STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?

>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
> 200 MP
>
> Roger
> http://www.clarkvision.com

If you have 200 then I want 202 Mpixels ... see my earlier post for my
detailed explanation why ...

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

Raphael Bustin wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:28:26 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>tiresia2@hotmail.it wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>>>And you?
>>>
>>>(Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>>>
>>
>>200 MP
>>
>>(now experimenting with changing from scanned 4x5
>>film to digital mosaics).
>
>
>
> I love my 10D but you know, there's nothing like 100
> million pixels from scanned 4x5" film.
>
> This doesn't diminish my lust for a Canon 5D.
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com

Rafe,
You know I have been a large format photographer for
about 20 years. But since May, I have done a number of
trips, including to Hawaii, the Tetons, western France,
Canyonlands and I just got back from doing Colorado wildflowers,
ALL without my 4x5! I have been doing digital mosaics,
and while there is a learning curve, which I think
I am well up on now, I can confidently say not only
can I surpass 4x5 quality both in spatial resolution
but the signal/noise and dynamic range of digital is
so much better, that I can get better images.
Also, I can get images where I couldn't with 4x5!
With the long exposures needed for 4x5, typically 1 second
or so, often there is too much movement due to wind
(especially wildflowers in the mountains). With digital,
since the field of view is small in each frame, the f/stop
can be opened up (I'm typically shooting f/16 to f/22 with
digital versus f/45 with film), and I can increase ISO
and still have less noise (e.g. ISO 200 or even 400 on my
1D Mark II), and get exposure times down to 1/20 second
and faster. It takes me only a couple of minutes to get
a picture, and my day pack weighs a lot less (32 pounds
versus 45 to 55 pounds with the large format + digital
gear I was carrying--this includes water, rain gear,
emergency kit, etc, plus a CF tripod + pano head: my
custom made head). I'm able to take "large format"
images faster (no manual focus and adjustments for
tilts) so I get more images in the field.
The downsides: 1) changing light during the couple of minutes
can cause problems. 2) large post processing effort
(I need a faster computer).
I'll be preparing an article for my website in the next
month or so. I will not get rid of my large format
gear, but I'll certainly be using it less.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

<tiresia2 DeleteThis @hotmail.it> wrote in message
news:1154291916.753030.197000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)

No max...

I'm at 12.8 now, and would still like more, if the noise stays low.

>
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:44CE0AF3.1050905@qwest.net...

> Rafe,
> You know I have been a large format photographer for
> about 20 years. But since May, I have done a number of
> trips, including to Hawaii, the Tetons, western France,
> Canyonlands and I just got back from doing Colorado wildflowers,
> ALL without my 4x5! I have been doing digital mosaics,
> and while there is a learning curve, which I think
> I am well up on now, I can confidently say not only
> can I surpass 4x5 quality both in spatial resolution
> but the signal/noise and dynamic range of digital is
> so much better, that I can get better images.
> Also, I can get images where I couldn't with 4x5!
> With the long exposures needed for 4x5, typically 1 second
> or so, often there is too much movement due to wind
> (especially wildflowers in the mountains). With digital,
> since the field of view is small in each frame, the f/stop
> can be opened up (I'm typically shooting f/16 to f/22 with
> digital versus f/45 with film), and I can increase ISO
> and still have less noise (e.g. ISO 200 or even 400 on my
> 1D Mark II), and get exposure times down to 1/20 second
> and faster. It takes me only a couple of minutes to get
> a picture, and my day pack weighs a lot less (32 pounds
> versus 45 to 55 pounds with the large format + digital
> gear I was carrying--this includes water, rain gear,
> emergency kit, etc, plus a CF tripod + pano head: my
> custom made head). I'm able to take "large format"
> images faster (no manual focus and adjustments for
> tilts) so I get more images in the field.
> The downsides: 1) changing light during the couple of minutes
> can cause problems. 2) large post processing effort
> (I need a faster computer).
> I'll be preparing an article for my website in the next
> month or so. I will not get rid of my large format
> gear, but I'll certainly be using it less.


This is the Scott W mode. I've been working up the courage
to try it. You've done a lot of traveling "since May."
Are you retired? I'm jealous. I'll look forward to your article.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote in message
news:eajrr7$jh0$1@nnrp.gol.com...

> You'd get to 100 or 200 MP a lot faster if you start with 12.7 than if you
> start with 6 or 8.
>
> The incremental number of pixels per frame would be a lot larger, since
> you could use only slightly more pixels in the overlap, thus putting the
> majority of the added pixels into the total. (I think, anyway.)


I haven't really had great luck yet with stitching multiple images.
Can't say I've given it the effort it deserves, though.

Maybe in another year or so I'll break down and get a FF dslr.
Not quite yet.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

rafe b wrote:

>
> This is the Scott W mode. I've been working up the courage
> to try it. You've done a lot of traveling "since May."
> Are you retired? I'm jealous. I'll look forward to your article.

Rafe,
I wish I was retired; I still have a few years to go before
I retire from my present job and start something else.
Yes, it is the Scott W mode, and it was some of Scott's
work that inspired me. I had been planning the experiment
for over a year, but putting it off due to lack of time.
The trips were relatively short, typically a week,
though Hawaii was 9 days on the beach in Kona, where
I met Scott and we had a nice time and Scott gave me
some other pointers. Last week in the Colorado
San Juan Mtns, I met Alan Browne (another regular
in the rec.photo newsgroups).

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

Bill Hilton wrote:
>>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>
>>200 MP
>>
>>Roger
>>http://www.clarkvision.com
>
>
> If you have 200 then I want 202 Mpixels ... see my earlier post for my
> detailed explanation why ...
>
> Bill


 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

>>You're not working at Bill's level. One of you is thinking about
>>discernable quality differences and the other, oneupmanship. But
>>it's not clear which is which, who is who or whom is whom.

I'm into inverted snobbery and have never really been disappointed with the
results from my 2.1MP Oly C2100UZ. I've just invested in a 6MP compact
because the Oly is too heavy to cart over the alps but, to be honest, to my
tired old eyes there's not a lot of difference in the results. I've printed
A4 from my Oly and had no problem with it. I think megapixels are
overrated.

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

tiresia2.TakeThisOut@hotmail.it wrote:
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
2332 MP would be enough for me, that would make a 9 x 20 foot print at
300 ppi.
This is about as large a print as I image I might want to make, cover a
wall.

For now my largest photos are running about 250MP with most being much
smalling in the 80 - 100 MP range, so I don't have a photo yet that can
cover a wall an look very sharp when viewed close, but I am woking on
it.

I can live with 56MP for most photos, that will produce a print that is
20 x 30 inches at 300ppi.

20MP is also useful in that it will produce a print that is 12 x 18,
which can be had at Costco for $3.00.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

On 1 Aug 2006 09:35:58 -0700, Scott W wrote:

>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?
>>
>> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>
> 2332 MP would be enough for me, that would make a 9 x 20 foot print at
> 300 ppi.
> This is about as large a print as I image I might want to make, cover a
> wall.

But then how would you deal with the corner vignetting due to less
than ideal house lighting? Counter it with a PS "Living Room -
Incandescent" or "Living Room - Fluorescent" plug-in? <g>


> For now my largest photos are running about 250MP with most being much
> smalling in the 80 - 100 MP range, so I don't have a photo yet that can
> cover a wall an look very sharp when viewed close, but I am woking on
> it.

Some people can walk a mile for a camel. I'd walk 5 miles to see
one of those wall sized photos. Keep on working.
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> rafe b wrote:
>
> >
> > This is the Scott W mode. I've been working up the courage
> > to try it. You've done a lot of traveling "since May."
> > Are you retired? I'm jealous. I'll look forward to your article.
>
> Rafe,
> I wish I was retired; I still have a few years to go before
> I retire from my present job and start something else.
> Yes, it is the Scott W mode, and it was some of Scott's
> work that inspired me. I had been planning the experiment
> for over a year, but putting it off due to lack of time.
> The trips were relatively short, typically a week,
> though Hawaii was 9 days on the beach in Kona, where
> I met Scott and we had a nice time and Scott gave me
> some other pointers. Last week in the Colorado
> San Juan Mtns, I met Alan Browne (another regular
> in the rec.photo newsgroups).
>
> Roger
I feel odd about this being called Scott W mode since there are others
that have been doing this way before I have and doing it much better, I
am a pretty strong advocate for the method however.

I image that by now Roger you have taken the technique well past what I
have been doing and that is great, I am glad it is working out so well.
I an eager to see some sample images that you been able to get.

At this point I am pretty much limited to images that are around 250 MB
or less, to go past this I am going to need more ram in the computer.
I can stitch larger photos but then can't edit them afterwards.

Pretty much I am in favor of any method that produce hi-resolution
photo, whether scanning LF images or stitching digital ones. I do find
that many people who are currently shooting LF believe there are more
restrictions on what you can do with stitching then there really are.

The neat part is that with stitching even a fairly inexpensive DSLR and
low cost lens one can get photographs with fantastic resolution. With
just a few photos from a 8 MP DLSR (or even 6 MP) one can get a photo
that matches what a $40,000 camera can get in one shot. And add a few
more frames and you can get a photo that no camera can get in a single
shot.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

"rafe b" <rafeb DeleteThis @foobar.com> wrote in message
news:QJidnaI_QY4V5VPZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
SNIP
> I haven't really had great luck yet with stitching multiple images.
> Can't say I've given it the effort it deserves, though.

It's really a lot easier than most people think, and with a little
care in taking the images it becomes even easier than that.

> Maybe in another year or so I'll break down and get a FF dslr.
> Not quite yet.

You don't *need* FF for stitching, you can also use a larger number of
smaller images. My earlier attempts were with scans from 35mm film,
and then later attempts with a Canon G3 point-and-shoot got me really
hooked, because it allowed me so much freedom, depth of field, and
superior resolution/contrast.

If you shoot with a normal (or even slight tele) focal length, you
will usually get superior detail, with the number of shots determining
the FOV. You do not always have to stitch wide angle shots, you can
also use it to boost resolution.

There are several tools that will take the tedium out of creating
control points for overlapping images, and several tools for adjusting
the blending of images (they blend mis-registrations, and luminosity
differences e.g. due to vignetting). I use PTAssembler which is
(according to some) more geared towards large images with more modest
FOVs, others use PTGui which is more geared to 360 degree panos.

PTAssembler, which also works fine with 16-b/ch images, has an
integrated support for some helper programs that work fine on
full-auto for most images. Some images may need a little help, and
that is where some experience may prove to be helpful.

Here's an example (1/3rd of original 3764x3252 pixel dimensions) of an
older series of 6 (actually 7) handheld shots with my Canon G3, where
the wide angle position couldn't fit the whole building in one shot,
but there were moving clouds and people to complicate
stitching/blending matters:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/BerlinerDom.jpg>
and here is a 100% crop:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/BD_Crop_IPRL045.jpg> .

The whole original stitch is 12MP after cropping, not bad for a P&S
.
I used 1 additional shot from a different position to be able and
eliminate an ugly pole in front of the structure, another benefit of
stitching. The only manual corrections I applied to the automatic
process was adding a hint for verticals staying vertical, and allowing
the 7th shot to have a horizontal offset because I moved a few meters
to the side when taking it. The pole was removed in Photoshop, but
could have been automatically removed with an alpha mask.

--
Bart
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?