DSLR Stitching Again

[Marko]

I don't know what is it about stitching that causes normally sharp people to miss-read, miss-interpret or miss-understand anything that the original poster had to say. Not to mention all the snide little snipes coming from people who would never even use digital, much less such a niche technique but who seem to show almost morbidly detailed interest in threads like that...

Reading his post, it is clear that he used 45 shots for the final image and that it took him 3-4 hours of computer time to stitch them. He did take 160 images total over a period of about two months, but he did NOT use them all and this was NOT his computer time. If you bother to really read what he said - and he also said that English was not his native language - you will understand that it took him that much time mostly due to waiting for proper weather and light.

As for "perspective is all wrong" and "it took him too much time" or "ho-hum image, poor processing" kind of comment - I think it was perfectly clear that what he is doing is a strictly technical experiment trying to find the boundaries and limitations of what is possible within a very narrow, niche technique. His artistic merits and computer skills are almost irrelevant here.

But for those who can't see the big image - pun intended - because of those petty concerns, there are other people who have devoted a lot more time and effort to this.

As for the "Some people have too much time on their hands" comment - well, yes, they do - some do it to go out and experiment while others use it to sit in front of the computer and criticize them.

[Kirk Gittings]

Rich

Whether 45 or 160

I think he means he made 160 exposures which he edited down to 45 for the stitch.

I have on occasion stitched 2 6x9 and 2 4x5 for certain purposes, usually when I do it when I don't have a lens wide enough to do a particular job. IMO There is a difference using a 2x or even 4x stitch to solve an occasional problem vs. advocating a 45x stitch as your regular go to solution for large file landscapes. At two months per image, your production would be 6 images per year. Given the quality of that image, I would suggest that he spend much more time in the field with a view camera refining his vision

[Kirk Gittings]

Marko,

I think you read it wrong. To my read, he clearly states he shot 160 images which were edited down to 45 and after 3-4 hours for his processor to run the 45 image stitch he spent 2 months to put the image together working with layers etc.. Despite the language problems that is the only conclusion from his wording that makes any sense to me.

[Marko]

Another interesting trend I notice in all these comments on stitching - in the beginning, it was the 4x5 that was used as some sort of quality and resolution benchmark. Now it seems to have moved to 8x10.

[Gordon Moat]

Weird. I have seen similar many shot stitched images in the past, when people were chasing the idea of a Giga Pixel (or greater). What seems to be missed quite often is that file size (dimensions) is not resolution. Jack Flesher explained that quite well, though I think he was generous about the D2X comments; I have yet to see anything better than 60 lp/mm from a D2X so far, which implies that it would only match some large format gear. I am glad to see the Burtynsky reference; like him or not, he is one source of well printed large format images that tours many galleries. The other odd thing is the image seems a bit fished, like a fisheye lens, though maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
A G Studio

[Kirk Gittings]

Also Marko, when I refered to his two month effort on the computer he did not dispute it.

[ageorge]

Hi Kirk,

I just glanced at the link. I am not sure, he initially indicates that there were 45 images stitched. Whether 45 or 160 and 2 months of time to stitch the image, that is a bit over the top. Certainly a real waste of time on the part of the photographer. How much time did it take for him to capture all of those images? Then the question is were the conditions the same for all of those images. Don't jump on me for this but, if someone needed that size and detail, wouldn't it be better for a single capture on a large enough piece of film or if need be to perhaps stitch 6??? original 4 X 5 sheets (agreeing with both Leonard and your response)???

Rich

From my experience, it only takes about a 4x2 stitch (8 images) from a 1DsII to beat the image quality of a desktop scanned (epson 4990 @ 2400dpi) 4x5 TMax 100 scan. The file dimensions are roughly equivalent at ~11000x9000. A drum scan just about equals it, but the edge in quality still goes to the stitch, I my experience. Setting up and taking a 4x2 stitch takes a little less time, for me, than setting up the 4x5 and completing an exposure (including recording the exposure notes which is not necessary with the stitch capture and making a duplicate negative). You still have to meter, compose the shot (actually you have to compose in your head as there is no single piece of GG to look at), and execute the exposure(s). It takes less that 30 seconds to actually record the images. When I am out stitching (so to speak), I record about the same amount of images as with my 4x5, 10 is a good day. There are many more similarities than differences.

I spent 3 hours at the location below. I ended up with 7 compete images (~250 individual images, but I also bracketed every shot for HDR), which is about what I would have done with the 4x5. BTW, the extreme dynamic range in these conditions is why I selected stitching (w/ HDR) over the 4x5, over 13 stops from shadows to highlights.

2 stop 3 bracket HDR, 4x2 stitch, 1DsII with 45mm TSE, ~12000x9000

[Marko]

Marko,

I think you read it wrong. To my read, he clearly states he shot 160 images which were edited down to 45 and after 3-4 hours for his processor to run the 45 image stitch he spent 2 months to put the image together working with layers etc.. Despite the language problems that is the only conclusion from his wording that makes any sense to me.

That's what I said, wasn't it?

Except for the 2 months part, which I understood to mean he spent 2 months getting those 160 images including but not limited to processing. The way I understand him, it took him so much time primarily because of waiting for proper weather/lighting conditions. If so, then two months were the period of time over which he created the image, not the amount of time it took him to work on the image. These kinds of nuances of expression usually cause the most problems to non-native speakers and they also cause most of the miss-understandings by the native speakers.

As for who said what:

He does not talk about the capture time involved but states it took two months of computer time to make this image from 160 exposures.

Reading his post, it is clear that he used 45 shots for the final image and that it took him 3-4 hours of computer time to stitch them. He did take 160 images total over a period of about two months, but he did NOT use them all and this was NOT his computer time.

[D. Bryant]

From my experience, it only takes about a 4x2 stitch (8 images) from a 1DsII to beat the image quality of a desktop scanned (epson 4990 @ 2400dpi) 4x5 TMax 100 scan.

Nice work! However I think you can get comparable results with a view camera using a wide view lens and doing stand or semi-stand development - if you are shooting B&W.

Don't get me wrong though, I just purchased a DSLR and I'm itching to do some digital stitches. The HDR twist also sounds interesting. I've heard that CS3 has a much improved HDR engine.

Don Bryant

[Kirk Gittings]

For putting the pacle together I needed 2 month

Sorry Marko,

He is referring to two months of computer time and editing 160 images down to 45 is also computer time. Also he does not dispute my interpretation of his two month computer time usage in that thread while he disputes everything else I stated.

Why not discuss the issue instead of semantics?