Gigapixel images go mainstream

[QT Luong]

Here is a new photo-sharing site for gigapixel images:
http://www.gigapan.org/

And here is a $300 automated pano head:
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9785356-39.html

"What if you could do imagery that is so high-resolution that the act of looking at the image is an act of exploration?"

I guess LF photography is becoming quaint when it comes to pure resolution. Now that gigapixel goes mainstream, nobody is going to be impressed by the image detail of a 4x5...

[Greg Lockrey]

See related link http://www.camerafusion.com/?gclid=C...FQlQWAodIDIvTA

200 megapixal only $1850.

[Marko]

Here is a new photo-sharing site for gigapixel images:
http://www.gigapan.org/

And here is a $300 automated pano head:
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9785356-39.html

"What if you could do imagery that is so high-resolution that the act of looking at the image is an act of exploration?"

This is actually modern implementation of a (relatively) old concept. Something similar to the automation already done in the field of optical astronomy, only on a far smaller scale and with far less complexity. Why track it manually if you can automate it?

A $300 robot that automates what most manual pano heads do for around $200, and probably does it with more precision and in less time. If it works as advertised, that would be a literal case of proper implementation of technology to automate repetitive mechanical actions in order to save time and increase accuracy.

And the idea of exploring the image rather than simply observing the image is also rather neat, provided that it does not get thrashed in the process by mass misuse.

I guess LF photography is becoming quaint when it comes to pure resolution. Now that gigapixel goes mainstream, nobody is going to be impressed by the image detail of a 4x5...

But isn't the main purpose and main strength of LF photography primarily the concept of controlling perspective, DOF and other creative parameters of the image? Resolution alone is more of a side benefit, IMHO, and dare I say not the main reason for at least some practitioners.

Not to mention the price difference between the $600-$1000 needed to create gigapxl images with the new gizmo vs. at least a few $ thousand for the LF camera, tripod and that ultra-wide LF lens...

But the bottom line is - it is probably not going to displace professional/skilled practitioners doing things the old fashioned (hard) way. And it if does, well, then the pros will jump ship themselves just as they did with 35mm and digital. And they will still remain at the top of the game simply because they are the pros and this is only another tool, sophisticated for sure, but with no mind of its own.

[Jiri Vasina]

....
Not to mention the price difference between the $600-$1000 needed to create gigapxl images with the new gizmo vs. at least a few $ thousand for the LF camera, tripod and that ultra-wide LF lens...

That is a matter of debate, what is actually cheaper. If buying a good digital camera + this $300 gizmo, all of which rely heavily on battery power (and as anything precision electronic is prone to failure). Or buying a second hand LF camera for a couple hundreds $ (or even a new one like Chamonix/Tachi/Shen-Hao for just a little more than $600). The same for lens.

So I would not try to compare the price side of either one. It's not easily comparable.

In the end what's important is how much you enjoy taking the photo (much more with LF for me ), how much time do you like to spend preparing the final photo on computer or in darkroom and how you enjoy that time spent there.

On the other hand, if you only care for the result, what you get paid for, how fast you get the result, the equation might different.

[paulr]

But the bottom line is - it is probably not going to displace professional/skilled practitioners doing things the old fashioned (hard) way.

maybe. it sounds to me like something with a pretty unique set of strenghts and weaknesses that will appeal strongly to some and not others. Chris Jordan switched from 8x10 to stiched dslr images because it better suited the work he was doing. someone who isn't printing murals, but who needs movements, probably wouldn't have made the same move.

i also wouldn't assume that using the new technology well is going to be easy. or that if is, there's anything negative about that! i'm all for easier to use tools. but one of the reasons i use old film cameras is that currently, for my brain, their easier to use than the computerized alternatives. that could certainly change one day.

[Marko]

That is a matter of debate, what is actually cheaper. If buying a good digital camera + this $300 gizmo, all of which rely heavily on battery power (and as anything precision electronic is prone to failure). Or buying a second hand LF camera for a couple hundreds $ (or even a new one like Chamonix/Tachi/Shen-Hao for just a little more than $600). The same for lens.

So I would not try to compare the price side of either one. It's not easily comparable.

Price is one of the inevitable aspects in any comparison of two technologies. And it is, IMO, the easiest aspect to compare because it is all about numbers. In order to keep it apples-to-apples is to use new everything. Another, and very important, economy aspect of any digital vs. film comparison is the price of media and processing, not to mention space requirements (darkroom vs. a desk) or darkroom equipment vs. computer.

Price is exactly what drove everybody, amateur and professional alike, to switch to digital in 35mm. Or to be more precise, price/quality angle of it. The same thing is currently happening in MF, with the exception that this is almost entirely professional area and given the prices, the transition is happening slower but is still happening.

For someone interested in high-detail, high-res images or simply panoramas, and there are quite a few people like that, as well as those whose main interest is precisely technical experimentation and pushing the boundaries for its own sake, the choice ultimately comes down to price and logistics of it all.

In the end what's important is how much you enjoy taking the photo (much more with LF for me ), how much time do you like to spend preparing the final photo on computer or in darkroom and how you enjoy that time spent there.

On the other hand, if you only care for the result, what you get paid for, how fast you get the result, the equation might different.

You make it sound as if nobody could possibly enjoy taking and processing a photo digitally. But it is all about one's interests and comfort level with different technologies, and yes, the affordability of it all. As someone who's done both digital and traditional, I prefer digital for many reasons, not the least among them the fact I use computers and Photoshop professionally and am therefore much more comfortable with it than in the wet darkroom. I find computer processing more efficient, more precise, more capable and therefore more enjoyable than wet darkroom, but that's just me (and others like me) - for those like yourself and many others on this board it, is exactly the opposite. In other words, it is not a "pick one" but rather a "pick all that apply" type of choice.

And that is a good thing, because each of us can pick the technology that suits him/her the best from any angle, the end result being not the only consideration, but just one of many.

[Marko]

maybe. it sounds to me like something with a pretty unique set of strenghts and weaknesses that will appeal strongly to some and not others. Chris Jordan switched from 8x10 to stiched dslr images because it better suited the work he was doing. someone who isn't printing murals, but who needs movements, probably wouldn't have made the same move.

Precisely my point. Chris is a perfect example on one end of it and for me, Jim Galli would be equally perfect example of the other end.

Bottom line is - it seems to be a very specialized but also very promising new tool for those who are already interested in that sort of work.

i also wouldn't assume that using the new technology well is going to be easy. or that if is, there's anything negative about that! i'm all for easier to use tools. but one of the reasons i use old film cameras is that currently, for my brain, their easier to use than the computerized alternatives. that could certainly change one day.

Of course, no technology is easy to use out of the box. Those who claim that processing digital is easy either never used Photoshop or have forgotten how steep its learning curve was. Or to put it differently, every technology is easy once you master it. The trick is getting there.

For some people, true enjoyment lies in familiarity, for others it is in exploration and learning new things. The times we live in seem to favour the latter.

[Ted Harris]

Greg, the CameraFusion folks were at the View Camera Conference in Louisville and, before that, they stopped by my studio for an afternoon to do a demo. I was impressed with the system and think it could offer an alternative. We did some 16x20 enlargements from macro shots of jewlery and they were very nice. Unfortunately, the test ended up being an oranges to tangerines comparison (almost the same but not quite) so I want to reserve judgement until I can do a rigerous one-to-one comparison against 4x5. In the test we did the camerafusion images were slightly less sharp than the 4x5 images and lost some shadow detail but again ... it wasn't a true one-to-one comparison. Your post reminded me to call them and I did. If I get the equipment back here again I will do a true one-to-one.

[Daniel_Buck]

I do alot of stitching with my digital equipment (at work I use a manual panorama setup, but at home I just use a tripod). Stitching now days is quite good, you can stitch shots taken with different lenses, and heck even different cameras, and even hand held stuff that doesn't have much regard for parallax. Some folks are turning the stitching into an 'art' (like this gigapixel stuff), but personally I just use it when ever I need it, and only stitch as much as I need. If I only need a little bit more resolution, or a little bit wider angle of view, I'll use the same lens (or slightly longer) and stitch a 2x2 or 3x3 grid of images. If I need alot of resolution for a large print with a lot of detail, I'll bring out a longer lens and stitch a 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 or larger grid. They print very nice! I have 60" prints that you can walk right up to and they look as sharp as a 4x6" print! Not bad for digital :-)

[paulr]

i'm interested in this whole concept after reading a bit about it. it's a long way off from having any practical application for me (i don't even own a dslr) but thinking about it gets some wheels turning.

what's the state of shift/tilt lenses for dslrs these days? seems like if you had a shift lens with enough coverage, you could do another round of exposures with the panorama upwards, without tilting the focal plane ... could be useful in urban/mountainous places.