DSLR Stitching Again

[Marko]

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

I don't know, he explicitly said that it took him 2 months to piece all of it together. They way I read that and other statements he made, and taking into account his language level too, it still sounds to me like I stated before - that the overall effort took him that long, not just his computer time.

But that was not my point per se here, I really did not want to argue your point at all and I really don't want to get into yet another this vs. that thread. I am simply noticing that a lot of heated arguments stem simply from poor communication (both expression and comprehension) and could easily be avoided if only we collectively invested a bit more effort into comprehension and a little less temper into reaction.

[Kirk Gittings]

AGEORGE,

That may be true with scans from a 4990. For instance I can surpass a superior 6x9 scan from an Epson 750 with a 12.7 MP DSLR capture both at 8.5x11. But what about comparing the DSLR capture and stitch with a good drum scan? The drum scan will come closer to extracting the full potential of the 4x5 than the Epson flatbed and make a better comparison.

[ageorge]

AGEORGE,

That may be true with scans from a 4990. For instance I can surpass a superior 6x9 scan from an Epson 750 with a 12.7 MP DSLR capture both at 8.5x11. But what about comparing the DSLR capture and stitch with a good drum scan? The drum scan will come closer to extracting the full potential of the 4x5 than the Epson flatbed and make a better comparison.

I have had a few drum scans done and these pull even quality wise with the 1DsII 4x2 stitch. Given the cost and inconvenience of a drum scan, given the right conditions, for me, stitching is more efficient use of resources, especially considering a 5x3 stitch as a simple addition to the mix.

I am not trying to convince anyone that stitching is the answer to your dreams, but I do feel that it is a viable "large format" alternative given the right circumstances. I think most WHO HAVE TRIED IT would agree. A 45 or 160 image stitch job is not a good example of what it takes to equate "large format" quality.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Alan, Just trying to get some clarity. Nice image by the way.

[Doug Dolde]

ageorge-your shot is great. i think you illustrate the validity of the technique. the bryce shot in question earlier just doesn't look like the place and is distorted in perspective while yours is very natural looking.

[ljb0904]

Alan, I like the image. It looks solid.

Did you take advantage of the shift features of your TSE lens? I would gamble that the quality of the resulting image would decrease significantly if you'd used say a standard 50mm to capture the images and corrected for the perspective distortion in software.

I'm no photographic expert, but I will state a poorly executed photographic image is still just a poorly executed photographic image even if it took two months to create.

Stitching, imho, is just another tool for people to use. I don't disagree with it's use and I've seen some nice work that is the result of stitching. It's great if it's done _well_. I commend the 'tog for having the patience to create an image with the effort that he did. Given the situation, I'd rather use my humble 4x5 and accept the "crappier" quality ;-).

Hell, I'm happy if I get a nice picture with my 35mm :-)

[P.J.]

All the new Gursky's stuff is stitched. He used Hasselblad 31mpx.

New exhibition in Munich (17 feb 07 > 13 may 07)
http://test6.contenttest.net/hdk.de/...330535d21ae22e

Paul

[David Luttmann]

Not sure why it took two months. I stitch images of 9 from a 1Ds Mk2 that have no problem exceeding anything 4x5 sheet film can achieve. PTools puts those together in less than 15 minutes. 160 images seems way overkill. The largest I've done is a stitch of 24 shots that yielded over 24000 pixels wide....enough for 300 dpi at over 80 inches in width. While not as convenient as a single shot 8x10....it exceeds it in resolution and grain.

I have settled on stitches of 4 images as my norm....yielding about 240 dpi at 36"....which is about as big as I print normally.

[QT Luong]

Since 1DsII is generally thought to be more or less MF, it's no surprise that a two-row stitch would yield LF quality.

Alan, an OT question, but I am curious what set-up do you use to create a 2x4 grid of images ?

[Jack Flesher]

I read it just like Kirk -- Here is what he wrote:

>>I stiched with PTGui but I had lots of mistakes ( especially in the sky) So I made seperate layers ( and this last much longer then creating the complete image ) and put the pacle together in PS. I think my computer worked about 3-4 hours (2,8GHz HT 1GB Ram) Totally this image consists more than 160 shots ( I had to take each image 3-4 times with different exposures and focusing points) From these images I made 45 "perfect" images for stiching Of course in half an hour the sky was chanching a lot which resulted in problems for stiching. For putting the pacle together I needed 2 month<<

Unless a "pacle" is something other than the image, it sure sounds to me like he spent at least a) 1/2 hour capturing b) 160 total frames, then c) selected the best 45, then d) his computer took 3-4 hours to process the 45 images and didn't do a very good job, so e) he then spent 2 months cleaning it all up.

Cheers,