«

"ASAAR" <> wrote in message
news:...
SNIP
> Some people can walk a mile for a camel. I'd walk 5 miles to
> see one of those wall sized photos. Keep on working.

<http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm> .

Bart

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> rafe b wrote:
>
> >
> > This is the Scott W mode. I've been working up the courage
> > to try it. You've done a lot of traveling "since May."
> > Are you retired? I'm jealous. I'll look forward to your article.
>
> Rafe,
> I wish I was retired; I still have a few years to go before
> I retire from my present job and start something else.
> Yes, it is the Scott W mode, and it was some of Scott's
> work that inspired me. I had been planning the experiment
> for over a year, but putting it off due to lack of time.
> The trips were relatively short, typically a week,
> though Hawaii was 9 days on the beach in Kona, where
> I met Scott and we had a nice time and Scott gave me
> some other pointers. Last week in the Colorado
> San Juan Mtns, I met Alan Browne (another regular
> in the rec.photo newsgroups).
>
> Roger
I feel odd about this being called Scott W mode since there are others
that have been doing this way before I have and doing it much better, I
am a pretty strong advocate for the method however.

I image that by now Roger you have taken the technique well past what I
have been doing and that is great, I am glad it is working out so well.
I an eager to see some sample images that you been able to get.

At this point I am pretty much limited to images that are around 250 MB
or less, to go past this I am going to need more ram in the computer.
I can stitch larger photos but then can't edit them afterwards.

Pretty much I am in favor of any method that produce hi-resolution
photo, whether scanning LF images or stitching digital ones. I do find
that many people who are currently shooting LF believe there are more
restrictions on what you can do with stitching then there really are.

The neat part is that with stitching even a fairly inexpensive DSLR and
low cost lens one can get photographs with fantastic resolution. With
just a few photos from a 8 MP DLSR (or even 6 MP) one can get a photo
that matches what a $40,000 camera can get in one shot. And add a few
more frames and you can get a photo that no camera can get in a single
shot.

Scott

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 23:59:27 +0200, Bart van der Wolf wrote:

> "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> SNIP
>> Some people can walk a mile for a camel. I'd walk 5 miles to
>> see one of those wall sized photos. Keep on working.
>
> <http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm> .

Interesting. But making archival backups would also be
interesting, needing a DVD just to backup a single image. The small
simulated crops cheered me considerably by demonstrating that my
little 3mp Canon Powershot S20 is only slightly inferior to Canon's
1Ds, which just produces a better blur.

But there are a couple of guys in this ng that are working with
stitching and are approaching the size of this huge image, so it's
not quite as amazing as it was back in 2003, when Max Lyons broke
the gigapixel barrier.

BTW, my spell checker just suggested that I replace "gigapixel"
with "megapixel".

"ASAAR" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 23:59:27 +0200, Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
SNIP
>> <http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm> .
>
> Interesting. But making archival backups would also be
> interesting, needing a DVD just to backup a single image.

I'm backing-up on external hard-disk(s), 500 GB or less sofar (and/or
spanning (re-)writable disk volume(s)). Cheaper and faster, and
arguably more reliable than dye based carriers.

> The small simulated crops cheered me considerably by
> demonstrating that my little 3mp Canon Powershot S20 is only
> slightly inferior to Canon's 1Ds, which just produces a better blur.
>

Don't underestimate the Powershots!

> But there are a couple of guys in this ng that are working with
> stitching and are approaching the size of this huge image, so it's
> not quite as amazing as it was back in 2003, when Max Lyons
> broke the gigapixel barrier.

Well, there's still a difference between sheer quantity and inherent
quality of pixels ...

> BTW, my spell checker just suggested that I replace "gigapixel"
> with "megapixel".

An updated spelling checker seems to be overdue ...

--
Bart

Scott W wrote:

> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>>rafe b wrote:
>>
>>>This is the Scott W mode. I've been working up the courage
>>>to try it. You've done a lot of traveling "since May."
>>>Are you retired? I'm jealous. I'll look forward to your article.
>>
>>Rafe,
>>I wish I was retired; I still have a few years to go before
>>I retire from my present job and start something else.
>>Yes, it is the Scott W mode, and it was some of Scott's
>>work that inspired me. I had been planning the experiment
>>for over a year, but putting it off due to lack of time.
>>The trips were relatively short, typically a week,
>>though Hawaii was 9 days on the beach in Kona, where
>>I met Scott and we had a nice time and Scott gave me
>>some other pointers. Last week in the Colorado
>>San Juan Mtns, I met Alan Browne (another regular
>>in the rec.photo newsgroups).
>>
>>Roger
>
> I feel odd about this being called Scott W mode since there are others
> that have been doing this way before I have and doing it much better, I
> am a pretty strong advocate for the method however.

While true, it was one thread where we were having an exchange
and you created a mosaic with extreme depth of field that demonstrated
that one could do the sorts of things I do with 4x5 that inspired me to
try the "real test." So in that sense you did break some new
ground in this field (at least for those of us in the newsgroups).

> I image that by now Roger you have taken the technique well past what I
> have been doing and that is great, I am glad it is working out so well.
> I an eager to see some sample images that you been able to get.

Well, I doubt that. I'm still crawling up the learning curve.

> At this point I am pretty much limited to images that are around 250 MB
> or less, to go past this I am going to need more ram in the computer.
> I can stitch larger photos but then can't edit them afterwards.

I need a new computer. The image that will be the focus of
my article is a 57 (or was it 59) frame mosaic of 8 megapixel
images with extreme depth of field. It took 14 hours for ptgui
to create the 5.8 gigabyte photoshop file with layers (on a
Pentium 4 1.8 GHz machine with 2 gbytes ram and 800 GBytes disk). The
layers were critical for blending the various focal points throughout
the image. The resulting image is something like 15,000 x 10,000
pixels (16-bit). And those digital pixels (from a 1D Mark II)
are great compared to pixels from a film scan at the same size
for a 4x5 transparency. I'll get a new machine in a month or so.

> Pretty much I am in favor of any method that produce hi-resolution
> photo, whether scanning LF images or stitching digital ones. I do find
> that many people who are currently shooting LF believe there are more
> restrictions on what you can do with stitching then there really are.

I see fewer restrictions with digital mosaicking than I do with LF.
But mosaicking has some different restrictions, fast time being one
of them (e.g rapidly changing light on the scene). LF suffers
too often from wind. On my recent Colorado wildflower trip,
I would have gotten very few 4x5s compared to the many digital
mosaics I did get.

> The neat part is that with stitching even a fairly inexpensive DSLR and
> low cost lens one can get photographs with fantastic resolution. With
> just a few photos from a 8 MP DLSR (or even 6 MP) one can get a photo
> that matches what a $40,000 camera can get in one shot. And add a few
> more frames and you can get a photo that no camera can get in a single
> shot.

Agreed. It will be a while before I get the article done. I have
3 professional paper to complete asap.

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> I need a new computer. The image that will be the focus of
> my article is a 57 (or was it 59) frame mosaic of 8 megapixel
> images with extreme depth of field. It took 14 hours for ptgui
> to create the 5.8 gigabyte photoshop file with layers (on a
> Pentium 4 1.8 GHz machine with 2 gbytes ram and 800 GBytes disk). The
> layers were critical for blending the various focal points throughout
> the image. The resulting image is something like 15,000 x 10,000
> pixels (16-bit). And those digital pixels (from a 1D Mark II)
> are great compared to pixels from a film scan at the same size
> for a 4x5 transparency. I'll get a new machine in a month or so.

Hmm, I do that size all the time and it only takes an hour or two, but
then I am not doing layers when stitching 57 iamges at once. When I
have an image that large I will to one image and then go make and
generate the layers I need to adjust seams with.
It is much easier to use layers when you can have them all in one psd
file but I find all those layers makes it hard to work with.

Still since you can do batch stitching you can just leave the computer
working away.

I am using a Pentium D with the dual core, very nice since my computer
does not slow down when stitching, PTGui only using one of the cores.

PTGui does not seem to use much Ram

I also mostly stitch my larger images to 8 bits saving 16 bit images
for photos in the 50 -60 MP range.

One neat thing is that since I keep the raw file when I get more
computer power or want to better stitched image and am willing to use
the computer time I can re-stitch however I want.

Scott