Photomerge: Greater than the Sum of the Parts

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by xDsrtRat, Dec 31, 2004.

  1. xDsrtRat

    xDsrtRat Guest

    I was archiving some record album covers and I noticed an odd phenomenon.
    The album cover does not fit the bed of my scanner, so I was using two
    passes of the scanner, with a good deal of overlap, and using Photomerge to
    join the two images. Photomerge did a very nice job, but here's where I
    noticed the oddity.

    I'm scanning about 80% of the cover on each pass, so there's quite a lot of
    duplicate data. Image1 was perhaps 18K in size and Image2 was about 15K. The
    total of the two images was about 33K. After I saved the Photomerged image
    the file size was somewhere about 55K. Where did the overhead come from?

    Logically, I'd expect the final image to be way less than the sum of the two
    images and I think the duplicate data is being thrown away. Yes, I expect a
    file size bigger than the lager of the two files since some information is
    being added. Having the file size bigger than the sum of the two was
    unexpected.

    The physical look of the merge was very nice, by the way. Since it is the
    image I'm interested in, not the file size, I'm not going to loose any sleep
    over this. I was just wondering if anyone else has noticed this.

    Happy New Year to All!
     
    xDsrtRat, Dec 31, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. xDsrtRat

    Peadge Guest


    My first question is why are the initial scans so tiny? These are vinyl
    album covers--12 inches by 12 inches, correct? At what resolution are you
    scanning them to be so small? What type of file were saving the Photomerged
    version as?

    Peadge :)
     
    Peadge, Dec 31, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. xDsrtRat

    xDsrtRat Guest

    --
    ________________________________
    Iraq is a Farsi phrase meaning Viet Nam
    My bad . . . That should have been Megs, not Kb. (Bashful blush!) The
    files are saved as a PSD and the original scan was at 300 DPI.
     
    xDsrtRat, Dec 31, 2004
    #3
  4. xDsrtRat

    Peadge Guest

    Oh man! And I was hoping a new type of scanner came out that saved great
    copies at a small file size. I've never used Photomerge. Does it merge the
    two scans into one layer or does it create two layers that line up
    correctly? It is a strange thing.

    Peadge :)
     
    Peadge, Jan 1, 2005
    #4
  5. xDsrtRat

    xDsrtRat Guest

    Near as I can tell, it's operating on the same layer as no new layers are
    shown in the final output . . . unless it creates a new layer then
    automatically flattens the final. You can also use three photos to do a
    panorama view. Beats trying to do it by hand! If you're critical, you may
    want to do a little touch-up along the join line, but it is usually quite
    seamless.
     
    xDsrtRat, Jan 1, 2005
    #5
  6. xDsrtRat

    Peadge Guest

    I did a similar thing at school with a "stitching" program of some sort on a
    Mac. It was a 360 degree panorama. When put on a website, placing your
    cursor to one side and holding would pan in that direction. Pretty cool.

    Peadge :)
     
    Peadge, Jan 3, 2005
    #6
    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.