Panos Made Easy (ATTN: Brett)

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by TAFKAB, Nov 22, 2004.

  1. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    TAFKAB, Nov 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. TAFKAB

    Peter Chant Guest

    Xpan?
     
    Peter Chant, Nov 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Nice detail.
     
    Gregory W Blank, Nov 23, 2004
    #3
  4. TAFKAB

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Peter Chant

    Not bad, but while you're dropping your film off and then going back to get
    your negatives, I'll already be working on my stitch.

    Yessir, the 20D keeps me in stitches!
     
    Annika1980, Nov 23, 2004
    #4
  5. TAFKAB

    Jim Phelps Guest

    Process himself and scan (flatbed)? That should take all of an hour, even
    if it's E-6 slide film...
     
    Jim Phelps, Nov 23, 2004
    #5
  6. TAFKAB

    steven Guest

    Detail? In a 1181 pixel wide jpg?
     
    steven, Nov 23, 2004
    #6
  7. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    Yes. With the 90mm lens.
     
    TAFKAB, Nov 23, 2004
    #7
  8. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    Me, too. I've never minded walking past the local camera store, dumping the
    film, and then retrieving. If not, I drop it in the mail. I love the digital
    workflow, but never felt the need for that instant gratification. Digital
    just isn't ready for me yet.

    Negs? Nah. Chromes, mostly. Some negs.
     
    TAFKAB, Nov 23, 2004
    #8
  9. TAFKAB

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "steven"
    Let's see what it looks like at 20,000 pixels width.
     
    Annika1980, Nov 23, 2004
    #9
  10. TAFKAB

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Peter Chant
    I've been considering getting one of those.
    Of course, I'd use it in vertical orientation and then stitch the images
    together. You could do some cool things that way.
     
    Annika1980, Nov 23, 2004
    #10
  11. TAFKAB

    Eric Miller Guest

    I think you're missing the point of stitching. Try taking a photo with your
    setup that has a 180 degree horizontal AND vertical field of view (or even
    360°). Try taking that photo without a special camera. Try taking a photo
    that can be printed 20 inches high and the 20 FEET wide AND have sharp
    detail. When you can do that with one shot, you'll have something that
    compares.

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Nov 23, 2004
    #11
  12. TAFKAB

    Peter Chant Guest

    If you were going to do that why not stop messing about and go for large
    format. It would be simpler.
     
    Peter Chant, Nov 23, 2004
    #12
  13. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    BTW, there are film cameras that can do exactly what you describe with three
    shots. With the XPan, I can do it with four. 20inches high, 20 feet long,
    tons of detail. Absolutely no problem. But that's a very thin photo with not
    much height, and I wouldn't bother. Kind of like looking through a mail
    slot.

    Trust me, I know all about stitching. Wonderful, but not perfect, and time
    consuming.
     
    TAFKAB, Nov 23, 2004
    #13
  14. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    No doubt, but it's a waste of time. If you want to do that, shoot the 20D
    vertical and stitch. The XPan is a wonderful travel kit, and can produce
    incredible images, but shooting verticals and stitching could be a pain due
    to the number of overlapping frames required to produce a seamless image.
     
    TAFKAB, Nov 23, 2004
    #14
  15. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    Hmmm... Let's see; for an image 20K pixels wide, I'd need four shots. Each
    scan is around 11K pixels wide. Shoot four, scan, stitch, and I'm there. But
    I won't bother. The largest print I've ever made from the XPan is about 2' x
    5', and it was incredible (scanned Velvia). Anything bigger, and I wouldn't
    know where to hang it. I mean, isn't that the point of all that resolution?
    To make huge prints?
     
    TAFKAB, Nov 23, 2004
    #15
  16. TAFKAB

    Chris Cox Guest


    http://www.gigapxl.org/


    Chris
     
    Chris Cox, Nov 23, 2004
    #16
  17. TAFKAB

    Eric Miller Guest

    Kinda makes my point for me doesn't it? When you buy one, let us know the
    cost.

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Nov 23, 2004
    #17
  18. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    True. I can't wait until we see sensors that can take the place of 8x10 film
    holders. Could be a while.
     
    TAFKAB, Nov 23, 2004
    #18
  19. TAFKAB

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "TAFKAB"
    Exactly.
     
    Annika1980, Nov 24, 2004
    #19
  20. TAFKAB

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Chris Cox
    Chris,
    In Michael Reichmann's interview with Stephen Johnson, Steve said that you
    "really came through for him" with regards to getting the pixel size limit
    increased in the new version of Photoshop. I believe the limit is now about
    250,000 pixels wide in CS, isn't it?

    Anyway, you'd better stay on top of that and increase it some more for the next
    version cause I'm gunning for that limit.
     
    Annika1980, Nov 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.