It's gonna be a great couple of days with the weather should come clouds.
I went up with Ivar and Schmoo for attempt #7 (?). Thanks to Ian for lending me his 1Ds MKIII while I wait impatiently for my 5D MKII...
Based on the feedback I got from the morning light shots last time, I really wanted to shoot from 5ish-6ish am, but just in case the fog was rolling in fast and furious, we went up around 10.
I started in the upper right of this pano because the fog was already coming in on the buildings and worked as quickly as I could to the left, shooting the upper row. I was watching Coit Tower to the right disappear in the fog, so I stopped going left where the bridge connects to land and shot the lower row heading back to the right. You can see how much foggier it was by the time I got to the right, and how AutoPano Pro wasn't able to blend well at all.
Then I shot the bridge, and the fog was really coming in. By the time I finished, the city disappeared and we had to go home.
Fog season ends August 30th, doncha know.
7 attempts and no printable pano yet. :cry If I had shot it one row with a 400 instead of two with a 600, this pano would have looked a heckuva lot better.
7 attempts and no printable pano yet. :cry If I had shot it one row with a 400 instead of two with a 600, this pano would have looked a heckuva lot better.
While I'm sure it's frustrating that you haven't captured "the One" you want, I am having a blast seeing each different iteration you come up with on each attempt
Last night I saw a few photographers on the tower and I hoped it was you. Last night around midnight would of been perfect. The half crescent moon dipped down close to the top of the sky scrappers and the night was clear with a touch of fog in the background.
For the life of me I can not figure out where you found an opening without trees blocking you from this vantage point. Good luck with this project of yours. The shot will be incredible if it even comes close to your vision.
I make it policy to never let ignorance stand in the way of my opinion. ~Justiceiro
"Your decisions on whether to buy, when to buy and what to buy should depend on careful consideration of your needs primarily, with a little of your wants thrown in for enjoyment, After all photography is a hobby, even for pros." ~Herbert Keppler
I didn't get too many shots, actually, but I got this one:
Not as sharp as you would probably need it, but I was happy with my first real pano
Hey Ivar, could you please post a sample of actual pixels. I would love to see how sharp you did get it. I would also like to know what lens you used and camera body. PLeasebow
I have tried a few panos from a different angle to the city. I was on a dock and the movement of the dock just killed any hopes of clarity when printed in large format.
Hey Ivar, could you please post a sample of actual pixels. I would love to see how sharp you did get it. I would also like to know what lens you used and camera body. PLeasebow
I have tried a few panos from a different angle to the city. I was on a dock and the movement of the dock just killed any hopes of clarity when printed in large format.
Hi Ivar. Interesting work. I particularly like the way the 'clouds' worked out. Questions though: 100% of what? Is this one complete frame from the pano, or a detail from one frame? Is it an 'S' lens?
So will there be a field trip for this task during the DGrin 5th party?
In!
Ivar, nice shot. This business of making it pixel-peeper-proof at 72x700 kinda sucks. :cry
Daniel, really nice angle. Where were you?
My 5D MKII arrives Friday morning, so I'm gonna start making more attempts. Here's a question of major import: If I shoot 1 row with a 400mm I get 5632 vertical pixels in 72 inches = 78 dpi.
If I shoot two rows, I get maybe 8,500 pixels = 120 dpi.
How much difference do you think that makes in the final print? Reason I ask is if there are clouds and fog, shooting two rows is gonna be really tough, as I found out. It takes so long. And the mount gets more wobbly. And the lens gets tougher to stabilize.
If I shoot with a 400, the head only needs to move in 1 dimension so I can choose a really stable mount. If there is fog or clouds, I can shoot fast enough to get the shot.
If the night is clear, I can do the darkness to daylight thing by shooting the shot 5 times, making layers in photoshop and blending them horizontally. I can't do it that way with the 600 and two rows. With the 600, I have to start shooting dark frames and end with light frames and blend 180 frames smoothly as the light changes.
If there are clouds and fog, do you really need 180 pixels per inch in your original image?
You can uprez 78 ppi to ~ 160 with one of the programs like Genuine Fractals can't you? Your 78 ppi figure is original pixels straight from the camera. You can uprezz that in ACR substantially, and choose to output your jpgs into Photoshop at 300 ppi or whatever figure you need. Uprezzing does not really increase resolution though.
I have an image straight from a 5D ( nose art from a B17), that I uprezzed in ACR to the largest choice at 300 ppi. In Photoshop I changed that setting to 78 ppi ( without interpolation ), and achieved an image size of ~60 inches and printed a small portion of the 78 ppi image at 1440 dpi on my Epson 3800. It is essentially grainless, and probably as sharp as the real nose art was in real life.
Shoot a frame ( portrait mode ) with your new camera, try uprezzing that single frame in ACR, then open in Photoshop at 300 or more ppi and change the image dimension in Photoshop to 72 inches vertically at 78 ppi ( without interpolation), and print a small 8x10 inch portion of the image, and see what it looks like. If it looks fine at an 8x10 inch viewing distance, then it should be spectacular as a vastly larger pano, shouldn't it?
Happy Thanksgiving, Chris!
The maximum pixel size in CS4 these days is 300,000 by 300,000 isn't it?
For a dye sublimation printer, you may want the image resolution to match the printer fairly closely according to this document about half way down the page.
You should ask your engineer friends to jury-rig something that allows you to stack two cameras so you can shoot two rows at once on the same focal point.
You should ask your engineer friends to jury-rig something that allows you to stack two cameras so you can shoot two rows at once on the same focal point.
I'm glad I finished reading to the end before replying as that's EXACTLY what I was going to write!
Honestly it shouldn't be that hard to do - some CNC machine should be able to cut something out of a relatively lightweight but strong metal
Or get one of those RED Epic 617 cameras with 261MP
...Or get one of those RED Epic 617 cameras with 261MP
That's what you want, Baldy!! The sensor is 186 x 56 mm!!:ivar
X www.thepicturetaker.ca
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited November 27, 2008
Hahaha. Sam and I were kicking around the plate idea last night. I will actually have two 5D MKIIs tomorrow, and can rent a second 600mm lens. It will still take longer to shoot the pano than with a 400 because each strip is narrower, but man it would be a lot easier than moving the camera up and down each frame.
If you plan on doing a lot of these extremely detailed, stitched images, the PixOrb controlled head has an awful lot of advantages and might speed up the operation as well:
If you plan on doing a lot of these extremely detailed, stitched images, the PixOrb controlled head has an awful lot of advantages and might speed up the operation as well:
I make it policy to never let ignorance stand in the way of my opinion. ~Justiceiro
"Your decisions on whether to buy, when to buy and what to buy should depend on careful consideration of your needs primarily, with a little of your wants thrown in for enjoyment, After all photography is a hobby, even for pros." ~Herbert Keppler
Cool looking head Ziggy, but, to me at least, it does not look up to doing that with a 600mm lens or even a 400mm lens I suspect.
Agreed. And given it's held together w/nut plates, I'm guessing it will be difficult to keep stable. If you really wanted to, I bet that a Celestron fork mount (with the auto drive) could be made to work as well.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
The PixOrb head was used in the production of the "Yosemite Extreme Panoramic Imaging Project" which currently consists of 45 gigapixels worth of imagery.
It might be worth some more investigation and it may be available as a rental.
Other NC stages and heads are available for the motion picture industry, for example, but I believe many of those run quite a bit more money.
It would also be possible to construct something and I have constructed up to a 3 axis robotic arm myself. (It ran off of a Commodore VIC computer and custom software. The "User Port" of those computers are similar to a serial port except that it is 0 and +5 volts. That interfaced easily to SCRs and TRIACs to control the motors.)
Part of the solution to handling heavy lenses is an appropriate counterbalance. Usually the bearings and gears are capable of handling a balanced load.
Baldy and I went to SF tonight and shot. The weather was perfect, great sky color, etc etc. I think there should be some awesome pixels for Baldy to peep
I shot with a 300 and baldy shot with a 400.
here's some 100% detail from the camera jpg ... that's pretty darn sharp for 1.8 miles away :uhoh
This was the scene (taken with a 24-105 @ roughly 35mm)
Baldy and I went to SF tonight and shot. The weather was perfect, great sky color, etc etc. I think there should be some awesome pixels for Baldy to peep
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Comments
It has been great, but I have noticed the clouds/fog rolling in during the late afternoon
Unfortunately for the vast majority of the next three days I will be inside of the Moscone Center.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Based on the feedback I got from the morning light shots last time, I really wanted to shoot from 5ish-6ish am, but just in case the fog was rolling in fast and furious, we went up around 10.
I started in the upper right of this pano because the fog was already coming in on the buildings and worked as quickly as I could to the left, shooting the upper row. I was watching Coit Tower to the right disappear in the fog, so I stopped going left where the bridge connects to land and shot the lower row heading back to the right. You can see how much foggier it was by the time I got to the right, and how AutoPano Pro wasn't able to blend well at all.
Then I shot the bridge, and the fog was really coming in. By the time I finished, the city disappeared and we had to go home.
Fog season ends August 30th, doncha know.
7 attempts and no printable pano yet. :cry If I had shot it one row with a 400 instead of two with a 600, this pano would have looked a heckuva lot better.
While I'm sure it's frustrating that you haven't captured "the One" you want, I am having a blast seeing each different iteration you come up with on each attempt
Sign up for a SmugMug account and save!
For the life of me I can not figure out where you found an opening without trees blocking you from this vantage point.
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
Holy cow you can see what's on the TV. Is that sportscenter?<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif" border="0" alt="" >
"Your decisions on whether to buy, when to buy and what to buy should depend on careful consideration of your needs primarily, with a little of your wants thrown in for enjoyment, After all photography is a hobby, even for pros."
~Herbert Keppler
I didn't get too many shots, actually, but I got this one:
Not as sharp as you would probably need it, but I was happy with my first real pano
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Hey Ivar, could you please post a sample of actual pixels. I would love to see how sharp you did get it. I would also like to know what lens you used and camera body. PLease
I have tried a few panos from a different angle to the city. I was on a dock and the movement of the dock just killed any hopes of clarity when printed in large format.
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
100%:
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Ivar, nice shot. This business of making it pixel-peeper-proof at 72x700 kinda sucks. :cry
Daniel, really nice angle. Where were you?
My 5D MKII arrives Friday morning, so I'm gonna start making more attempts. Here's a question of major import: If I shoot 1 row with a 400mm I get 5632 vertical pixels in 72 inches = 78 dpi.
If I shoot two rows, I get maybe 8,500 pixels = 120 dpi.
How much difference do you think that makes in the final print? Reason I ask is if there are clouds and fog, shooting two rows is gonna be really tough, as I found out. It takes so long. And the mount gets more wobbly. And the lens gets tougher to stabilize.
If I shoot with a 400, the head only needs to move in 1 dimension so I can choose a really stable mount. If there is fog or clouds, I can shoot fast enough to get the shot.
If the night is clear, I can do the darkness to daylight thing by shooting the shot 5 times, making layers in photoshop and blending them horizontally. I can't do it that way with the 600 and two rows. With the 600, I have to start shooting dark frames and end with light frames and blend 180 frames smoothly as the light changes.
You can uprez 78 ppi to ~ 160 with one of the programs like Genuine Fractals can't you? Your 78 ppi figure is original pixels straight from the camera. You can uprezz that in ACR substantially, and choose to output your jpgs into Photoshop at 300 ppi or whatever figure you need. Uprezzing does not really increase resolution though.
I have an image straight from a 5D ( nose art from a B17), that I uprezzed in ACR to the largest choice at 300 ppi. In Photoshop I changed that setting to 78 ppi ( without interpolation ), and achieved an image size of ~60 inches and printed a small portion of the 78 ppi image at 1440 dpi on my Epson 3800. It is essentially grainless, and probably as sharp as the real nose art was in real life.
Shoot a frame ( portrait mode ) with your new camera, try uprezzing that single frame in ACR, then open in Photoshop at 300 or more ppi and change the image dimension in Photoshop to 72 inches vertically at 78 ppi ( without interpolation), and print a small 8x10 inch portion of the image, and see what it looks like. If it looks fine at an 8x10 inch viewing distance, then it should be spectacular as a vastly larger pano, shouldn't it?
Happy Thanksgiving, Chris!
The maximum pixel size in CS4 these days is 300,000 by 300,000 isn't it?
For a dye sublimation printer, you may want the image resolution to match the printer fairly closely according to this document about half way down the page.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I'm glad I finished reading to the end before replying as that's EXACTLY what I was going to write!
Honestly it shouldn't be that hard to do - some CNC machine should be able to cut something out of a relatively lightweight but strong metal
Or get one of those RED Epic 617 cameras with 261MP
Cheers, Jase
Jase // www.stonesque.com
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Pathfinder: I'll give that a shot too.
If you plan on doing a lot of these extremely detailed, stitched images, the PixOrb controlled head has an awful lot of advantages and might speed up the operation as well:
http://www.peaceriverstudios.com/pixorb/index.html
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
$12K head?
"Your decisions on whether to buy, when to buy and what to buy should depend on careful consideration of your needs primarily, with a little of your wants thrown in for enjoyment, After all photography is a hobby, even for pros."
~Herbert Keppler
http://www.xrez.com/yose_proj/Yose_result.html
It might be worth some more investigation and it may be available as a rental.
Other NC stages and heads are available for the motion picture industry, for example, but I believe many of those run quite a bit more money.
It would also be possible to construct something and I have constructed up to a 3 axis robotic arm myself. (It ran off of a Commodore VIC computer and custom software. The "User Port" of those computers are similar to a serial port except that it is 0 and +5 volts. That interfaced easily to SCRs and TRIACs to control the motors.)
Part of the solution to handling heavy lenses is an appropriate counterbalance. Usually the bearings and gears are capable of handling a balanced load.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
When I got there the visibility was 10 feet. What bridge? I couldn't even see water, just a raccoon who wanted me to feed him. :cry
So where are the raccoon photos
Jase // www.stonesque.com
Two weeks ago I was photographing the skyline and I saw that raccoon! I didn't know it was that tame that it was begging for food.
The fog this morning caught me by surprise too. I was planning to go out and photograph the moon and planets. Sigh....
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
I shot with a 300 and baldy shot with a 400.
here's some 100% detail from the camera jpg ... that's pretty darn sharp for 1.8 miles away :uhoh
This was the scene (taken with a 24-105 @ roughly 35mm)
Can't wait to process these!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter