Scott W wrote:
> 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.
While true, it was one thread where we were having an exchange
and you created a mosaic with extreme depth of field that demonstrated
that one could do the sorts of things I do with 4x5 that inspired me to
try the "real test." So in that sense you did break some new
ground in this field (at least for those of us in the newsgroups).
> 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.
Well, I doubt that. I'm still crawling up the learning curve.
> 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.
I need a new computer. The image that will be the focus of
my article is a 57 (or was it 59) frame mosaic of 8 megapixel
images with extreme depth of field. It took 14 hours for ptgui
to create the 5.8 gigabyte photoshop file with layers (on a
Pentium 4 1.8 GHz machine with 2 gbytes ram and 800 GBytes disk). The
layers were critical for blending the various focal points throughout
the image. The resulting image is something like 15,000 x 10,000
pixels (16-bit). And those digital pixels (from a 1D Mark II)
are great compared to pixels from a film scan at the same size
for a 4x5 transparency. I'll get a new machine in a month or so.
> 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.
I see fewer restrictions with digital mosaicking than I do with LF.
But mosaicking has some different restrictions, fast time being one
of them (e.g rapidly changing light on the scene). LF suffers
too often from wind. On my recent Colorado wildflower trip,
I would have gotten very few 4x5s compared to the many digital
mosaics I did get.
> 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.
Agreed. It will be a while before I get the article done. I have
3 professional paper to complete asap.
Roger
>> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
