Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A stunning gallery of digital panorama photos

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:07:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I don't usually do this (in fact I've never done this):
I'm recommending you visit the following gallery:

http://www.charliebrownphotos.com/index.htm

I met Charlie Brown on top of Mount Evans, Colorado
(14,000 feet) on Tuesday. We were photographing bighorn
sheep and mountain goats (best conditions and number of animals
I've seen up there in years). Charlie was shooting with
a canon DSLR (looked like a 10D or 20D) and a 28-135 IS lens.
I was shooting with a 28-135 IS too (yes, the animals were
that close). Charlie explained how he does digital
panoramas. He was doing this with that day (hand held)!
In the conversation we found some of our photos are on display
in the same gallery. His was vertical panoramas in
Antelope Canyon. I thought they were large format images
(prints on the order of 2x6 feet) or 6x17 film panoramas
and stunningly sharp.

Anyway, I went to his gallery above, and am very impressed.
Charlie does very large prints (e.g. 10 feet) of
digital panoramas and sells to corporate buyers.

He uses old stitching software that is no longer available.
What do people think is the top software today?

Roger Clark
http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:28:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
panoramas and sells to corporate buyers.
>
> He uses old stitching software that is no longer available.
> What do people think is the top software today?
>

I use PTGui, it is a lot more work then most of the other programs but
I have not found anything that works better.

This is one of the test photos I did with it of my neighborhood
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/37240858/original

Scott
Related resources
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:23:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for sharing this Roger - I come across very few sites each year
really worth visiting and going back to, but this is worthwhile indeed.

Max Lyons excellent too.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:51:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:07:22 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>I don't usually do this (in fact I've never done this):
>I'm recommending you visit the following gallery:
>
>http://www.charliebrownphotos.com/index.htm
>
>I met Charlie Brown on top of Mount Evans, Colorado
>(14,000 feet) on Tuesday. We were photographing bighorn
>sheep and mountain goats (best conditions and number of animals
>I've seen up there in years). Charlie was shooting with
>a canon DSLR (looked like a 10D or 20D) and a 28-135 IS lens.
>I was shooting with a 28-135 IS too (yes, the animals were
>that close). Charlie explained how he does digital
>panoramas. He was doing this with that day (hand held)!
>In the conversation we found some of our photos are on display
>in the same gallery. His was vertical panoramas in
>Antelope Canyon. I thought they were large format images
>(prints on the order of 2x6 feet) or 6x17 film panoramas
>and stunningly sharp.
>
>Anyway, I went to his gallery above, and am very impressed.
>Charlie does very large prints (e.g. 10 feet) of
>digital panoramas and sells to corporate buyers.
>
>He uses old stitching software that is no longer available.
>What do people think is the top software today?
>
>Roger Clark
>http://www.clarkvision.com

Stunning, indeed! Thank you for the find.

Most likely you've seen the photos, technical stuff, and panorama
software offerings of Max Lyons at www.tawbaware.com, but just in case
you haven't.

He has pretty comprehensive coverage of the topic and more truly
stunning photo work. See Digital D.C. and Digital Arlington... for a
more 'urban' display of panoramic breathtakers.

Cal
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 9:27:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net>,
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>He uses old stitching software that is no longer available.
>What do people think is the top software today?

Panotools is where it's at, but it's akward to use directly. Fortunately,
there are lots of GUI frontends that make it easier. I like Hugin:

http://hugin.sourceforge.net/

Free download, and they have binaries for Linux, Windows and OS X.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 10:40:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net...
>I don't usually do this (in fact I've never done this):
> I'm recommending you visit the following gallery:
>
> http://www.charliebrownphotos.com/index.htm

Thanks! Well worth a visit!
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 1:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert Feinman wrote:
> In article <42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net>, username@qwest.net says...
> > He uses old stitching software that is no longer available.
> > What do people think is the top software today?
> >
> There are lots of programs available. I use panorama factory.
> It does everything pretty automatically but is designed to
> average overlaps which may produce ghosting.
> The most powerful is panorama tools which has the virtue
> of being free. The basic program is hard to use, but the
> gui front ends improve upon this. Most are shareware, however.
> Using this is much more labor intensive since you must manually
> set matching scene points in adjacent frames.
> One of the interesting tradeoffs is the focal length of the lens.
> Many people use a fairly long lens with many overlapping images.
> This produces an easy to stitch image but with limited vertical
> field of view. I use a 12mm lens on 35mm which produces almost
> a 90 degree vertical field of view, but is harder to stitch
> since only six frames are needed to cover 360 degrees.
If I am just grabbing a few photos for a simple panorama I will rotate
the camera to give me a bit more FOV in the vertical direction.
If I need more vertical FOV yet I do two or more rows and stitch them
together, this is just a bit more work then one row.

One very quick way to grab 4 photos for a 2 x 2 array is to pick what
will be in the center of the shot and then photograph that point so
that it shows up in the lower right of the first shot, the lower left
of the second shot, the upper right in the thrid shot and the upper
left in the forth, most of the time this can easily be done hand
holding the camera, some care is needed to try and keep the front of
the lens in about the same spot as you take the photos.

BTW I use PTGui, which is a front end for Panorama Tools.

I am mainly going after a wider angle view when I stitch photos but I
also go after very high resolution photos from time to time.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 1:07:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net>, username@qwest.net says...
> He uses old stitching software that is no longer available.
> What do people think is the top software today?
>
There are lots of programs available. I use panorama factory.
It does everything pretty automatically but is designed to
average overlaps which may produce ghosting.
The most powerful is panorama tools which has the virtue
of being free. The basic program is hard to use, but the
gui front ends improve upon this. Most are shareware, however.
Using this is much more labor intensive since you must manually
set matching scene points in adjacent frames.
One of the interesting tradeoffs is the focal length of the lens.
Many people use a fairly long lens with many overlapping images.
This produces an easy to stitch image but with limited vertical
field of view. I use a 12mm lens on 35mm which produces almost
a 90 degree vertical field of view, but is harder to stitch
since only six frames are needed to cover 360 degrees.

Another site of interest is http://360vr.com/
He uses a fish eye on a digital camera. Three frames gives him
360 degrees spherical view for true interactive images.
Once you start with panoramas you start to see them everywhere.


--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:09:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark wrote:

> He uses old stitching software
> that is no longer available.

Would that be Enroute's Quickstitch,
by any chance?
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 12:17:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:09:37 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Tetractys"
<farga@palenga.jengis> wrote:

>Roger N. Clark wrote:
>
>> He uses old stitching software
>> that is no longer available.
>
>Would that be Enroute's Quickstitch,
>by any chance?

Which IIRC, was just PanaVue's ImageAssembler rebundled. Though it doesn't
matter now, as Enroute and Quickstistch would appear to be history.
http://www.fpvideo.com/bottom3.html

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 7:26:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert Feinman <robert.feinman@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net>, username@qwest.net says...
> > He uses old stitching software that is no longer available. What do
> > people think is the top software today?
>
> There are lots of programs available. I use panorama factory. It does
> everything pretty automatically but is designed to average overlaps which
> may produce ghosting.
> The most powerful is panorama tools which has the virtue of being free.
> The basic program is hard to use, but the gui front ends improve upon
> this. Most are shareware, however. Using this is much more labor intensive
> since you must manually set matching scene points in adjacent frames.

The best front-end for PanoTools is hugin. Most of the distributions
include (or tell you how to get) autopano-sift, another free program
which automates the process of setting control points.

Panorama software is free like beer. :-)
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 11:38:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net...
SNIP
> What do people think is the top software today?

I use the "Panorama tools" plug-ins
(http://www.epaperpress.com/ptplugins/index.html for 16-bit versions)
with PTAssembler (http://www.tawbaware.com/ptasmblr.htm) as a GUI
front-end. PTGui is another front-end for the same plug-ins.

Hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/) has some interesting features,
but it has problems with 1Ds Mark II files (the previews are too big
to fit my PC's memory), maybe the Release candidate 1 behaves better.
It's free and uses the "Panotools" plugins.

There are also several helper programs around to facilitate in the
creation or blending of images.

Bart
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:27:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in message news:42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net...
> SNIP
>
>> What do people think is the top software today?
>
>
> I use the "Panorama tools" plug-ins
> (http://www.epaperpress.com/ptplugins/index.html for 16-bit versions)
> with PTAssembler (http://www.tawbaware.com/ptasmblr.htm) as a GUI
> front-end. PTGui is another front-end for the same plug-ins.
>
> Hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/) has some interesting features, but
> it has problems with 1Ds Mark II files (the previews are too big to fit
> my PC's memory), maybe the Release candidate 1 behaves better. It's free
> and uses the "Panotools" plugins.
>
> There are also several helper programs around to facilitate in the
> creation or blending of images.
>
> Bart

Bart,
Thanks for the info. I am definitely interested in 16-bit tools.
Since I would be doing panoramas with 1D Mark II files, what is
the memory limit you have on your computer?

One more question. Is panorama factory the same as panorama tools?

Roger
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:42:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
[]
> One more question. Is panorama factory the same as panorama tools?
>
> Roger

No.

David
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:59:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42D1D90A.9020304@qwest.net>, username@qwest.net says...
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> >
> > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> > in message news:42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net...
> > SNIP
> >
> >> What do people think is the top software today?
> >
> >
> > I use the "Panorama tools" plug-ins
> > (http://www.epaperpress.com/ptplugins/index.html for 16-bit versions)
> > with PTAssembler (http://www.tawbaware.com/ptasmblr.htm) as a GUI
> > front-end. PTGui is another front-end for the same plug-ins.
> >
> > Hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/) has some interesting features, but
> > it has problems with 1Ds Mark II files (the previews are too big to fit
> > my PC's memory), maybe the Release candidate 1 behaves better. It's free
> > and uses the "Panotools" plugins.
> >
> > There are also several helper programs around to facilitate in the
> > creation or blending of images.
> >
> > Bart
>
> Bart,
> Thanks for the info. I am definitely interested in 16-bit tools.
> Since I would be doing panoramas with 1D Mark II files, what is
> the memory limit you have on your computer?
>
> One more question. Is panorama factory the same as panorama tools?
>
> Roger
>
Panorama factory is shareware available from the site of the same name.
Panorama tools is free and available from several mirror sites. It is
also good for several other things like correcting perspective. Parts of
the package can be used as a photoshop or gimp plugin.
See my tips for uses to correct swinglens camera distortion, for
example.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:28:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42CE889A.2050405@qwest.net>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote:

> I don't usually do this (in fact I've never done this):
> I'm recommending you visit the following gallery:
>
> http://www.charliebrownphotos.com/index.htm
>
> I met Charlie Brown on top of Mount Evans, Colorado
> (14,000 feet) on Tuesday. We were photographing bighorn
> sheep and mountain goats (best conditions and number of animals
> I've seen up there in years). Charlie was shooting with
> a canon DSLR (looked like a 10D or 20D) and a 28-135 IS lens.
> I was shooting with a 28-135 IS too (yes, the animals were
> that close). Charlie explained how he does digital
> panoramas. He was doing this with that day (hand held)!
> In the conversation we found some of our photos are on display
> in the same gallery. His was vertical panoramas in
> Antelope Canyon. I thought they were large format images
> (prints on the order of 2x6 feet) or 6x17 film panoramas
> and stunningly sharp.
>
> Anyway, I went to his gallery above, and am very impressed.
> Charlie does very large prints (e.g. 10 feet) of
> digital panoramas and sells to corporate buyers.
>
> He uses old stitching software that is no longer available.
> What do people think is the top software today?
>
> Roger Clark
> http://www.clarkvision.com

Photoshop CS does a reasonable job if the same exposure is maintained.
Realiviz stitcher works very well too - and you can produce spherical
panoramas too. The software at http://www.panoramafactory.com/ is very
good at exposure compensation and much cheaper than the Realviz.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:41:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:42D1D90A.9020304@qwest.net...
SNIP
> Thanks for the info. I am definitely interested in 16-bit tools.
> Since I would be doing panoramas with 1D Mark II files, what is the
> memory limit you have on your computer?

Just 512MB, and it works fine as it just slows things down for really
huge files, or applications that have poor memory management. Next box
will obviously have more memory, but with prices dropping I'll wait
until it becomes a real problem, and spend my money on lenses that
will last a lot longer than a PC.

EOS-20D files cause no problems, so you should be fine I expect with
your 8MP files as well.

I haven't tried the RC1 version of Hugin yet, maybe the earlier issue
was taken care of. The problem for newcomers with Hugin was that it
assumed prior experience with stitching. Maybe the documentation has
improved by now, but for someone with some knowledge of 3D projections
and optics it is not too difficult I'd imagine.

> One more question. Is panorama factory the same as panorama tools?

No it's something else, the "factory" is much more automated, the
"Tools" are more advanced and tweakable. The Panorama tools (or
actually just a subset) are what you need (they also offer quality
resampling like high order poly, splines, and "sinc1024" with a 32x32
kernel).

Panotools also offers many output file options like Layered Photoshop
files (with or without blending masks), or separate TIFFs if the
project gets out of hand and the total file size exceeds e.g. 32000
pixel boundaries (may be a problem with some output modalities and
some software).

Panotools can also be used to remove perspective- and/or lens
distortion and lateral CA on single images. It's a miracle ;-)

Bart
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:41:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart, Robert, David,
Thanks.
A couple more questions...

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in message news:42D1D90A.9020304@qwest.net...
> SNIP
>
>> Thanks for the info. I am definitely interested in 16-bit tools.
>> Since I would be doing panoramas with 1D Mark II files, what is the
>> memory limit you have on your computer?
> Just 512MB,
I have 2 GB on a 1.8 MHz machine.


>> One more question. Is panorama factory the same as panorama tools?
>
>
> No it's something else, the "factory" is much more automated, the
> "Tools" are more advanced and tweakable. The Panorama tools (or actually
> just a subset) are what you need (they also offer quality resampling
> like high order poly, splines, and "sinc1024" with a 32x32 kernel).
>
> Panotools also offers many output file options like Layered Photoshop
> files (with or without blending masks), or separate TIFFs if the project
> gets out of hand and the total file size exceeds e.g. 32000 pixel
> boundaries (may be a problem with some output modalities and some
> software).
>
> Panotools can also be used to remove perspective- and/or lens distortion
> and lateral CA on single images. It's a miracle ;-)

Is Panotools the only option for 16-bit processing?
I like the layered photoshop file output. Is panotools the
only one that does that?

I have taken many panoramas and mosaics (like 3x4 frames)
waiting to be put together. I've done a few 2-frame mosaics
in photoshop. And I done a fair amount of mosaicing
with scientific data, even writing some of my own code
(but that is for satellites data with longitude and
latitude information).

Roger
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:27:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>He uses old stitching software that is no longer available.

He probably uses Powerstitch, which was the best in it's day.

>What do people think is the top software today?

Panorama Tools is still the best.
There are many good front ends to use with it like PT Assembler, PTgui,
and Hugin. I use PT Assembler.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:25:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:42D27339.8020409@qwest.net...
SNIP
> I have 2 GB on a 1.8 MHz machine.

I forsee no problems, although more MHz is always nice (the stitching
phase will use all the processing power it can get), but then again it
could (and for the final highest quality stitch it probably should)
run unattended during the night.

I just started testing the Hugin RC1, and it did well on my first set
of full size 1Ds Mark II images, so the preview problem may have been
solved (stress testing is next ...). There are IMHO still a few nits
to pick with Hugin, but the project seems well on its way, especially
considering its price (free).

SNIP
> Is Panotools the only option for 16-bit processing?

I'm not sure, but for me there's no real reason to look any further.
Panotools even scales between 16-bit and Photoshop's 15+1 mode, going
from TIFF input to PSD output or from PSD input to TIFF output. There
are also some first extended Depth-of-Field stitching capabilities,
where the best focused parts from several refocused images of the same
stationary subject can be combined into super DOF.

> I like the layered photoshop file output. Is panotools the
> only one that does that?

Not sure either, but it certainly was when I started with stitching
several years ago (most apps only accepted JPEG input then). There are
developments towards fully automatic stitching now with some
interesting blending techniques which may be nice if a large number of
composites with many stitches is needed (like
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html , but JPEG
output only).

> I have taken many panoramas and mosaics (like 3x4 frames)
> waiting to be put together. I've done a few 2-frame mosaics
> in photoshop. And I done a fair amount of mosaicing
> with scientific data, even writing some of my own code
> (but that is for satellites data with longitude and
> latitude information).

You should feel right at home (or at work ;-)) with Panotools.

Hugin could be a nice/free start for GUI, it can take care of a lot of
extra work. The order of filling in the boxes is mostly left to right,
top to bottom. Just remember to press enter after filling in number
boxes, because the entries are not calculated immediately. Also
remember to first set the type of projection on the last tab if you
want 'normal' rectilinear output (like in 3x2 composites). I'm not
sure yet how stable it is (I managed to crash it a few times), so save
your projects intermittently. PTAssembler is a bit more stable so far,
and I don't mind a little more manual work when working on 'small'
projects (3 - 5 image mosaics).

I also like vertical mosaics, unfortunately there are not that many
waterfalls in the Netherlands ;-) , but other subjects can also be
done (like the 2 image vertical stitch of the sailship I used in this
example http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Batavia_Cr...
for a different purpose).

If you need some pointers getting it up and running (e.g. the
preferences need to be edited for the right helper program locations
before you use them), just ask.

Bart
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:25:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> I also like vertical mosaics, unfortunately there are not that many
> waterfalls in the Netherlands ;-) , but other subjects can also be done
> (like the 2 image vertical stitch of the sailship I used in this example
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Batavia_Cr... for a
> different purpose).
>
> If you need some pointers getting it up and running (e.g. the
> preferences need to be edited for the right helper program locations
> before you use them), just ask.
>
> Bart

Bart,
Thanks!
Your images reminded me that I took quite a few panoramas and mosaics
when I was in the Netherlands last year (peak flower time in April).
I have lots of images from Keukenhof and the surrounding regions.
I go to Noordwijk every so often (for work at ESTEC).
Nice job on the ship, especially the R-L image restoration.
Where was the ship located?

Now if I can only find some time....
Sit at the computer or go take more pictures?
Its peak wildflower time here in Colorado...

I'll start learning these new tools soon, after wildflower
season!

Roger
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:29:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42D1D90A.9020304@qwest.net>,
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>>
>> Hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/) has some interesting features, but
>> it has problems with 1Ds Mark II files (the previews are too big to fit
>> my PC's memory), maybe the Release candidate 1 behaves better. It's free
>> and uses the "Panotools" plugins.
>>
>> There are also several helper programs around to facilitate in the
>> creation or blending of images.
>>
>> Bart
>
>Bart,
>Thanks for the info. I am definitely interested in 16-bit tools.
>Since I would be doing panoramas with 1D Mark II files, what is
>the memory limit you have on your computer?

I'm not Bart, but my experience may be relevant. I'm using Hugin on a
PowerMac G4 with 2 gigabytes of RAM and a 10D. In my experience, even with
the 6 megapixel images (I work in 16 bits as well), the process seems to
need at least a gigabyte to avoid swapping on simple panos. The more complex
ones (where the pano is more than a single row of pictures), it occasionally
swaps heavilly even with 2 gigs.

If you're going to do the same with 8 megapixel images, and are serious
about it, then give your machine as much memory as you can throw at it. If
my machine could take more than 2 gigs, I'd give it to it. It'd help with
the MF/LF scans, as well as the panoramas.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:29:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:

> If you're going to do the same with 8 megapixel images, and are serious
> about it, then give your machine as much memory as you can throw at it. If
> my machine could take more than 2 gigs, I'd give it to it. It'd help with
> the MF/LF scans, as well as the panoramas.

Yeah, I need a new machine; one I can put 4 or more GBytes in.
Although isn't XP limited to 4 GB?

Here is a large format stitch I did in photoshop CS:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-...

It is a 2-image mosaic. Unfortunately, the file was
larger than 2 GBytes in 16-bit mode and I didn't know about photoshop's
new file type that goes beyond the 2 GB boundary.
So I completed the work and downgraded to 8-bits/channel
so I could save the 1.6 GByte file.

Roger
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:29:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
>> If you're going to do the same with 8 megapixel images, and are serious
>> about it, then give your machine as much memory as you can throw at
>> it. If
>> my machine could take more than 2 gigs, I'd give it to it. It'd help with
>> the MF/LF scans, as well as the panoramas.
>
>
> Yeah, I need a new machine; one I can put 4 or more GBytes in.
> Although isn't XP limited to 4 GB?
>
> Here is a large format stitch I did in photoshop CS:
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-...
>
>
> It is a 2-image mosaic. Unfortunately, the file was
> larger than 2 GBytes in 16-bit mode and I didn't know about photoshop's
> new file type that goes beyond the 2 GB boundary.
> So I completed the work and downgraded to 8-bits/channel
> so I could save the 1.6 GByte file.
>
Great mountain pano.

Q: Once you've color balanced the images, is there much to be retained
by keeping working in 16 bits?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 11:21:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>> Here is a large format stitch I did in photoshop CS:
>>
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-...
>>
>> It is a 2-image mosaic. Unfortunately, the file was
>> larger than 2 GBytes in 16-bit mode and I didn't know about photoshop's
>> new file type that goes beyond the 2 GB boundary.
>> So I completed the work and downgraded to 8-bits/channel
>> so I could save the 1.6 GByte file.
>>
> Great mountain pano.
>
> Q: Once you've color balanced the images, is there much to be retained
> by keeping working in 16 bits?
>
> --
> John McWilliams

Thanks. If it is a final image, then 8-bits is usually fine.
On some images I have found posterization when I applied
an ICC profile for printing. Sometimes it seems that it is the
ICC profile itself. Some images I have had to prep for
a particular paper and printer by hand, and it is good
to have 16-bits. The above image had no extremes where
16-bit was needed. This image, however did have problems:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-...

Applying ICC profiles did not work well in 8-bit. I had to
do 16-bit processing then convert to 8-bit for printing.

I do large prints on a Lightjet on Fuji Crystal Archive
photographic paper. I'm printed the mountain image at 4-feet
wide, and the flower image at 30 x 40 inches.

Roger
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:24:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > If you're going to do the same with 8 megapixel images, and are serious
> > about it, then give your machine as much memory as you can throw at it.
If
> > my machine could take more than 2 gigs, I'd give it to it. It'd help
with
> > the MF/LF scans, as well as the panoramas.
>
> Yeah, I need a new machine; one I can put 4 or more GBytes in.
> Although isn't XP limited to 4 GB?

A 32-bit OS is limitted to 4 gb or less. Even on systems with PAE that
let you install more than 4 gigabytes in the machine, any one process is
limitted to 4 GB or less. The memory limit on 64-bit systems is higher than
will be even feasable for quite some time.

However, just because you get yourself a fancy 64-bit platform and install
8 gigs of memory doesn't actually mean that Photoshop is going to use it.
Photoshop CS 2 is still a 32-bit application, and as such still has severe
memory limitations: Even on a 64-bit platform, it can only use 3 to 3.7
gigs of memory. On a 32-bit platform, it's 2 or 3 gigs. To read more, see
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/320005.html .

Given that memory size has always been a major factor for photoshop, I'm
surprised (and disappointed) that they didn't take advantage of the 64-bit
architectures that have been around for *years*. If and when they ever
decide to leave the 1990's behind in that regard, I think that the memory
manufacturers will see a temporary increase in the number of 1- and
2-gigabyte DIMMs that they sell...

steve
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 2:37:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:42D32A0F.5030203@qwest.net...
SNIP
> Nice job on the ship, especially the R-L image restoration.
> Where was the ship located?

It's in Lelystad. That ship the "Batavia" (the original one anyway)
has a horrific short history of mutiny, rape, plundering, mass killing
(77 survivors out of 341), after it got ship-wrecked on its maiden
voyage.
http://www.bataviawerf.nl/en/batavia.html

> Now if I can only find some time....
> Sit at the computer or go take more pictures?
> Its peak wildflower time here in Colorado...

Take more pictures (with stitching in mind, which means tripod and
rotation point at the 'nodal point'), the computer won't walk away.

Bart
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 9:35:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:42d42acf$0$24239$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
....
> It's in Lelystad. That ship the "Batavia" (the original one anyway)
> has a horrific short history of mutiny, rape, plundering, mass killing
> (77 survivors out of 341), after it got ship-wrecked on its maiden
> voyage.
> http://www.bataviawerf.nl/en/batavia.html
....

Hey, I visited the "New Batavia" years ago when I was in the Nederlands. }:) 
(I have to admit I guessed it, even before your response.)
Fascinating. The ship was built using the tools and techniques of the 1600's.

Anyway, thanks for the picture and the memories.


--
Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
space)[com]
===============================
"One more sun comes sliding down the sky / One more shadow leans against the wall
The world begins to disappear / The worst things come from inside here
And all the king's men reappear / For an eggman, on and off the wall
Who'll never be together again"
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 1:08:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> writes:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
> wrote in message news:42D32A0F.5030203@qwest.net...
> SNIP
>> Nice job on the ship, especially the R-L image restoration.
>> Where was the ship located?
>
> It's in Lelystad. That ship the "Batavia" (the original one anyway)
> has a horrific short history of mutiny, rape, plundering, mass killing
> (77 survivors out of 341), after it got ship-wrecked on its maiden
> voyage.
> http://www.bataviawerf.nl/en/batavia.html

The relics from the Batavia and the Abrolis Is are in the WA Museum, and
in the Fremantle Maritime Museum. I used to dive on the wreck site as a
school kid.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
!