Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners

Scott W wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> DaveX wrote:
>>>
>>> I actually typed up a solution to the problem last night. Even providing
>>> examples of how it is done and how I have done it many times in the
>>> past. The
>>> reply is still sitting in my "drafts" folder. But at the very moment
>>> before
>>> hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back
>>> and watch the
>>> advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little
>>> to no
>>> brains.
>>
>> I would welcome your comment on my suggestion in this thread.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> I Have used your method, no real limit on resolution and very cheap.
> Just not good if you need large throughput.

Agreed. I just did a trial run, and took around 2 hours, start to finish.

OTOH, I did achieve a 300 DPI image over 20x30", for close
to zero expenditure.

And next to should be quicker, since a good deal
of time was spent learning what worked; there
would be less "blind alleys" on the second run.

Care to swap notes, assuming you did a lot of this?

(and, yeah, DaveX has gone real quiet)

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:28:46 +0000, bugbear <bugbear RemoveThis @trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
wrote:

>Scott W wrote:
>> bugbear wrote:
>>> DaveX wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I actually typed up a solution to the problem last night. Even providing
>>>> examples of how it is done and how I have done it many times in the
>>>> past. The
>>>> reply is still sitting in my "drafts" folder. But at the very moment
>>>> before
>>>> hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back
>>>> and watch the
>>>> advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little
>>>> to no
>>>> brains.
>>>
>>> I would welcome your comment on my suggestion in this thread.
>>>
>>> BugBear
>>
>> I Have used your method, no real limit on resolution and very cheap.
>> Just not good if you need large throughput.
>
>Agreed. I just did a trial run, and took around 2 hours, start to finish.
>
>OTOH, I did achieve a 300 DPI image over 20x30", for close
>to zero expenditure.
>
>And next to should be quicker, since a good deal
>of time was spent learning what worked; there
>would be less "blind alleys" on the second run.
>
>Care to swap notes, assuming you did a lot of this?
>
>(and, yeah, DaveX has gone real quiet)
>
> BugBear

Now why would anyone want to hand a simple and inexpensive answer to a wealthy
idiot and total fool for free? They get what they pay for, right? That's their
mantra. Think about it.

I didn't answer your original question because there was no way to answer yours
without revealing more of the answer from which the wealthy fool could benefit
greatly. (As well as all the resident trolls who would now profess to have used
this method all their lives, should the question ever arise again.) I thought I
left enough clues in the manner in which it had to be used so that anyone with
some photography experience under their belt would immediately see how it is
done (as did you).

I don't do anything for free for someone that can afford to pay. Let them
suffer, or pay. That's what they do, that's all they ever do. That's how they
got that way. That _is_ their life. Why help perpetuate their life or enjoyment
of it? Their life isn't worth the time it took to type this.

Plus it was fun watching the totally brainless packs of resident-trolls, who
profess to be photographers, remain completely silent on the matter. That was
fun. I knew they'd be scouring the net looking for the answer. One that they
could just copy and paste again, like all the rest of their "vast knowledge and
experience", and come up empty. It's fun to show them for just what they are.

You, on the other hand, figured it out on your own. You own a camera and have
actually used it for more than a net-bragging investment. (btw: kudos on the
nice little bracket) They don't even have that much to go on. It's that simple
and that's what just occurred. I never do anything in life with only one
motive in mind when you can accomplish 10 or 100 things more in the same
brea(d)th. It's my life-long discipline that has benefited me greatly in all
pursuits. Photography especially. That frame that you choose to press the
shutter-button on has to solve 100 or more things in a split-second, by eye and
reflex alone. An adequate reflection of that discipline.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

DaveX wrote:


>
> Now why would anyone want to hand a simple and inexpensive answer to a wealthy
> idiot and total fool for free? They get what they pay for, right? That's their
> mantra. Think about it.

Sadly, DaveX, I have NO evidence that you knew this either.

> I didn't answer your original question because there was no way to answer yours
> without revealing more of the answer from which the wealthy fool could benefit
> greatly. (As well as all the resident trolls who would now profess to have used
> this method all their lives, should the question ever arise again.) I thought I
> left enough clues ...

Now the secret is out, would you care to point out those
clues? I've already done my "show and tell"; my knowledge
is evident, and I have nothing to prove.

Your knowledge remains unproven.

Your choice, your move.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

Scott W wrote:
> On Dec 3, 1:28 am, bugbear <bugbear.DeleteThis@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> Scott W wrote:
>>> bugbear wrote:
>>
>> Care to swap notes, assuming you did a lot of this?
>
> I have not done a huge amount of this but I have done some, I shot
> some very high resolution images of a friends quilt. For this I did
> not have the ideal setup, I had the quilt on the floor and was
> shooting down at it. This meant I was shooting a fair bit off to the
> side. I use a panoramic head, makes life easier. I use PTGui for the
> stitching, which I like very much.
>
> I used my 50mm lens, which is one of my better lenses and oddly my
> cheapest lens.
>
> The reason I shot the quilt on the floor is that we have over head
> lights that give very even illumination so this saved me a large
> amount of work setting up good lighting. If I had setup side lighting
> and hung the quilt I could have gotten much higher resolution.
>
> I have shot out bookcase at high resolution just for the fun of it.

Here's my notes, from a pano mailing list:

Just a followup; I did a "test run" yesterday afternoon;
made a 4x6 images pano, at half res (so 1224x1632 per image)
on my home laptop (*).

I made some mistakes.

I used my wooden pano head at the end of the
horizontal column of my Benbo trecker tripod,
with the map on floor; the camera was around 4 feet
in the air.

Since the situation was so well controlled
(so I thought) I didn't allow much overlap.

In the first stitch I didn't do nearly enough control
points; somehow (mistakenly) I thought panotools
would magically know that this was a simple job;
but panotools only (of course) knows what it's
been told via control points.

Since the background of the map is so
uniform, minor changes in room lighting
have given me stitching errors. The map
was under 4 tungsten lights, but the variation
in light from window caused differences.

After "cramming in" enough control points,
the stitch went fine, as well it might using a 100mm
(35 mm equivalent) lens. Not much distortion...

I hope this is of interest or assistance to someone.

BugBear

(*) 333Mhz pentium, 350 Mb RAM
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:07:35 +0000, bugbear <bugbear.TakeThisOut@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
wrote:

>I used my wooden pano head at the end of the
>horizontal column of my Benbo trecker tripod,
>with the map on floor; the camera was around 4 feet
>in the air.

This isn't the best way. Ignore all that you know about panos. Think outside the
box. Don't follow convention. (This is why this hasn't shown up on the net yet
as an easy to copy/paste solution for the resident-troll's library of
"experience".)

I won't say more. No need to. You'll get it. But you'll need a real camera in
hand to try various methods before you see how it's best done. Something that
the resident-trolls lack--a real camera and real experience. Their experience
ends at the newsgroup word.

Please don't share the best way online. I still enjoy watching the
resident-trolls remain blatantly stupid, devoid of any real experience with real
cameras, and, .... well, .... so obviously trolls. If they only realized how
very obvious they are to people who actually use cameras. Analogous to the humor
level of someone who plays guitar talking to someone who only plays guitar in
that online role-play fantasy thing called 2nd Life (or whatever that's called).

Virtual idiots.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

DaveX wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:07:35 +0000, bugbear <bugbear.DeleteThis@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
> wrote:
>
>> I used my wooden pano head at the end of the
>> horizontal column of my Benbo trecker tripod,
>> with the map on floor; the camera was around 4 feet
>> in the air.
>
> This isn't the best way. Ignore all that you know about panos. Think outside the
> box. Don't follow convention.

Now you just sound like a fake spiritualist guru,
inviting his students to come up with ideas,
and never providing anything themselves,
and claiming all the while that "this is
the best way to teach", and claiming
(without substantiation) deep knowledge.

Evidence to the contrary welcomed.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:54:08 +0000, bugbear <bugbear DeleteThis @trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
wrote:

>DaveX wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:07:35 +0000, bugbear <bugbear DeleteThis @trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I used my wooden pano head at the end of the
>>> horizontal column of my Benbo trecker tripod,
>>> with the map on floor; the camera was around 4 feet
>>> in the air.
>>
>> This isn't the best way. Ignore all that you know about panos. Think outside the
>> box. Don't follow convention.
>
>Now you just sound like a fake spiritualist guru,
>inviting his students to come up with ideas,
>and never providing anything themselves,
>and claiming all the while that "this is
>the best way to teach", and claiming
>(without substantiation) deep knowledge.
>
>Evidence to the contrary welcomed.
>
> BugBear

Okay, I take that back, maybe you don't have enough experience from enough
venues of interest.

Hint: perform on a micro scale what is done using aircraft for mapping purposes.
I learned this method back in the old days when I used to hand-draw topographic
maps from 3D photography taken from a plane. (yes, that's exactly how it used to
be done) Then I applied the same method in reverse while on extensive photo
treks where I had to carry copies of those maps with me.

Get it yet?

Next time you have to pay for lessons in something as remedial as this. This is
the last time that I'm going to let some online moron manipulate me out of
information that they clearly don't deserve to have.



..
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

DaveX wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:54:08 +0000, bugbear <bugbear.TakeThisOut@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
> wrote:
>
>> DaveX wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:07:35 +0000, bugbear <bugbear.TakeThisOut@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I used my wooden pano head at the end of the
>>>> horizontal column of my Benbo trecker tripod,
>>>> with the map on floor; the camera was around 4 feet
>>>> in the air.
>>> This isn't the best way. Ignore all that you know about panos. Think outside the
>>> box. Don't follow convention.
>> Now you just sound like a fake spiritualist guru,
>> inviting his students to come up with ideas,
>> and never providing anything themselves,
>> and claiming all the while that "this is
>> the best way to teach", and claiming
>> (without substantiation) deep knowledge.
>>
>> Evidence to the contrary welcomed.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Okay, I take that back, maybe you don't have enough experience from enough
> venues of interest.
>
> Hint: perform on a micro scale what is done using aircraft for mapping purposes.

Under those circumstances, the track of the plane
is quite well controlled, and the pictures form
a matrix. By hand, it's rather more difficult
to arrange that the images form such a grid,
and also harder to maintain a constant distance
from the subject, which would affect
the scale of each image.

I could use software to compensate
for each of these errors, but it would
be fiddly and tedious.

However, superb, automated software
*is* available for stitching images taken
under the system I chose to use;
I also had a pano head to hand

> I learned this method back in the old days when I used to hand-draw topographic
> maps from 3D photography taken from a plane. (yes, that's exactly how it used to
> be done) Then I applied the same method in reverse while on extensive photo
> treks where I had to carry copies of those maps with me.
>
> Get it yet?
>
> Next time you have to pay for lessons in something as remedial as this.

No I don't.

> This is the last time that I'm going to let some online moron manipulate me out of
> information that they clearly don't deserve to have.

I had already considered and rejected this approach.

Here's a tutorial on it though:
http://www.dojoe.net/tutorials/linear-pano/

He (of course) COULDN'T get far enough away
to use my "nodal point" solution, making
this technique appropriate to his circumstances.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

bugbear wrote:
> DaveX wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:54:08 +0000, bugbear
>> <bugbear DeleteThis @trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> DaveX wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:07:35 +0000, bugbear
>>>> <bugbear DeleteThis @trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I used my wooden pano head at the end of the
>>>>> horizontal column of my Benbo trecker tripod,
>>>>> with the map on floor; the camera was around 4 feet
>>>>> in the air.
>>>> This isn't the best way. Ignore all that you know about panos. Think
>>>> outside the
>>>> box. Don't follow convention.
>>> Now you just sound like a fake spiritualist guru,
>>> inviting his students to come up with ideas,
>>> and never providing anything themselves,
>>> and claiming all the while that "this is
>>> the best way to teach", and claiming
>>> (without substantiation) deep knowledge.
>>>
>>> Evidence to the contrary welcomed.
>>>
>>> BugBear
>>
>> Okay, I take that back, maybe you don't have enough experience from
>> enough
>> venues of interest.
>>
>> Hint: perform on a micro scale what is done using aircraft for mapping
>> purposes.
>
> Under those circumstances, the track of the plane
> is quite well controlled, and the pictures form
> a matrix. By hand, it's rather more difficult
> to arrange that the images form such a grid,
> and also harder to maintain a constant distance
> from the subject, which would affect
> the scale of each image.
>
> I could use software to compensate
> for each of these errors, but it would
> be fiddly and tedious.
>
> However, superb, automated software
> *is* available for stitching images taken
> under the system I chose to use;
> I also had a pano head to hand
>
>> I learned this method back in the old days when I used to hand-draw
>> topographic
>> maps from 3D photography taken from a plane. (yes, that's exactly how
>> it used to
>> be done) Then I applied the same method in reverse while on extensive
>> photo
>> treks where I had to carry copies of those maps with me.
>>
>> Get it yet?
>>
>> Next time you have to pay for lessons in something as remedial as this.
>
> No I don't.
>
>> This is the last time that I'm going to let some online moron
>> manipulate me out of
>> information that they clearly don't deserve to have.
>
> I had already considered and rejected this approach.
>
> Here's a tutorial on it though:
> http://www.dojoe.net/tutorials/linear-pano/
>
> He (of course) COULDN'T get far enough away
> to use my "nodal point" solution, making
> this technique appropriate to his circumstances.
>
> BugBear

GoogleEarth software for their database attempts to reconcile those
differences in angles of observation, often with interesting effects.
Go to the downtown Fort Worth and look at some of the buildings on the
southwest part of the downtown area. Strange!
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners