now that's concept! i'll take it! could you gift wrap?
now that's concept! i'll take it! could you gift wrap?
Hmmmm. 40x50 miles. I'm envisioning an aerial image of one of the Hawaiian islands, with the "print" being laid out over a stretch of New Mexico desert. Viewing would be by commercial airline (or, hot air balloon for the "grain snoops").
There is an interesting note about stitching software, located here:http://www.ptgui.com/ where they illustrate the process with a few examples:
jim k
Borges has a story about a country that was mapped at 1:1.
The Blackbirds used to fly with a camera that moved film past a slit in sync with the ground speed. You end up with a negative that is a few inches by a few hundred feet long, and covers the whole flight path of the mission.
There were also the bomb damage assessment cameras flown on more normal planes, which spun a prism in front of a biogon for wide panoramic images on rollfilm.
But digital makes it all so much easier: you don't have to move the sensor, merely read it out. Simplifies things considerably.
At least one photographer makes truly large format images at 1:1. Fabio Sandri does contact prints of the floors of rooms using large rolls of B+W paper, stitching to get the required width. The images are a intriguing mix of light patterns from the lighting, shadows of any objects or furniture in the room, and the texture of the floor modulating the light reflected back through the paper. There's not much online, but a teeny weeeny jpg and a quote from Borges can be seen here:
http://www.kettlesyard.co.uk/exhibit...hive/one1.html
Last edited by Struan Gray; 13-Feb-2007 at 03:15.
Figured you would take a swipe at my question David, which is why I don't put much credence in most of what you say. 30 years of shooting for a living has taught me a few things, and I still don't feel digital is superior to film, even stitched images. The best digital images look cold and without depth to me. But as has been stated by a few, including me, that is my preference.
Dave
like chris stated, it is impossible to tell the difference between the two. my digital prints indistiguishable from the same analogue ones.
why does everything have to boil down to "us" and "them", i happen to like film but i'm not gonna die for it, digital image capture can now clearly blow film out of the water, so what? how are you going to educate your children with this fundamentalist attitude, really is this such a big issue?
My Children are grown and educated, so I don't have to worry about that, and for the most part, I don't understand why people care what someone else believes about digital or film, as I have previously stated, I don't care what someone else shoots, and I sure hope they don't care what I shoot. What I do find interesting though is how everybody keeps saying digital clearly blows film out of the water, then goes off because someone don't agree, both have their place and I use both, but I can tell the difference between them and choose to use film for my critical work, anyway, I don't feel that is a fundamentalist attitude because I feel film is better, if someone feels digital is better that is great...shoot what ya want...
Dave
That is not fundamentalist attitude, but jumping at every mention of digital and making disruptive comments with the only intent to derail or stop the discussion and insulting other people in the process certainly is.
No, it's not you I'm talking about, I pretty much agree with what you are saying although from a different perspective. There are a few on this board and we all know who they are precisely because they are so shrill about it.
First, I would like to note that SLR and DSLR stuff does not really belong here. This website is about LF cameras and not DLSR cameras. However, because you are trying to demonstrate that stitching is an alternative to LF photography with equivalent clarity of image, then it is appropriate.
In summary here is how I would characterize this method based on the discussions noted here and my own knowledge.
1. Stitching is a light weight alternative to LF photography resulting in comparable image clarity.
2. Stitching cannot mimic near-to-far focusing movements of the LF cameras. These types of movements allow the LF photographer to use more optimal aperture settings. Thus, stitching forces the DLSR camera to use less optimal apertures then the LF camera. This will reduce the clarity of image that can be achieved with stitching compared to LF photography.
3. Stitching is very slow because you must take multiple shots to produce a single image. Thus, stitching under conditions when light is changing very fast is most likely not practical. This also applies to conditions with lots of movement in the scene such as clouds or vegetation under windy conditions.
4. Setup time for stitching is slower then normal DLSR photography. Therefore, in general, setup time for both DSLR stitching and the LF camera is more or less the same.
5. If you do not employ near-to-far LF camera movements, then for a subject that is the same size in the final uncropped image, we can say that the DOF will be equivalent for both methods independent of the focal lengths of the lenses used to construct the image. I am basing this observation on the MACRO photography rule that states images with same size subjects will have the same DOF issues no matter if you use 300mm lens or 50mm to construct the image.
6. Because LF cameras can use color or b&w negative film, then the dynamic range of the resulting image will be significantly better.
Have I missed any thing? Are my conclusions and observations correct?
Bookmarks