Closeup Stitch Example

[Chris Strobel]

Well with all the fuss about stitching, I thought I'd give er a try.I've seen lots of landscape examples, but not really any closeups like botaniclesSo here is my example shot with Canon 20D, Canon 100mm macro, natural backlight and one 60w incandecent bulb.A total of 12 frames shot in Raw, stiched in CS2.The end file was HUGE, so I down sized it to 16x20 at 360ppi, the biggest my 4800 will go.The file is now a little over 300mb.So far I'm encouraged at the possibilities, however it took me about 4 times the amount of time in CS2 compared to when I do a 4x5 or 8x10, and I'm still not done with the image

[Doug Dolde]

This is really a gorgeous image. And I have to say leaves nothing to desire a large format film image over it.

But I'm sure some of the old flatulent film guys will disagree if for nothing else to disagree.

[Jack Flesher]

Excellent image Chris! Might be of interest to see a small portion of that image at actual pixel resolution -- maybe along a stitch seam?

Thanks for sharing!

[rob]

It would be easier to do this by mounting the dslr on the rear frame of a view camera (like the horseman LD), and moving the dslr up-down left-right to get the pieces, and using an LF macro lens.

[Gordon Moat]

60mm by 67.5mm or 45mm by 90mm, based on 15mm by 22.5mm sensor size in the 20D. Of course orientation of each stitch frame, and the overlaps, would mean slightly smaller. I wonder what the actual stitched frame capture area was in this?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Chris Strobel]

60mm by 67.5mm or 45mm by 90mm, based on 15mm by 22.5mm sensor size in the 20D. Of course orientation of each stitch frame, and the overlaps, would mean slightly smaller. I wonder what the actual stitched frame capture area was in this?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

Huh?I'm not sure what you mean.I do know that I probably overlapped more than I needed.I didn't do this very scientifically, I just popped the camera on my Bogen 3047 head, started with the lens pointed straight at the center of the plant, then snapped 3 across x 4 down just moving the head around. I was about 2 feet from the plant{most of the bottom three snaps are cropped out here}One thing that happened was when stitching not everything lined up perfectly, and lots of micro cutting and pasting were needed.The master files canvas size is 20x30 inchs and chokes my computer (Athlon 4800+/2gb), is way bigger than I would ever care to print, took A LOT of time, and I missed my ground glass.So I'm gong to keep working with my 4x5 and 8x10.Here is the left tip snap rotated vertical,

[Gordon Moat]

Huh?I'm not sure what you mean.I do know that I probably overlapped more than I needed.I didn't do this very scientifically, I just popped the camera on my Bogen 3047 head, started with the lens pointed straight at the center of the plant, then snapped 3 across x 4 down just moving the head around. I was about 2 feet from the plant{most of the bottom three snaps are cropped out here}One thing that happened was when stitching not everything lined up perfectly, and lots of micro cutting and pasting were needed.The master files canvas size is 20x30 inchs and chokes my computer (Athlon 4800+/2gb), is way bigger than I would ever care to print, took A LOT of time, and I missed my ground glass.So I'm gong to keep working with my 4x5 and 8x10. . . . . . .

Good morning Chris,

Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to equate capture area to film area/sensor area. The Canon 20D has a 15mm by 22.5mm capture area sensor size. So 12 images without overlap would give the dimensions I posted. However, with your non-scientific overlap, about all I could guess is smaller than 60mm by 67.5mm. In other words, your capture area was close to a frame of film from a 6x4.5 or maybe 6x6 medium format shot, if we guess overlap.

It is not an important factor, just my curiousity. In case you wonder why I am curious about that, it is a way for me to quantify comparisons. According to DPReview and several other websites site, outright resolution (not file size) of the Canon 20D is in the range of 50 to 55 lp/mm. So your entire image would have that optical resolution limit across the frame. A single piece of film would require a lens/film/scanner combined resolution near that on a medium format camera to equal 50 to 55 lp/mm; not impossible, though tough to accomplish.

I have seen some very nice prints from a friend of mine that has an interesting way of using his Nikon D2X. He stands and pans, then stitches the resulting frames. This is done handheld, and without a tripod. Even if the results could technically be better with using a tripod and carefully setting overlap, the images are still nice to view with the simpler method he uses.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Marko]

Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to equate capture area to film area/sensor area. The Canon 20D has a 15mm by 22.5mm capture area sensor size. So 12 images without overlap would give the dimensions I posted. However, with your non-scientific overlap, about all I could guess is smaller than 60mm by 67.5mm. In other words, your capture area was close to a frame of film from a 6x4.5 or maybe 6x6 medium format shot, if we guess overlap.

Hey Gordon,

The overlap is necessary to ensure there would be no gaps in stitching and it also provides a safety margin for local corrections. Typically, it should be somewhere in the 20% to 30% area. With the proper rig, such as paralax-correcting tripod pano head, that could be reduced down to maybe 10%, but not everybody has them.

I have seen some very nice prints from a friend of mine that has an interesting way of using his Nikon D2X. He stands and pans, then stitches the resulting frames. This is done handheld, and without a tripod. Even if the results could technically be better with using a tripod and carefully setting overlap, the images are still nice to view with the simpler method he uses.

I took these two panoramas using a Canon digital P&S as a quick note for the future LF shoot when the time and wheather allows. It was all done completely handheld, as JPGs (so not nearly as many post capabilities as with RAW), auto evertything and then stitched manually in CS2. The important thing is to keep it as steady and level as you can, so you want to plant your feet, extend your arms and do not change anything between the shots except rotate your torso around your hips. Of course, center your stance to the middle of the future panorama and start at one end and move sequentially to the other. It's not all that hard for quick takes, but if you want more precise and predictable results with lest post processing, a good, stable setup helps a lot, as well as good planning.


Open in a separate browser window


Open in a separate browser window

[Ken Lee]

I'm impressed, and I'm still slumming around with film. In fact, I just got a monorail to facilitate making more botanical images.

[Struan Gray]

One interesting consequence of stitching is that the plane of best focus becomes a sphere of best focus. This is not the same as field curvature on a sheet film camera because repositioning the sensor makes the combined detection surface also curved (you can imagine a 'film plane' made up of overlapping sensor positions for each individual image of the stitch).

Practically, this means that when the depth of field is low - more common in closeups than infinity landscapes - the in focus parts of the individual frames will only match along a line, no matter how much overlap you allow. Most people will see this as a problem.

Conceptually though, you can imagine manipulating the focus to produce an explicitly non-planar surface over which the sharpness is maximised. Such a surface need not even be continuous. With a bit of image stacking the depth of field limits either side of it can also vary in ways that are disallowed by conventional optics.

No doubt those that do this will be told they are not taking photographs.