Re: Unlimited Megapixels

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, Nov 18, 2010.

  1. ray

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:27:22 +0000, bugbear wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:57:14 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >>
    >>> When you stitch together two or more images, does that double, triple,
    >>> etc the number of pixels in the resultant image and file, or does the
    >>> program resample it to the count of just one frame or something? If it
    >>> does add, then you could turn a 10 mp camera into a 30 mp by just
    >>> stitching together three verticals of your scene.
    >>>
    >>> Gary Eickmeier

    >>
    >> You 'could' except for the fact that you need some overlap in order to
    >> accomplish the 'stitching' - 30% is often recommended.

    >
    > Yeah - 30% provides enough overlapping pixels that the programs can
    > pretty much intuit everything they need to know from the images.
    >
    > Most people (including me) work that way.
    >
    > But if you have a fully calibrated camera/lens combination, and a
    > precision stepping pano head (or robot), you can get away with minimal
    > overlap.


    From the tone of the OP's question, I'd guess he does not. The point is,
    that to seamlessly integrate, there still has to be some overlap - the OP
    seemed to be under the impression that was not necessary.


    >
    > BugBear
     
    ray, Nov 18, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. > NOW - another good question is - is there some software that allows us
    > to view a pano from within a small part of it and "sweep" around in it
    > left or right, as in a real estate tour of a room or something? I have
    > seen some of these tours that have full periphery images in which you
    > can view a whole room and turn right or left, up or down. But if I could
    > only go left or right in a simple pano, maybe even a full 360 pano, that
    > would be great.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    Something like these, perhaps?

    http://www.gentles.info/KAP/Gallery/Pano2010/index.htm

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 19, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ray

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 19, 4:40 am, "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:27:22 +0000, bugbear wrote:

    >
    > >> ray wrote:
    > >> But if you have a fully calibrated camera/lens combination, and a
    > >> precision stepping pano head (or robot), you can get away with minimal
    > >> overlap.

    >
    > > From the tone of the OP's question, I'd guess he does not. The point is,
    > > that to seamlessly integrate, there still has to be some overlap - the OP
    > > seemed to be under the impression that was not necessary.

    >
    > It was a simple question about whether the pixels add up or not. Any idiot
    > can see that you would subtract the overlap from the total.
    >
    > NOW - another good question is - is there some software that allows us to
    > view a pano from within a small part of it and "sweep" around in it left or
    > right, as in a real estate tour of a room or something? I have seen some of
    > these tours that have full periphery images in which you can view a whole
    > room and turn right or left, up or down. But if I could only go left or
    > right in a simple pano, maybe even a full 360 pano, that would be great.


    I known Stitcher 5.5 did that, but it was quite an expensive app.
    I can;t remember what setting I used but there were options that
    created different sorts of pans
    including an interesting cube. I think the option you're looking for
    is to save a file as QTVR.
    (Quicktime Virtual reality)
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 19, 2010
    #3
  4. ray

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:40:35 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:27:22 +0000, bugbear wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray wrote:

    >
    >>> But if you have a fully calibrated camera/lens combination, and a
    >>> precision stepping pano head (or robot), you can get away with minimal
    >>> overlap.

    >>
    >> From the tone of the OP's question, I'd guess he does not. The point
    >> is, that to seamlessly integrate, there still has to be some overlap -
    >> the OP seemed to be under the impression that was not necessary.

    >
    > It was a simple question about whether the pixels add up or not. Any
    > idiot can see that you would subtract the overlap from the total.
    >


    I didn't know what kind of idiot I was dealing with - thanks for making
    it obvious.

    Please reread the OP - "two or more images, does that double, triple, etc
    the number of pixels". The OP had no concept that overlap was required.

    > NOW - another good question is - is there some software that allows us
    > to view a pano from within a small part of it and "sweep" around in it
    > left or right, as in a real estate tour of a room or something? I have
    > seen some of these tours that have full periphery images in which you
    > can view a whole room and turn right or left, up or down. But if I could
    > only go left or right in a simple pano, maybe even a full 360 pano, that
    > would be great.


    Any decent photo viewer will allow you to view a photo at full resolution
    and pan around to your heart's content. I use gwenview - it does that
    quite well.


    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
     
    ray, Nov 20, 2010
    #4
  5. ray

    ray Guest

    On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 13:18:11 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> Please reread the OP - "two or more images, does that double, triple,
    >> etc the number of pixels". The OP had no concept that overlap was
    >> required.

    >
    > I am the OP.
    >
    > Let me clarify this whole thing, since it has to do more with
    > communication than knowledge of photography.
    >
    > I worded the question the way I did on the assumption that it would be
    > obvious that you need some overlap of the images to be able to match
    > them up, and rather difficult to shoot a panorama so perfectly that the
    > edges matched precisely with no overlap. We also know that automatic
    > stitching programs, such as Photoshop or Elements, need some overlap to
    > function.
    >
    > So my question was not so much about overlap as whether you could create
    > a 30 or 40 megapixel image with a 10 megapixel camera. That is a
    > wonderful discovery, and I haven't seen much written about it. Also,
    > there are some cameras that can do the stitching internally with the
    > processor, and I find it hard to imagine that they would then create
    > these huge images. So they probably resample them down to something
    > manageable. One of my main reasons for wanting to do these panos is real
    > estate tours, which would be shared on the web for the clients, and you
    > wouldn't want that big a file to upload or download - but you might for
    > other purposes.
    >
    > I also realize that you need a level tripod that you can rotate like a
    > video head if you want to do a complete 360, so that the ends will match
    > up and there will be minimal cropping. Leveling the tripod head is
    > another whole area of discussion (without spending a fortune I mean).


    In order to do it properly, you'll also need the axis of rotation to run
    through the lens nodal point - otherwise there will be distortion when
    you try to merge. If you're far away, it may not be noticeable - if
    you're 'close' it will be.

    >
    > So assuming that most readers would already know that you need some
    > overlap to be able to match up images for a panorama, I pressed on and
    > asked a simple question about whether the pixels would add up as big as
    > you want. I suppose I could have said would they double, triple, etc
    > except for overlap, but it didn't seem necessary at the time. I assumed
    > the wrong level of knowledge of the reader.
    >>
    >> Any decent photo viewer will allow you to view a photo at full
    >> resolution and pan around to your heart's content. I use gwenview - it
    >> does that quite well.

    >
    > What exactly do you mean by "photo viewer"? What I am after is something
    > that just about everyone has already on their computers so that they can
    > just click on your link and see your slideshow of panos of a home, or a
    > site, and look around in them. I will try the gwenview. Haven't seen
    > that.


    A photo viewer is software that allows you to view photos. Seems I
    assumed the wrong level of knowledge of the reader.


    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
     
    ray, Nov 20, 2010
    #5
  6. ray

    ray Guest

    On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:49:41 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> A photo viewer is software that allows you to view photos. Seems I
    >> assumed the wrong level of knowledge of the reader.

    >
    > If I already knew what you meant by that, I wouldn't have asked. If you
    > don't want to tell me, then get off the pot.


    Don't really know what more you're after. I've told you what it does and
    given you a specific example of one. Photoshop, GIMP, etc are image
    editors - they allow you to make changes and view photos. A viewer has
    rather primitive editing capabilities if at all - it's primary use is to
    allow you to view photos.


    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
     
    ray, Nov 20, 2010
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. News Reader
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,164
    News Reader
    Mar 3, 2007
  2. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    366
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  3. priyank shah
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    682
    priyank shah
    Mar 13, 2007
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    282
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    408
Loading...

Share This Page