really big images

Thanks fo r the info. I was just playing with some number. a 24x36
painting, rendered
at 600/inch would be almost 300MP. That's 37 shot with you camera. I
wonder if
this even doable. I would be work. I wonder if the software and a 1GB
PC could
handle it. Thanks again. (Numbers seem right?)

ray wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:31:06 -0800, hfs2 wrote:
>
> > I have access to a great big printer in our advertising dept.
> >
> > I read about this Giga Pix photo months ago and was fascinated by the
> > whole thing.
> > I could have a Vincent van Gogh from the Mpls Art Inst. if they would
> > 'image' their
> > painting.
> >
> > Questions I have about this are.
> >
> > I know there is software to stitch panoramas together. Is there
> > software to
> > stitch together a matrix of photos.
>
> Yes - same software - stitches vertically as well as horizontally.
>
> >
> > Is there a camera where you lock down all the settings and doesn't cost
> > $500?
>
> Yes, you can do that pretty well with the Kodak P850 - and shoot raw
> files, as well. Got a refurb unit a few weeks ago from the online Kodak
> store for $250.
>
> > I assume as you take each cell, an automatic camera would readjust and
> > make
> > each cell look just a little different.
> >
> > Are there x-x tables that are made to help 'map' a large image into
> > multiple
> > shots for later reconstruction. Or does software just find seams
> > automatically no
> > matter how bad the registration.
>
> You need to try the pano-tools. Yes, you can pretty much indicate where
> each photo goes.
>
>
> >
> > Help me here. I suppose someone is already doing this. Sounds like a
> > great
> > way to collect art.
> >
> > Thanks
 >> Stay informed about: really big images 

In article <1166664666.095915.318800.RemoveThis@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
hfs2 <hfs2.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have access to a great big printer in our advertising dept.
>
> I read about this Giga Pix photo months ago and was fascinated by the
> whole thing.
> I could have a Vincent van Gogh from the Mpls Art Inst. if they would
> 'image' their
> painting.
>
> Questions I have about this are.
>
> I know there is software to stitch panoramas together. Is there
> software to
> stitch together a matrix of photos.

Same software, usually. PTGui works well. Panorammas are not limited
to a single dimension of sequential images.

> Is there a camera where you lock down all the settings and doesn't cost
> $500?
> I assume as you take each cell, an automatic camera would readjust and
> make
> each cell look just a little different.

Not if you, as you say, "lock down the settings" - it's called Manual
Mode.

> Are there x-x tables that are made to help 'map' a large image into
> multiple
> shots for later reconstruction. Or does software just find seams
> automatically no
> matter how bad the registration.

Sometimes you have to assist. No, scratch that. Almost always, you
have to assist. But it's merely tedious, not hard.

> Help me here. I suppose someone is already doing this. Sounds like a
> great
> way to collect art.
>
> Thanks
>

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: really big images 

hfs2 wrote:
> Thanks fo r the info. I was just playing with some number. a 24x36
> painting, rendered
> at 600/inch would be almost 300MP. That's 37 shot with you camera. I
> wonder if
> this even doable. I would be work. I wonder if the software and a 1GB
> PC could
> handle it. Thanks again. (Numbers seem right?)
600 ppi is pretty high but if you really wanted to capture at the res
it can be done with a computer with 1 GB of ram, which is what I happen
to have. I have done images close to 400 ppi, things do get a bit slow
at that size. With overlap you are probably looking at a lot more then
37 photos, I am thinking more like 60 to 80, which is handle easily by
PTGui.

If you cut your resolution down to 300 PPI you are now looking at less
then 80MP, which is very easy.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: really big images 

In article <1166669962.518746.295570 RemoveThis @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hfs2
<hfs2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks fo r the info. I was just playing with some number. a 24x36
> painting, rendered
> at 600/inch would be almost 300MP.

DPI is irrelevant to cameras. DPI only pertains to _printing_
resolution, and is therefore not something you factor into your
photographs.

> That's 37 shot with you camera.

You're forgetting overlap, which is normally 25% or more to allow
enough control points and blending to make a good panorama (I shoot
almost 50% overlap just to be sure, as I don't use a pano head).

> I
> wonder if
> this even doable.

Why not? I recently made a rather unimpressive panorama with 38 10.1
megapixel shots which came out to be about 140 megapixels (before
cropping to eliminate curveature). ABout 90 MP after cropping.

> I would be work. I wonder if the software and a 1GBPC
> could
> handle it.

Sure, why not? It might take a while (whether you mean 1GB [as in
memory] or 1ghz [as in speed]), but it should eventually crunch through
it.

> Thanks again. (Numbers seem right?)

No.

> ray wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:31:06 -0800, hfs2 wrote:
> >
> > > I have access to a great big printer in our advertising dept.
> > >
> > > I read about this Giga Pix photo months ago and was fascinated by the
> > > whole thing.
> > > I could have a Vincent van Gogh from the Mpls Art Inst. if they would
> > > 'image' their
> > > painting.
> > >
> > > Questions I have about this are.
> > >
> > > I know there is software to stitch panoramas together. Is there
> > > software to
> > > stitch together a matrix of photos.
> >
> > Yes - same software - stitches vertically as well as horizontally.
> >
> > >
> > > Is there a camera where you lock down all the settings and doesn't cost
> > > $500?
> >
> > Yes, you can do that pretty well with the Kodak P850 - and shoot raw
> > files, as well. Got a refurb unit a few weeks ago from the online Kodak
> > store for $250.
> >
> > > I assume as you take each cell, an automatic camera would readjust and
> > > make
> > > each cell look just a little different.
> > >
> > > Are there x-x tables that are made to help 'map' a large image into
> > > multiple
> > > shots for later reconstruction. Or does software just find seams
> > > automatically no
> > > matter how bad the registration.
> >
> > You need to try the pano-tools. Yes, you can pretty much indicate where
> > each photo goes.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Help me here. I suppose someone is already doing this. Sounds like a
> > > great
> > > way to collect art.


Why not just buy prints? You'd have better quality, and every major
classic painting can probably be purchased as a print somewhere.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: really big images 

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:59:22 -0800, hfs2 wrote:

> Thanks fo r the info. I was just playing with some number. a 24x36
> painting, rendered
> at 600/inch would be almost 300MP. That's 37 shot with you camera. I
> wonder if
> this even doable. I would be work. I wonder if the software and a 1GB
> PC could
> handle it. Thanks again. (Numbers seem right?)
>
> ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:31:06 -0800, hfs2 wrote:
>>
>> > I have access to a great big printer in our advertising dept.
>> >
>> > I read about this Giga Pix photo months ago and was fascinated by the
>> > whole thing.
>> > I could have a Vincent van Gogh from the Mpls Art Inst. if they would
>> > 'image' their
>> > painting.
>> >
>> > Questions I have about this are.
>> >
>> > I know there is software to stitch panoramas together. Is there
>> > software to
>> > stitch together a matrix of photos.
>>
>> Yes - same software - stitches vertically as well as horizontally.
>>
>> >
>> > Is there a camera where you lock down all the settings and doesn't cost
>> > $500?
>>
>> Yes, you can do that pretty well with the Kodak P850 - and shoot raw
>> files, as well. Got a refurb unit a few weeks ago from the online Kodak
>> store for $250.
>>
>> > I assume as you take each cell, an automatic camera would readjust and
>> > make
>> > each cell look just a little different.
>> >
>> > Are there x-x tables that are made to help 'map' a large image into
>> > multiple
>> > shots for later reconstruction. Or does software just find seams
>> > automatically no
>> > matter how bad the registration.
>>
>> You need to try the pano-tools. Yes, you can pretty much indicate where
>> each photo goes.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Help me here. I suppose someone is already doing this. Sounds like a
>> > great
>> > way to collect art.
>> >
>> > Thanks

Methinks you overstate the requirements a bit. I found out several years
ago that, in spite of all the 'conventional wisdom' you can print out a
1mp image at 8x10 and you really can't tell it from a photo unless you get
right down on it with a magnifier.
 >> Stay informed about: really big images 

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
hfs2
<hfs2 DeleteThis @yahoo.com>], who wrote in article <1166664666.095915.318800 DeleteThis @t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Is there a camera where you lock down all the settings and doesn't cost
> $500?

You are not not *forced* to lock all the settings. It will just make
life a tiny bit easier when stitching. Most dataflows with stitching
allow automatic compensation for exposure/color differences.

With 1GB memory, and 10GB free space on disk, you should be able to
handle up to about 240MP panoramas (with most demanding dataflows);
maybe even larger stuff.

I need a lot of manual intervention to make a 60MP stitch on a laptop
with 256M memory and 1G of OS-accessible hard disk space...

Hope this helps,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: really big images 

On Dec 20, 8:31 pm, "hfs2" <h....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have access to a great big printer in our advertising dept.
>
> I read about this Giga Pix photo months ago and was fascinated by the
> whole thing.
> I could have a Vincent van Gogh from the Mpls Art Inst. if they would
> 'image' their
> painting.
>
> Questions I have about this are.
>
> I know there is software to stitch panoramas together. Is there
> software to
> stitch together a matrix of photos.
>
> Is there a camera where you lock down all the settings and doesn't cost
> $500?
> I assume as you take each cell, an automatic camera would readjust and
> make
> each cell look just a little different.
>
> Are there x-x tables that are made to help 'map' a large image into
> multiple
> shots for later reconstruction. Or does software just find seams
> automatically no
> matter how bad the registration.
>
> Help me here. I suppose someone is already doing this. Sounds like a
> great
> way to collect art.
>
> Thanks

The MFA in Boston does this with paintings, rather than using panoramic
tools they use a scanning back on a 4x5 and use special lighting, so
that the print looks like an oil painting. Don't think any museum would
allow you to take multiple images of a hanging painting, or use an XY
rig.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: really big images