836 Mega Pixel Photo - Tall Ships Waterford

Tubbritt

Hi all.
If you would like to check out some of my work, please visit my website.

www.myvirtualworld.ie

In the Robot Gallery you can see some ultra high resolution images of Waterford, Dunmore and more in time...

I just uploaded a 836 Mega Pixel Image of the Tall Ships. There's also a photo of the Holy Family Church on my site at 2005 Mega Pixels.

I'll upload more in time. Need to come up with the money to buy some Solid State Drives as the rendering time on these images is crazy.

Regards
James

blackbird98

They are fantastic. What equipment are you using??

Old Perry

Didn get to see the robot gallery but the image gallery has some quality stuff, thanks for sharin. Would also be interested in hearin about. Your gear ...

Tubbritt

Thanks for checking out my site.
I'm using a SONY Alpha A900 and a GigaPan Epic Pro Robot Head.

Regards
James

Tubbritt

Hi all.

I just added a 1,835 Megapixel Image of the front of Ballyduff Church.

http://www.myvirtualworld.ie/deepview/ballyduff-f/index.htm

Regards
James

Freddie59

Tubbritt wrote: »

Hi all.
If you would like to check out some of my work, please visit my website.

www.myvirtualworld.ie

In the Robot Gallery you can see some ultra high resolution images of Waterford, Dunmore and more in time...

I just uploaded a 836 Mega Pixel Image of the Tall Ships. There's also a photo of the Holy Family Church on my site at 2005 Mega Pixels.

I'll upload more in time. Need to come up with the money to buy some Solid State Drives as the rendering time on these images is crazy.

Regards
James

Absolutely incredible James. Is the one of the Holy Family the same one that's mounted in an alcove in the Church? I was only admiring it at Mass recently. Great job!

The Ballyduff one is incredible. I was zoomed into a portion of a brick on the upper right side - no degradation. Out of curiosity - what do the file sizes end up at?

magicbastarder

are these for C&C?

Tubbritt

Hi Freddie.

Is the one of the Holy Family the same one that's mounted in an alcove in the Church? I was only admiring it at Mass recently. Great job!

Yes, same photo. My friend plays the keyboards at mass there and I was looking for somewhere to practice taking photos with the Robot, so… he arranged for me to have access to the Church and to meet the priest there.

It was never planned as something that would be hung on a wall. It just sort of happened. The priest was so happy with the photo he got it professionally mounted, framed, and put into the alcove. I must get him to put my name on it.

he Ballyduff one is incredible. I was zoomed into a portion of a brick on the upper right side - no degradation. Out of curiosity - what do the file sizes end up at?

Thanks.
File sizes vary, but for the likes of the Holy Family your looking at upwards of a 7GB Lossless Compressed file. Ballyduff comes in at around 6GB Lossless Compressed.

You still need tons of hard disk space to render the images though. Rendering times are insane but I’m hoping to be able to afford a Solid State Express PCI card soon. I can get about 1.5GB/s Read and 750MB/s Writes with one of those. I expect with one of those I could make things much faster.

Regards
James

Tubbritt

magicbastarder wrote: »

are these for C&C?

Sure... always welcomed.
One of the area's I know I can improve on are outdoors where there are moving objects. But I can't do much about it until I get some Solid State Drives into my PC.

The files are far too big to be working with off hard disks.

Regards
James

magicbastarder

my main criticism about these photos is that they're usually technical rather than aesthetic accomplishments. usually when they work, it's of crowd scenes, because it plugs into the 'see if i can spot myself in the crowd' interest - but the extra detail in some of yours doesn't add anything to the enjoyment of the photo.

Freddie59

magicbastarder wrote: »

my main criticism about these photos is that they're usually technical rather than aesthetic accomplishments. usually when they work, it's of crowd scenes, because it plugs into the 'see if i can spot myself in the crowd' interest - but the extra detail in some of yours doesn't add anything to the enjoyment of the photo.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. Extra detail in any photo is to be welcomed.:)

Freddie59

Tubbritt wrote: »

Hi Freddie.



Yes, same photo. My friend plays the keyboards at mass there and I was looking for somewhere to practice taking photos with the Robot, so… he arranged for me to have access to the Church and to meet the priest there.

It was never planned as something that would be hung on a wall. It just sort of happened. The priest was so happy with the photo he got it professionally mounted, framed, and put into the alcove. I must get him to put my name on it.



Thanks.
File sizes vary, but for the likes of the Holy Family your looking at upwards of a 7GB Lossless Compressed file. Ballyduff comes in at around 6GB Lossless Compressed.

You still need tons of hard disk space to render the images though. Rendering times are insane but I’m hoping to be able to afford a Solid State Express PCI card soon. I can get about 1.5GB/s Read and 750MB/s Writes with one of those. I expect with one of those I could make things much faster.

Regards
James

I won't be needing any space James! Have no intention of doing it - I'd say I'd be divorced! great job though.

steve_

Thats is some insane levels of details. Great pics!! Can this device only be used for photo or can you do video aswell

magicbastarder

Freddie59 wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree. Extra detail in any photo is to be welcomed.:)

that implies that a 12MP photograph of a scene is not as good as a 24MP image.

mobby

Question. On the right hand side (nearest the camera) of the bridge where the word SLOW is on the road way the couple walking are missing their heads what happend there?

Tubbritt

steve_ wrote: »

Thats is some insane levels of details. Great pics!! Can this device only be used for photo or can you do video aswell

Thank you.
No, it only works for photos only, no video.

Regards
James

Tubbritt

mobby wrote: »

Question. On the right hand side (nearest the camera) of the bridge where the word SLOW is on the road way the couple walking are missing their heads what happend there?

Yes, that happens with some moving objects at certain locations in a capture. It's caused by one or more sources of data being merged together that have changed. To fix errors in the render like that the software presents different options to you, and a human decision is made as to which one is right.

The problem however is rendering times to do all that. You can pretty much forget about trying to use a Hard Disk for corrections. Well, unless you have weeks to wait. They are just far too slow. I need to buy a Solid State PCI Express Card to process the data large volumes of data. A typical hard disk only pushes around 20 to 30MB/s Write Speed. I need something upwards of 700 MB/s to make it worth my time to fix errors in the images like that.

Regards
James

Tubbritt

magicbastarder wrote: »

my main criticism about these photos is that they're usually technical rather than aesthetic accomplishments. usually when they work, it's of crowd scenes, because it plugs into the 'see if i can spot myself in the crowd' interest - but the extra detail in some of yours doesn't add anything to the enjoyment of the photo.

Hello.
Sure, that's a fair point. I suspect that in time I will learn what works best as ultra high resolution images people can spend time looking through either online or in large format print.

I do think that it still has great benefits for standard photography use where there is a need to capture something at high resolution.

Can you really say no to taking photo's at higher resolution when the option is available to you?

Regards
James

Freddie59

magicbastarder wrote: »

that implies that a 12MP photograph of a scene is not as good as a 24MP image.

Can't comment without having the two side by side. But if you're comparing a 12 or 24MP to an 862MP.........:)

Arciphel

Interesting thread Tubbritt, I have one of these as well but I use it for doing 360 degree panos mostly, don't use the included software I prefer using PTGUI for stitiching. You really need an SSD for the stitiching alright, and plenty of RAM. Here's some pics - http://www.flickr.com/photos/arciphel/sets/72157625213879032/with/5103575402/

magicbastarder

Tubbritt wrote: »

Can you really say no to taking photo's at higher resolution when the option is available to you?

if the extra work involved is what i expect - and talk of SSDs and RAM for stitching alone is obviously instructive - simply to get greater detail, i would argue it gets in the way, rather than being an enabler.

a 1200x800 pixel version of (say) an ansel adams pic is the same photograph as a 2400x1600 version.
going from 6MP to 12MP, say, obviously has its advantages for printing, but i suppose what i'm saying is the extra detail is only useful if it actually is worth looking at. if you want to take a photo of a church, to take one of your shots, do you really want to be able to see every grain in the stonework, or is it a case of not seeing the wood for the trees?

Tubbritt

if the extra work involved is what i expect - and talk of SSDs and RAM for stitching alone is obviously instructive - simply to get greater detail, i would argue it gets in the way, rather than being an enabler.

Maybe, but ultimately no matter which way I look at it, there's also a positive side. Now that I have put the effort in I do feel a greater sense of achievement as I now have a photo of the Church immortalised at a resolution nobody else around will have.

I understand that it's not exactly the best subject for taking such a high resolution photo, but still, I feel the effort was worth it and I needed the practice too.

a 1200x800 pixel version of (say) an ansel adams pic is the same photograph as a 2400x1600 version.

Not sure I'd agree because such an improvement in resolution would be easily noticed and appreciated.

going from 6MP to 12MP, say, obviously has its advantages for printing,

So too has going from 24MP to 2000MP for me when you view them online or print them large.

The photo of the inside of the Holy Family church was printed 45” by 30” and because the Printer that was used had a DPI of 2800DPI, you got every single pixel of that DPI in the print. It shows.

but i suppose what i'm saying is the extra detail is only useful if it actually is worth looking at. if you want to take a photo of a church, to take one of your shots, do you really want to be able to see every grain in the stonework, or is it a case of not seeing the wood for the trees?

No, you have a point for sure. It's certainly not a technology that should be used all the time even though you could if you wanted to. It works much better for certain types of images for sure.

Regards
James

Tubbritt

Arciphel wrote: »

Interesting thread Tubbritt, I have one of these as well but I use it for doing 360 degree panos mostly, don't use the included software I prefer using PTGUI for stitiching. You really need an SSD for the stitiching alright, and plenty of RAM. Here's some pics - http://www.flickr.com/photos/arciphel/sets/72157625213879032/with/5103575402/

Sorry, I get a page not found message.

Regards
James

magicbastarder

Tubbritt wrote: »

The photo of the inside of the Holy Family church was printed 45” by 30” and because the Printer that was used had a DPI of 2800DPI, you got every single pixel of that DPI in the print. It shows.

the human eye would not be able to tell the difference between a 1000DPI image and a 2800DPI image.
i scan my slides and negs at 2700DPI - and slides which look sharp to the naked eye from an inch or two away can come out blurred when scanned; your eyes simply don't have that resolving power.

the professional standard input resolution for printing (the input image, not the printer resolution) is between 300 and 360dpi. if your input is 2800dpi, that's 80 times as much detail. i think that's a bit beyond redundant in terms of what the eye can discern.

anyway, this has gone a bit off my original topic - which is the choice of subject. the dunmore east one above works best because there's interest in zooming in on a lot of it.

Tubbritt

the human eye would not be able to tell the difference between a 1000DPI image and a 2800DPI image.
i scan my slides and negs at 2700DPI - and slides which look sharp to the naked eye from an inch or two away can come out blurred when scanned; your eyes simply don't have that resolving power.

Sorry, I'm not sure how scanning slides fits in with all this.

the professional standard input resolution for printing (the input image, not the printer resolution) is between 300 and 360dpi. if your input is 2800dpi, that's 80 times as much detail. i think that's a bit beyond redundant in terms of what the eye can discern.

Sure, it's total overkill, but it's be no means a wasted effort. If you take the 300 DPI you refer to and do the maths. You need a photo of 122 Mega Pixels to print at 45” X 30 Inch as I did.

So it would be impossible to print the image in the first place at 300 DPI if I didn't use the Robot. You have to also take into consideration the resolution of the human eye. In MegaPixels it's the equivalent of 576Mega Pixels.

So, bearing that in mind. If you print at 2800dpi and you put your face right up to the photo to see the detail. You will see it. Either way you look at this, it's not a wasted effort. Maybe to total overkill, but the photo was not taken just so it could be printed. It was taken to be viewed online.

anyway, this has gone a bit off my original topic - which is the choice of subject. the dunmore east one above works best because there's interest in zooming in on a lot of it.

Sure, no doubt about it. For spending time viewing a photo, the ones outdoors of large area's will be more interesting.

Regards
James

Captain Flaps

These are pretty fantastic, and while I do agree that with a bit of extra time and care going into the composition would add a lot, they're great as they are. Really interested to see this kind of thing and how its done, don't let the naysayers get you down!

the_syco

Tubbritt wrote: »

Hi all.

I just added a 1,835 Megapixel Image of the front of Ballyduff Church.

http://www.myvirtualworld.ie/deepview/ballyduff-f/index.htm

Regards
James

WOW. Can zoom right into the gravestones at the left of the picture, and read what is written on them!

How much RAM and what CPU are you using?

I remember the speed increase when I went from using a (2GHz) duel core and 2GB's RAM to a (2.83GHz) quad core and 4GB's of RAM when I last upgraded. I'd be using panorama program Kolor Autopano Giga. Only use a tripod myself, but would love to have one of the robots to make life easier

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

(2.83GHz) quad core and 4GB's of RAM

To clarify, one of the panoramas I did in the last while was 89 images. I'm sure your images are bigger, but my point is that the program used all four cores of the quad, and most of my RAM. The speed it would process the panoramas were considerably quicker with the quad core. It's also worth checking what version of the program you are using; I'm unsure if the 32bit version of Autopano uses all the cores available.



This is why I queried your amount of RAM and the CPU you are using.