PDA

View Full Version : Stitching Several 6x12 Images



Richard Wasserman
4-May-2015, 09:40
Please humor me, I am trying to determine the feasibility of an idea I've had. I have no experience with stitching and am a Photoshop kindergartener. I am considering stitching together maybe 6-8 6x12 color photos and printing them as one continuous image several feet long. I use an Imacon Precision III scanner. I am in the market for a new computer anyway—how powerful would I need? Before I thought of this project, I was thinking an IMac. Any software suggestions—Photoshop or is there something better for stitching? I assume if I keep the camera level and squared to the scene and overlap each image I should be OK. Am I missing anything?

Randy Moe
4-May-2015, 09:53
Not really, but Ram is your friend, so you want max Ram.

I would consider a 5K screen iMac.

But, I bought a PC because they are way cheaper.

Bob Salomon
4-May-2015, 10:51
Please humor me, I am trying to determine the feasibility of an idea I've had. I have no experience with stitching and am a Photoshop kindergartener. I am considering stitching together maybe 6-8 6x12 color photos and printing them as one continuous image several feet long. I use an Imacon Precision III scanner. I am in the market for a new computer anyway—how powerful would I need? Before I thought of this project, I was thinking an IMac. Any software suggestions—Photoshop or is there something better for stitching? I assume if I keep the camera level and squared to the scene and overlap each image I should be OK. Am I missing anything?

Overlap should be 30% and watch your exposures so the frames match.

Richard Wasserman
4-May-2015, 10:56
Overlap should be 30% and watch your exposures so the frames match.

More overlap than I anticipated—I might need another frame or 2....

So this is doable??

djdister
4-May-2015, 11:01
I'm not sure why you would need to stitch more than two together - if you scan a single 6x12 frame at just 2400dpi, you would end up with an image that would print about 3 feet (actually 33") wide. Stitching 6 to eight frames together, even with overlap, would give you an image in the multiple yards category...

Assuming you have a printer that can handle roll paper and print any length, just how wide and how high do you want the print to be?

Richard Wasserman
4-May-2015, 11:24
Assuming you have a printer that can handle roll paper and print any length, just how wide and how high do you want the print to be?

I need to stitch multiple negatives together to get the image I want, it can't be done with only 1 or 2 exposures. I haven't thought all this through yet, but I am thinking about prints in the 5-6 foot wide range, maybe longer, by whatever height they work out to. Doing some rough math I'm thinking they will only be about 6 inches tall. I may need to refine my concept a bit...

Corran
4-May-2015, 12:36
Are you going to rotate the camera? You will have a lot of issues stitching things together to form a seamless image (unless you are going for the Joiner look). I would suggest trying it first with a digital camera and equivalent lens/crops. Also, you would do well to rig up a way to rotate at the proper place (under the lens unless it's a tele, I think).

Richard Wasserman
4-May-2015, 12:50
Are you going to rotate the camera? You will have a lot of issues stitching things together to form a seamless image (unless you are going for the Joiner look). I would suggest trying it first with a digital camera and equivalent lens/crops. Also, you would do well to rig up a way to rotate at the proper place (under the lens unless it's a tele, I think).

I'll be moving the camera parallel to the scene—no rotating involved.

Bob Salomon
4-May-2015, 12:57
Are you going to rotate the camera? You will have a lot of issues stitching things together to form a seamless image (unless you are going for the Joiner look). I would suggest trying it first with a digital camera and equivalent lens/crops. Also, you would do well to rig up a way to rotate at the proper place (under the lens unless it's a tele, I think).

Under the nodal point.

Corran
4-May-2015, 12:58
Thank you Bob. I couldn't think of the right word.

Richard, I would still definitely consider trying it first with a digital camera and cropping it to 6x12 aspect, before burning film.

andy
4-May-2015, 13:01
with enough overlap you should be able to get pretty good results from the photomerge feature in photoshop. I've stitched together a four 4x5 negative panorama, and while my imac didn't like it, it was doable. You just need a lot of ram and some patience. With that many frames, you're going to have a massively long image, but the file should be manageable--just make sure you use the identical settings on the scanner and that your exposures are consistent.

Randy Moe
4-May-2015, 13:27
I found the limit in PS CC trying to Photomerge 50 Nikon P7000 vertical images of a block long wall mural.

I had to break it down to 10 images at a time , then try to merge the results.

My old computer choked on the full thing.

I got something in the end, but never printed.

I need to revisit the project, as the mural was removed during construction of the 606, which is right out my front door. I also now have a better computer.

Jim Jones
4-May-2015, 15:22
I'll be moving the camera parallel to the scene—no rotating involved.

Ouch! Unless the subject of each shot is entirely in the same plane and same distance with no detail in the foreground or background, the images won't overlap perfectly.

koraks
5-May-2015, 01:28
How are you going to print this? I mean, I know that epson drivers have a maximum number of pixels on the long end of an image that they will print; not sure about other brands. Won't this be an issue with an image this wide?

Richard Wasserman
5-May-2015, 07:15
How are you going to print this? I mean, I know that epson drivers have a maximum number of pixels on the long end of an image that they will print; not sure about other brands. Won't this be an issue with an image this wide?

I can not print to the size I want and would need to send this out to someone who can.

All this has been very useful—thanks. I will start trying some different ideas to see where they lead me. I'm thinking I'll start with something more modest, maybe 2 or 3 stitches to see how it goes (and looks). Thanks again for all the input!

Greg Miller
5-May-2015, 07:55
I need to stitch multiple negatives together to get the image I want, it can't be done with only 1 or 2 exposures. I haven't thought all this through yet, but I am thinking about prints in the 5-6 foot wide range, maybe longer, by whatever height they work out to. Doing some rough math I'm thinking they will only be about 6 inches tall. I may need to refine my concept a bit...

I've done what you are planning (albeit with digital). I stitched 2,000 photos taken from a moving boat. So parallel movement and varying distances from the boat to the shoreline. And shooting for an entire day with constantly changing exposures. End result was a panorama covering 150 miles of shore line (printed to 80 feet). All very doable. The biggest concern I would have is that the auto-stitching softwares available did not handle the stitching very well - I ended up manually stitching it (twice - I had to do both shores of thew river; so 300 miles of shoreline). So you'll probably want to learn some Photoshop skills like Free Transform and layer masking.

Actually by biggest hurdle was layers of buildings, and distant mountains. Areas of buildings (like New York City) are very problematic. The Empire State Building is very tall but also far from the shore. So it appears pretty static while moving parallel to it, while shorter building along the shore will move significantly form frame to frame. Distant mountains behave the same way relative to closer objects.

(shameless pitch; if anyone wants to see the end result they can order a signed copy form my web site)


As for a computer, by far most important is having as much RAM as possible. The more RAM, the faster the processing. I currently use 32 GB on my Photoshop computers, but would complain at having more.

Richard Wasserman
5-May-2015, 11:11
I've done what you are planning (albeit with digital). I stitched 2,000 photos taken from a moving boat. So parallel movement and varying distances from the boat to the shoreline. And shooting for an entire day with constantly changing exposures. End result was a panorama covering 150 miles of shore line (printed to 80 feet). All very doable. The biggest concern I would have is that the auto-stitching softwares available did not handle the stitching very well - I ended up manually stitching it (twice - I had to do both shores of thew river; so 300 miles of shoreline). So you'll probably want to learn some Photoshop skills like Free Transform and layer masking.

Actually by biggest hurdle was layers of buildings, and distant mountains. Areas of buildings (like New York City) are very problematic. The Empire State Building is very tall but also far from the shore. So it appears pretty static while moving parallel to it, while shorter building along the shore will move significantly form frame to frame. Distant mountains behave the same way relative to closer objects.

(shameless pitch; if anyone wants to see the end result they can order a signed copy form my web site)


As for a computer, by far most important is having as much RAM as possible. The more RAM, the faster the processing. I currently use 32 GB on my Photoshop computers, but would complain at having more.

Well if you can stitch 2,000 images I guess I can do half a dozen! Thanks, this is encouraging. Any chance your 80 foot prints can be seen anywhere? They must be astounding and I'd love to see them.

Greg Miller
5-May-2015, 11:49
Well if you can stitch 2,000 images I guess I can do half a dozen! Thanks, this is encouraging. Any chance your 80 foot prints can be seen anywhere? They must be astounding and I'd love to see them.

Right now they are in storage at the museum. I need tpo make time to get them displayed in more venues.

You can see the museum exhibit at the bottom of this page. (http://www.gregmillerphotography.com/#!/p/panorama) This was a very large gallery room in the museum - I think 60 feet across.

sanking
6-May-2015, 07:53
Right now they are in storage at the museum. I need tpo make time to get them displayed in more venues.

You can see the museum exhibit at the bottom of this page. (http://www.gregmillerphotography.com/#!/p/panorama) This was a very large gallery room in the museum - I think 60 feet across.

Greg,

Wonderful project, and fabulous work in shooting and creating the panorama. I assume you had to do lot of free-hand work in assembling the panorama.

Wonder if you would comment on how the logistical aspects of image capture traveling in a boat.

Sandy

Kirk Gittings
6-May-2015, 10:48
Ouch! Unless the subject of each shot is entirely in the same plane and same distance with no detail in the foreground or background, the images won't overlap perfectly.

ditto and also in terms of being able to print it one would need a rip that had unlimited length settings which I think Image print or Quadtone neither PS nor LR can do it.

Greg Miller
6-May-2015, 11:15
Greg,

Wonderful project, and fabulous work in shooting and creating the panorama. I assume you had to do lot of free-hand work in assembling the panorama.

Wonder if you would comment on how the logistical aspects of image capture traveling in a boat.

Sandy

Thanks Sandy. Yes, the stitching was all manual. I found there were too many variables changing between shots for the automated software to stitch properly across 2,000 p hotos for each shore. I was able to stitch about miles per hour, so 150 hours of stitching...

In terms of logistics, I did a trial run by walking the dhore line for several miles and then stitching at home. That worked. I then considered using a gyro on the boat so I could hand hold and keep the camera stable. But battery life was an issues, and the weight would be an issue. As it was, with a D700 and a 24-to zoom lens, the physical requirements of shooting for literally all day were dire. A tripod on a moving boat with vibrations from the motor was not possible. So I ended up shooting hand held and tried to keep my shutter speed fat6ser than 1/1000. If I lost a single frame due to motion it would ruin the entire panorama, and the timing was such that I had no chance for so-overs. I kept the lens at a constant focal length, but had to go wider in a couple places where the river narrowed and the mountains climbed steeply form river edge. I kept the water/shore line at a constant part of the frame. Keeping the camera level while on a rocking boat was tough, I had to do a lot of horizontal level corrections in ACR. I had only one shot to get the photos, so I had to shoot the west shore, then cross to the other side of the boat and shoot the east shore. Then back to the opposite shore. So i always had to remember what was in the frame of the last shot I took on each shore. Not very easy on the long stretches where there were only trees. A full day of that will numb the brain. I also tried to back up my flash card as each one filled up. I had Wolverine drives with a flash reader. But at one point I tried to get the flash card to mount in the Wolverine and could not. So I gave up. When I got home I tried to see what was going on and forced the card in. That caused the entire card to erase. Luckily I had already backed the card up several times, but good thing I did not force it on the boat.

And then there is the most important logisitical matter. I was literal shooting all day starting before sunrise. I averaged a photo every 30 seconds. But I needed to stay hydrated. So eventually mother nature called. The sghooner had a head down below. So I had to take a photo, dash below, and return in 30 seconds for the next photo. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

Kirk Gittings
6-May-2015, 11:23
Right now they are in storage at the museum. I need tpo make time to get them displayed in more venues.

You can see the museum exhibit at the bottom of this page. (http://www.gregmillerphotography.com/#!/p/panorama) This was a very large gallery room in the museum - I think 60 feet across.

Sweet installation! I wish I could have seen that installed.

Richard Wasserman
6-May-2015, 12:47
It seems to be time for me to try out this idea and see if it works. The best way I learn is by doing, so I'll soon find out if I can actually do what I hope to. It sounds as if it's possible, but fraught with issues. Greg's panorama is inspirational, but am I willing to work that hard???

Greg Miller
6-May-2015, 12:53
Sweet installation! I wish I could have seen that installed.

Yes, I wish I could take credit for it. The installation really made the exhibit work.

we were trying to figure out how to display 80 foot long print's in a 60 foot gallery. When we realized we needed to snake them through, it totally made sense, because the river itself snakes through the landscape. The museum had connections with an artist who is a metal worker. They went to him to make metal armatures that could be suspended from the ceiling, and then hang the prints from that. It worked out beatifully.

sanking
7-May-2015, 07:10
And then there is the most important logisitical matter. I was literal shooting all day starting before sunrise. I averaged a photo every 30 seconds. But I needed to stay hydrated. So eventually mother nature called. The sghooner had a head down below. So I had to take a photo, dash below, and return in 30 seconds for the next photo. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

Thank for for the extremely interesting discussion of the logistical issues in capturing the images. You really did a masterful job in planning and executing the project, and in the final presentation of the result.

Sandy

Greg Miller
9-May-2015, 06:29
Thank for for the extremely interesting discussion of the logistical issues in capturing the images. You really did a masterful job in planning and executing the project, and in the final presentation of the result.

Sandy

Thanks Sandy.