PDA

View Full Version : 59 Image digital mosaic



Ron Marshall
10-Oct-2006, 10:05
59 frames from an 8MP camera were used to mimic a drum scanned transparency:

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics/index.html

Michael Gordon
10-Oct-2006, 12:32
More power to anyone having the patience and spare time to shoot 59 frames versus ONE. I do not consider this to be a "substitute" in any fashion. Have fun snapping and stitching.

QT Luong
10-Oct-2006, 15:34
He actually claims that it takes only 10 min to snap all the images, as opposed to much more to set-up to LF camera.

The resolution comparison is unsurprising. What's interesting compared to http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm (who produced a larger digital file 3 years ago) is that (a) he managed to create a near/far image, (b) he is also a LF photographer.

What's missing is a statement of how much human (not computer) time was required to assemble the mosaic.

Ed Richards
10-Oct-2006, 16:10
And he got God to make the wind stop blowing.

Brian Vuillemenot
10-Oct-2006, 16:37
Too bad he couldn't get God to remove the jet contrail from the sky.

Mtang
10-Oct-2006, 17:05
Thanks for the information and interesting read. I had thought about doing similar before and I can see that this can be very useful in certain applications and controlled settings. However, I still believe it doesn't quite give the nice smooth effect that one single exposure does from a LF camera.

Gordon Moat
11-Oct-2006, 00:14
Why not just stitch from 4x5s, or other film formats? The same assembly could occur. The problem I see is more of composition. Another part makes me think this was a solution in search of a problem, though I don't like such an approach. Since I have already criticized this on Usenet, I will not comment any further.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Michael Gordon
11-Oct-2006, 09:04
He actually claims that it takes only 10 min to snap all the images, as opposed to much more to set-up to LF camera.

If it's taking him "much more" time than 10mins. to set up the view camera with a basic scene like that, then I would question whether he's an experienced enough LF photographer to be making such a comparison. That exact scene should only take a few minutes to set up, meter, and expose.

Brian Ellis
11-Oct-2006, 10:20
Thanks for a very interesting post. I use a digital camera (Canon 5D) quite a bit and I have no knee jerk reaction against what you've done. However, the critical point that I think is omitted from your comparison of LF with your digital image is an intangible that can't be measured but that I think is very real. It's the difference between the pleasure taken in the process of making a LF photograph, and especially in seeing things through a nice big 4x5 (or larger) screen, vs what to me would be the incredible PITA of making 59 separate images of the same scene, all the while peeping at the scene through the tiny viewfinder on a digital camera. Obviously some people would have different views of which was the PITA and which wasn't but to me if a LF photographer doesn't get some degree of pleasure out of the process then they shouldn't be doing it. Unfortunately I haven't yet discovered a way of duplicating that pleasure with a digital camera.

QT Luong
11-Oct-2006, 10:28
Some of the critics here need to read the article carefully ! From a standpoint of results, the mosaic approach looks good, but the process also does seems tedious to me, esp. if computer work is factored in.

Ron Marshall
11-Oct-2006, 10:39
Thanks for a very interesting post. I use a digital camera (Canon 5D) quite a bit and I have no knee jerk reaction against what you've done.

I'm glad you enjoyed the post. But I didn't do it, I don't own a digital camera. I posted this because I was amazed at the photographers dedication to achieve his sought after level of quality, and I thought it might interest some here.

It is not the route I would go. Near-far compositions are more problematic and a signifigant amount of post processing is required. Also the potential for movement between shots. But to each their own tools and methods.

This proceedure is essentially a poor man's digital scanning back.

Brian Ellis
11-Oct-2006, 12:44
I'm glad you enjoyed the post. But I didn't do it, I don't own a digital camera.


Sorry for the incorrect attribution Ron. I got caught up in reading the text and didn't pay attention to the name of the author.

sanking
11-Oct-2006, 19:55
Some of the critics here need to read the article carefully ! From a standpoint of results, the mosaic approach looks good, but the process also does seems tedious to me, esp. if computer work is factored in.

With the emphasis on tedious! If the emphasis is on detail and sharpness he could most likely have achieved a lot more in about the same shooting time with a 6X7 or 6X9 film camera, 220 film, and a wide angle lens. You have the extra step of scanning of course, but how many 8mp shots would you have to make to equal one 6X9 scanned at 4000 dpi?

Sandy King

Ted Harris
11-Oct-2006, 20:14
With all due respects, in addition to tedious Roger has many imags and results that he has posted on the web over a number of years that are all stunning but few if any have been able to reproduce similar results. Perhaps it lies in the time that we are not prepared to spend, perhaps elsewhere.

Mark Sampson
12-Oct-2006, 08:31
I find it interesting that the photographer claims that it takes him 30-45 minutes to set up a 4x5 landscape shot and expose a few brackets. That seems kind of slow... the sun will have moved 10 degrees in that time. My own experience suggests that if I take that long, my seeing is not good, and the image doesn't turn out to be worth much after the fact.

Chris Strobel
12-Oct-2006, 09:02
He actually claims that it takes only 10 min to snap all the images, as opposed to much more to set-up to LF camera.



So does that mean with a 16mp EOS 1Ds MkII camera He could do the same shot in 5 min

:D

Greg Miller
12-Oct-2006, 10:26
I have done a very similar process many times. The difference is that I create panoramic format images that are impossible to create with a stationary fixed lens camera. One could use a swing lens (or film plane) camera to accomplish the same result but that means the added expense of more hardware and more gear to haul around. I do all my stitiching manually but it goes pretty fast after you have done a few.

QT Luong
12-Oct-2006, 10:33
Very nice images, Greg. How much time is "pretty fast' ?

Greg Miller
12-Oct-2006, 10:59
Very nice images, Greg. How much time is "pretty fast' ?

Thanks. My "typical" image is about 13 images. For images where I used digital capture this usually takes under 30 minutes including opening all the images. Images taken during twighlight hours can take more time because the light changes so much from beginning to end.

Ron Marshall
12-Oct-2006, 11:04
Thanks. My "typical" image is about 13 images. For images where I used digital capture this usually takes under 30 minutes including opening all the images. Images taken during twighlight hours can take more time because the light changes so much from beginning to end.

Greg, I am curious why you use 13 images for the composite. For a composite I think of, for example, three rows of 4 or three rows of 5.

Gordon Moat
12-Oct-2006, 12:03
Seems to me that someone could just take an HD video camera into the field, then pan across a given scene, maybe including panning as a grid pattern. Then pick out individual frames to reassemble, place into stitching software, go get a coffee, then when you come back . . . voila: a complete image.
:D :rolleyes:

Okay, lots of ways to make images, but I don't really see anything as substituting using a view camera. The approach is different, composing on a ground glass is different. I suppose when a view camera is either too large, too inconvenient, or too heavy, then something else will keep someone making images. In that case, the best camera is the one you have with you.

I own something like 15 different cameras (last time I tried to count), and they all get used in slightly different ways. I only own one view camera, and when I use it the feeling and approach for me are more like using a sketchbook than using a camera. Perhaps for those who find camera gear too heavy, or too inconvenient, I might suggest they try to go somewhere and draw what they see.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Greg Miller
12-Oct-2006, 12:32
Greg, I am curious why you use 13 images for the composite. For a composite I think of, for example, three rows of 4 or three rows of 5.

Ron - It is just how I see the world. My typical image is 1 row of 13 (thus a panorama). But I have done grid like images as you suggest that yield a more traditional aspect ratio.

Ron Marshall
12-Oct-2006, 13:10
Ron - It is just how I see the world. My typical image is 1 row of 13 (thus a panorama). But I have done grid like images as you suggest that yield a more traditional aspect ratio.

Thanks Greg, just curious.

Jack Brauer
12-Oct-2006, 16:37
I am usually not really impressed by these mega-stitched images... most of the ones I see are pretty regular daytime scenes.

I think this method is more valuable for creating images you otherwise couldn't, such as super wide panoramas, or composite scenes that never actually existed at one given time.

Bob Kim (http://www.bobkim.net) has some amazing stitched images.