Toothwalker wrote:
Nice panos man, but the quality of web presentation is not ideal.
Quality? Whats up with the quality? These are sharp and clear... Or do you mean you want to see them bigger? They are resized from Huge files, I step down gradually when scaling down from such large files to reduce quality loss... I can post bigger, but (especially the Bud pano) will run well off the page....
Nathan67 wrote:
Quality? Whats up with the quality? These are sharp and clear... Or do you mean you want to see them bigger? They are resized from Huge files, I step down gradually when scaling down from such large files to reduce quality loss... I can post bigger, but (especially the Bud pano) will run well off the page....
You can make it clickable using [ url= link to big image ] [ img ] link to small image [ /img ] [ /url ] (without the spaces of course).
Nathan67 wrote:
Quality? Whats up with the quality? These are sharp and clear... Or do you mean you want to see them bigger? They are resized from Huge files, I step down gradually when scaling down from such large files to reduce quality loss... I can post bigger, but (especially the Bud pano) will run well off the page....
things look very jpegy to me too, like they are overly compressed.
Nathan67 wrote:
Quality? Whats up with the quality? These are sharp and clear... Or do you mean you want to see them bigger? They are resized from Huge files, I step down gradually when scaling down from such large files to reduce quality loss... I can post bigger, but (especially the Bud pano) will run well off the page....
Well, they don't look fine to me and if you would have written cell phone instead of Hasselblad H4D-40, I would have believed it. I don't know whether it's the jpeg compression, downscale artifacts, or something else that causes the problem.
Toothwalker wrote:
Well, they don't look fine to me and if you would have written cell phone instead of Hasselblad H4D-40, I would have believed it. I don't know whether it's the jpeg compression, downscale artifacts, or something else that causes the problem.
That "look" of landscape images on the web is not uncommon. There have been several poeple who presented them proudly in the past, and received comments on how sharp and detailed they are. I never liked that look, it seems grainy/gritty in the foilage, and I often wondered what makes it. The file size of the images suggest that there should not be a problem with compression. I can replicate a similar look by oversharpening, and am now quite certain that it is related to the combination of downsacling and sharpening methods. I am not surprised that the poster doesn't see the problem, as it seems to represent an ideal that used to be accepted on web landscape fora for some time.
Well I can see plenty of images on this thread with visible artefacts, both stitching and compression, jaggies on diagonals are prevalent... Am I rude? No, do I suggest the poster used a mobile camera? No...
The black and white file has added grain, at full size it looks wonderful, but when down sized I can see it's not as attractive... The mirrored mountains was razor sharp straight out of camera , it was a clear day with no haze, maybe I should just have posted the downsized file with no extra sharpening....
The long thin Bud pano, well it's so long that the height suffers, but really, downright rudeness is not needed... Constructive crit I can handle, but stupid arse comments?
Enough said, it's been a few years since I have posted regularly here... Too much work, and if the forum is like this, well I got better things to do.
Nathan67 wrote:
Well I can see plenty of images on this thread with visible artefacts, both stitching and compression, jaggies on diagonals are prevalent... .
The most common sharpening paradigm around here always gives jaggies on diagonals. It is an unavoidable artifact if we want to be able to present the finest detail. I clearly see this as a conflict in preference, not in skills.
It would be interesting to see the results of your resize/sharpening method on this panel:
Yes, but MY point was that I accept that these are web images.. I dont start spouting on about it... my point was not about jaggies, but the fact that I accept them as part of web presentation of downsized images...
Stupid comments about telephones help no-one. I have not stated that my downsize routine is superior, so I dont feel the need to defend anything. I simply presented 3 web images to show on this thread, now if someone has a great method to downsize from 338 megapixels to web size I AM ALL EARS. Always good to learn new stuff, as a photographer I feel that one is never fully done with learning, thats why I love my job... but instead of comments about mobiles, what about saying.. oh your pano seems to have suffered in downsizing, have you tried "x" method...
The original comment was unclear as to what the problem was... I said I couldnt see the problem... well now you have explained I can see the perceived problem...
Now I gotta run, baby to photograph.
Nathan67 wrote:
Well I can see plenty of images on this thread with visible artefacts, both stitching and compression, jaggies on diagonals are prevalent... Am I rude? No, do I suggest the poster used a mobile camera? No...
The long thin Bud pano, well it's so long that the height suffers, but really, downright rudeness is not needed... Constructive crit I can handle, but stupid arse comments?
I didn't mean to be rude, it was just an observation. Many pictures posted in this forum bear little evidence of being taken with expensive equipment, the small size being a major factor. That includes my own images. And don't underestimate mobile phones.
Nathan -- Very nice panos, thanks for posting them.
Yes, I see the "over-sharpened" look, and they do look a bit "gritty". I battle this same effect, and think I've gotten a bit better at remedying it.
As alundeb says, I think it is a combination of factors, not the least of which is the processing or image handling of the various web functionaries, such as Photobucket, Flickr, and even the FM site. I ran into this head on in the "film" thread here in Alt, using 6x7 neg scans. I improved the look by choosing "low" in "sharpening for the screen" in exporting from LR. I usually use "high", and for those scans, it seems like a problem with gritty details like leaves and branches -- basically high contrast areas.
I hope you don't abandon your presentation because a of a few remarks. I think most are intended as helpful, not spiteful criticisms.
Anyway, I'd love to see more of you landscape panos.
Nathan67 wrote:
Aplology accepted Maybe I didnt have enough coffee this morning...
Now as I said, if you have a "secret recipe" for downsizing huge files with minimal quality loss I am all ears
I would do what I describe in the thread that alundeb refers to. That is, downscale the image in one step with a suitable kernel such as lanczos3 and apply a single sharpening step at the end. However, this method is not available in most photo editors. Further I would need to buy a new system with sufficient memory to handle such large originals.
Thanks, will have to look at that when I get the time... As far as hardware goes I am running my trusty soon 4 year old Mac pro, it has had the graphics card upgraded twice on its lifetime and currently has ssd drive for the system and 24 gigs of ram... And it chomps through such large files in no time....
Ok... I totally forgot but Graphic Converter on the mac has lanczos3 as an option.. funny but since moving to lightroom I just plain forgot about it.... (and my main line of work is portraits and commercial stuff that is delivered to clients either as print or high rez files...)
Any how I just tried the lanczos3 in GC and applied a little usm at the end... I think it looks better.. but what you think?
Both look better, but the second one still has some weird artifacts around the left mountain. Was it sharpened too much in the original? Or maybe there was too much USM applied?
The original was not sharpened, the hasselblad files are not like dlsr files... comnpared to my canon files they need a whole lot less... and this was sharp as.... to be honest I am not seeing the "wierd artifacts" usm applied here was minimal...
What radius did you use for the USM? Most prefer 0.2 pixels and around 100-150%. Larger radius gives sharpening halos very fast, even with moderate amount (not that I find it objectionable in your images)
much nicer looking (to my eye). i do see stair steps on the mountains, but that is impossible to avoid on high contrast diagonal transitions with digital since the pixels form a stair step pattern themselves. no offence intended in my original comment, i just though their might have been some scaling issue from your intended file size to what i was seeing.
These are sharp and clear... Or do you mean you want to see them bigger? They are resized from Huge files, I step down gradually when scaling down from such large files to reduce quality loss... I can post bigger, but (especially the Bud pano) will run well off the page.... 
