That’s a great article. I’d love to see some of the work!
Nice panos, Bruce. As a former San Franciscan, I found Fort Point nostalgic; as an old-time Floridian, I found the Everglades shot amusing.
mmmh…Stitching hi-rez segments of an image for larger capture.
Wondering if I could do that with 35mm negs with my old scanner’s optical 600 ppi instead of upsampling in PS. Maybe scan the neg in 600 ppi thirds of about 1/2" each and piece together in PS.
Stop me before I build.
Photomerge works fairly well as a starting point. You’ll likely have to do some handwork.
Tim:
You would STILL have only 600 ppi in each of your sections: when stitched, that would remain as only 600 ppi for the complete image.
Ann, I’m trying to figure the math on that one. If I place 600 pixels in a 1/4 space and multiply it by 4 wouldn’t that give me 2400 pixels in an inch?
Tim –
No. Each section will simply be smaller pieces of a 600 ppi image. When you combine (stitch) them, it’ll be no different than if you scanned it all at once.
You have to SHOOT in segments and scan those – in essence, making a larger neg out of several small ones.
-phil
NO!
You are just placing four 1/4 inch "bricks" side by side. Each "brick" will be 150 pixels wide.
Four "bricks" will measure 600 pixels across.
And only 600 pixels!
That’s what I meant-600 pixels crammed into 1/4 inch segments stitched together or whatever size segments equally divisable for the length of a 35mm neg.
You’re right, it doesn’t make sense.
Photomerge, is that a shareware app? Thanks for the suggestion, Bruce.
I need a Bayer aspirin for this. Wait…Bayer makes my scanner CCD filtering. I wonder if they make the aspirin as well.
<< That’s what I meant-600 pixels crammed into 1/4 inch segments >>
You can’t "cram" 600 pixels into a quarter-inch slice!
Your quarter-inch slice is being scanned by only 150 sensors: they are on a rigid matrix not on a piece of elastic. Each slice can only contain 150 pixels across.
Think of your segments as bricks in a wall: each has a set WIDTH which cannot be changed: in your case, that is 150 pixels.
Why do I feel like the time when I first heard that I could time travel when first hearing and understanding Einsteins theory of relativety.
Sounds good on paper, but reality says different.
Thanks for the clarification, Ann.
I feel like a hoe handle right now.
Hoe handles have value too — it just depends on what you want to use it for.
:~)
Thanks for the link as well. Ross is my kind of artist. I’ve often wanted to capture the majesty of the landscapes I’ve tried to photograph or paint. Small prints and canvases just don’t do it justice.
Tim – no, PhotoMerge is the merge tool that ships with Photoshop CS.
Toby – that first article has all sorts of mistakes in it, and appears to be written by someone with a pretty strong bias towards film.
And the Arizona Highways piece makes the mistake of assuming MegaBytes is equal to image detail (much of the film scans are just grain).
Both of those estimates are excessively high for the information content in 35mm film. In a simple side-by-side comparison: 11MP blows away 35mm film, and 6MP can come awfully close to meeting or beating 35mm film.
