This is the largest photo I have ever created. 65 megapixels, stitched from a total of 30 images, shot with a D1x. I guess I have to agree that the extra resoltuion does show even when downsampled, but I'm including a 100% crop for reference.
your skills with the lowly 35mm are boundless Mark, I can't believe what you get out of the D1x or the creative ways you employ to push this technology,
incredible is the only word that comes close to expressing the job you have done here bud
Stunning - how big are you going to print it?? :-)
(I have trouble just stitching two or three frames ... normally I just end up taking the photos and they sit and wait ad infinitum on my disk for me to get the proverbial Round Tuit).
It took me about 90 minutes to create this image, including a 40 minute render for the pano. It is about 300 dpi at 24"x28" so I am going to make a big print on my plotter.
Files this large make me feel like it is 5 years ago in terms of processing speed & memory limitations. Also this image is notable for being equivalent to a 3000 dpi scan of a medium format (6cmx7cm) transparency.
Jun 01, 2003 at 12:19 AM
John Smeets Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Well, here it is, the culmination of everything I've been blabbing about...sperical pano bracket, 50mm f1.8, Nikon Capture RAW render. The file is so detailed that a 24"x28" print has more detial than a 6 MP DSLR 8"x10" print! I'm going to do a few more of these, probably of Atlantic City Casions, and then use posters as part of my marketing! Finally something worth printng on my plotter, after all there years.
yeah but the 14mm paid it's dues and you really learned how to get these types of shots done, I bet even 2 years ago you would have had a hard time getting this just right, now just make a rig that will control the XYZ axis and press the shutter release, and apply the "correction" for the lens to every shot in the grid and your work is half done!
I felt the slap on the side of the head with the 6mp 8x10 comment!
Just kidding
Mark, I have an old hard drive that is partly littered with 88 megapixel scans of 6x7cm negs at 4000 ppi. 8400x10,500 pixels, some even layered in PS, so the files are around half a GB! No DVDs then, and slow processing. There is no advantage that shows on screen, and even prints have to be huge to justify the resolution, but I was used to the difference in optical prints from medium format negs compared to 35mm, and it took me a while to convince myself that lower res scans were practical. Finding that a 3 MP DSLR could make nice 8x10 prints helped to show me.
I know I'm off your topic...nice work stitching, and a nice graphic image. When the colors and textures are this uniform, it ends up looking on screen like the kind of cartoon that Guy Billout used to draw for the Atlantic Monthly!
Aliasing of diagonal lines always bothers me, unless I can view things on an ultra high resolution screen (which my laptop has). When monitors approach 300 ppi, we'll finally have an end to the difference between web and print presentation!
You are right- the aliasing is terrible. Here is the photo with no sharpening, downsampled in Photoshop. For the record I tried using Genuine Fractals to downsample & it produced aliasing artifacts, as did Qimage Pro. I think this looks very good.
