59 frames from an 8MP camera were used to mimic a drum scanned transparency:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo...ics/index.html
59 frames from an 8MP camera were used to mimic a drum scanned transparency:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo...ics/index.html
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.
Michael E. Gordon
http://www.michael-gordon.com
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.
Last edited by QT Luong; 10-Oct-2006 at 15:36.
And he got God to make the wind stop blowing.
Too bad he couldn't get God to remove the jet contrail from the sky.
Brian Vuillemenot
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.
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
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.
Michael E. Gordon
http://www.michael-gordon.com
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.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
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.
Bookmarks