeze the foreground required the use of ISO 400 or even 800, then the 5D2 stitch would likely produce the better quality image, in terms of DR, tonal range etc.

Now, you may think this is all irrelevant and merely a trivial pursuit, Wayne, but I consider it all necessary information in order to select the best tool for the job.
Logged
elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #148 on: August 31, 2009, 08:04:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
When you pan and stitch, you loose a lot of pixels through having to crop back to a rectangle.

No pixels are lost during stitching  Depending on the equipment used, there may be overlapping pixels of which you get to choose which to use in the final image. Stitching software only needs to know the pitch and yaw of a frame to know where to place it.  If you're using a system with very accurate rotations, you can specify where to place the frame with little or no overlap.  Stitching software like AutoPano Pro and Microsoft ICE don't have user settable pitch and yaw, so require more overlap.

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
To make good use of a higher density sensor (smaller pixels), you need to use a smaller COC, but with smaller pixels and higher density sensors the magnification (reproduction ratio) is lower (smaller image size), and the DOF is higher. (I think DOF depends on COC magnification and aperture), as explained on page 33 of Harold Merklinger's "the ins and outs of Focus" (which was downloadable foc).

A smaller COC gives you a smaller DOF, but (for the same number of pixels) a smaller pixel size gives you a smaller image, a smaller magnification and a bigger DOF.

COC is something you use to predetermine (or describe) what the DOF and/or diffraction will be for an image at a particular f stop.  It is not settable. Higher pixel density sensors will give you more resolution for the same lens (Big Assumption: the lens can out resolve the sensor).  In practice, the same lens isn't used on both cameras and generally speaking the lens for the smaller sensor camera will be better corner to corner than a comparable lens on a larger format camera (Yes, there are exceptions to every rule).  

I think it's safe to say a stitched image can easily match or exceed the resolution of a larger format camera. For example, an image from my Olympus e330 will have nearly 110 megapixels when stitched to the same size as P65+.  What isn't clear is, will the IQ of the image be better? If not what is the criteria used to judge the IQ?



Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #149 on: August 31, 2009, 08:08:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

At f/22 you would surely have diffraction issues with the 5DMK2 no? One of the more recent fads making the PS tutorial circuits these days - and quite a neat play actually - is to do "DoF blending" where you use less diffracting f/stops, and - in one variant of the technique - make two images - one focused for the foreground, another for the background, then blend them with a gradient or two in PS. This kind of technique would be just a bit trickier to implement in a stitching context - more images to deal with, but in principle may be something to think about when you go up the hillside again with your next batch of pretty ladies.  

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8900


« Reply #150 on: August 31, 2009, 08:41:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Ray,

At f/22 you would surely have diffraction issues with the 5DMK2 no? One of the more recent fads making the PS tutorial circuits these days - and quite a neat play actually - is to do "DoF blending" where you use less diffracting f/stops, and - in one variant of the technique - make two images - one focused for the foreground, another for the background, then blend them with a gradient or two in PS. This kind of technique would be just a bit trickier to implement in a stitching context - more images to deal with, but in principle may be something to think about when you go up the hillside again with your next batch of pretty ladies.  

Mark

Mark,
Yes indeed. Even with the 5DMK1, F22 is noticeably soft. It seems that P&S cameras like the Ricoh CX1 and CX2 are leading the way in this respect. Surely there's no insurmountable technical obstacle in producing a DSLR that does automatic focus bracketing. The high frame rates of DSLRs should allow for greater success with such a process than the current very slow frame rates of MFDBs.

However, another consideration is that increased pixel count can compensate for losses due to diffraction. I would expect a 5D2 to be as sharp at F22 as a 5D1 at F16, although I might be wrong.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #151 on: August 31, 2009, 09:47:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Automatic focus bracketing - now THERE's a cool idea for the DSLR makers to pick-up on!

The diffraction issue and its relation to pixel size is very well explained here: Cambridgeincolour-Diffraction
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8900


« Reply #152 on: August 31, 2009, 10:28:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Automatic focus bracketing - now THERE's a cool idea for the DSLR makers to pick-up on!

The diffraction issue and its relation to pixel size is very well explained here: Cambridgeincolour-Diffraction

Mark,
Theory is one thing. Practical results sometimes differ. The 50D has a significantly smaller pixel pitch than that of the 5D2, yet a 50D image at F16 has about the same resolution as a 40D image at F11, according to my own meticulous tests with the Canon 50/1.4.

However, a 50D image at F22 does not quite have the same resolution as a 40D image at F16. No doubt because at F22 most lenses are totally diffraction limited, whereas at F8, F11 and F16, lenses may be only partially diffraction limited.

Considering that the 5D2 pixel is larger than the 50D pixel, I think there's a possibility that a 5D2 image at F22 will be as sharp and detailed as a 5D1 image at F16, comparing equal size images of course. But I'm not certain. I'd like to see some tests. If (when) I buy a 5D2, I'll make some comparisons.

If one refers to the Photozone lens tests where sometimes one can find lenses that have been tested with both the 8mp 350D (same pixel pitch as the 5D2) and the 50D more recently, one finds that in circumstances where Photozone has tested lenses up to F11, that the 50D at F11 is sharper than the 350D at F8.

A good example would be the Canon 70-200 F4 IS. If one looks at the results at 135mm, where the lens is sharpest, one finds that the 350D at F8 has a LW/PH of 2104.5, whereas the 50D at F11 has a tested reolution of 2223 LW/PH. It's actually slightly sharper at F11 than the 350D at F8.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #153 on: August 31, 2009, 10:42:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes I agree, what one sees and what theory says one should see can vary. Sounds like you've done lots of poking about with these various models and lenses.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #154 on: September 01, 2009, 12:17:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
- is to do "DoF blending" where you use less diffracting f/stops, and - in one variant of the technique - make two images - one focused for the foreground, another for the background, then blend them

Not PS, but focus blended macro panoramas:

2x2 focus stacked pano with 600 total images


3x5 focus stacked pano with 750 total images. Print size 34"x48" @254dpi.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #155 on: September 01, 2009, 05:50:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: elf
No pixels are lost during stitching  Depending on the equipment used, there may be overlapping pixels of which you get to choose which to use in the final image.
With cylinder panos, no pixels are lost, but with flat (e.g. architectural) panos, you do loose (and distort) pixels.
Quote
COC is something you use to predetermine (or describe) what the DOF and/or diffraction will be for an image at a particular f stop.  It is not settable.
You do not set COC, but you decide what is acceptable and us in in calculations, e.g. to work out how many shots you need to combine for acceptably sharp DOF merge in Macro.
Quote
I think it's safe to say a stitched image can easily match or exceed the resolution of a larger format camera. For example, an image from my Olympus e330 will have nearly 110 megapixels when stitched to the same size as P65+.  What isn't clear is, will the IQ of the image be better? If not what is the criteria used to judge the IQ?
Yes, but the question is, how long does it take? With an H3D11-60 (or P65+) you get about 110 Mpx stitching two images, and, it you are using shift-and-stitch for architecture, you do not loose or distort pixels. (apart from a little overlap).

To judge the IQ, put it on a gallery wall and see if it sells.

If you only need 100 Mpx occasionally, pan and stitch is fine, if you want to photograph an amphitheater shaped harbour-village, pan-and-stitch can be better, even if you do have a H3D11-60 and a Sinar P3.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #156 on: September 01, 2009, 06:07:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: elf
Not PS, but focus blended macro panoramas:

3x5 focus stacked pano with 750 total images. Print size 34"x48" @254dpi.
I love the flower, and know that flowers can be difficult as they tend to move during the day (week). With an H3D11-60 this would take less time and fewer images, and I am thinking about using a computer-programable linear actuator for focus, and I think it would be a justifiable expense if I am going to do much macro. I have a Schneider apo-digitar macro 120 and a full set of Zeiss Luminar Macro lenses, and the ability to extent my P3 with my P and P2. ...What do you use?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8900


« Reply #157 on: September 01, 2009, 08:09:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: elf
Not PS, but focus blended macro panoramas:

2x2 focus stacked pano with 600 total images

3x5 focus stacked pano with 750 total images. Print size 34"x48" @254dpi.


I can't quite get my mind around that. The flower is beautiful, but you took 750 shots of it?? Can you show us a 100% crop? Did you removed it from its natural setting and shoot it in the studio?

At full print size, is it clear that this is a macro image? As shown in your post, it's not clear. It could be a single shot of an unidentified flower at F16 with an APS-C camera.

The first shot of what appears to be a dead insect is not nearly as inspiring.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #158 on: September 01, 2009, 08:16:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: elf
Not PS, but focus blended macro panoramas:
3x5 focus stacked pano with 750 total images. Print size 34"x48" @254dpi.



Are you saying the above image was a composite of 750 total images, just to get the 1 final image above? That sure seems like a lot of work. Don't you have just 1 image that could have sufficed and been as clear as the above composite?

I am trying my hand at photographing flowers myself (wildflowers, naturally, not set-up studio shots), and I do agree with Dick that they can be very difficult, especially since it is always windy ... however I pretty much just throw away the bad shots and keep the good ones. I try to take pride in getting one stellar shot, as opposed to Photoshopping 20 bad ones together to get 1 good one. For example, I took the photo below of a Trumpet Vine with just one shutter actuation, one 'sharpen', and a '10% saturation' on Photoshop, and that's it.





So I am not sure what advantage taking ten dozen shots, and then stitching them all together, would confer upon me. Or is the advantage in stitching files together, basically, the fact that if I took this same photo in (say) 4 distinct quadrants, and then stitched-up each quadrant together to become a (now) 4x-bigger file, that I would then be able to make a 4x bigger final print? Pardon my ignorance, as I am still learning, but if this is so it is a great lesson learned today.

Thank you,

Jack


.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #159 on: September 01, 2009, 08:39:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Elf, those shots are really impressive. I'd be very interested to understand why so many shots are needed to make the composite. Is the subject-to-camera distance so close and the aperture so wide that you lose focus with a few millimeters?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad