Log in

No account? Create an account
Recent Entries Friends Archive Profile Tags My wildlife photography
So, let's see if ..

"Computer. Image, present."

"Good. Computer, enhance, central area."

"Computer, north, seek Abbey. Enhance."

"Good, good.. computer, enhance."

"Computer, focus on central archway. Enhance."

"Ah, getting there. Still need a little more detail, though. Computer, remain on archway. Enhance."

Hey, I think it works. =:)
Wow, awesome close up! Despite it being the XXI century Bath still seems to look old, as if we'd still be in the 1800's.
It's also rather neat the way newer construction's designed to blend in, for the most part, with matching architecture, often local stone as well. (And then, of course, there are the baths themselves - quite amazing, realising just how old it is, and what a sight the complex was, in its entirety, with massive roofs of hollowed tiles, and the many smaller pools of incremental temperature)

The shot itself is all at that final resolution, btw - 86501 × 26400 pixels. ie, if it were printed out at 300dpi, it'd cover 24' x 7'4". =:D

If you visit sometime, No.1 Royal Crescent is well worth a visit - only about six of the rooms are open, for now, but they're working on opening more by the end of the year. Each is furnished lavishly as it would have been at the time, and each room has its own guide waiting to tell you about what the function of the room was, pointing out little details about it. (The Crescent was built primarily for as rentals for the wealthy, who'd spend a month or two in town, partaking of the society events, and of course, the baths)
Impressive res, must take up tens of megs on your compy :P I'd love to take a hike to Bath one day, beautiful place that has retained most of its old charm. It is an UNESCO heritage site, eh?
It did get a bit hairy at the end, with the final output file being written out, and space dwindling perilously close to zero - wound up having to quickly copy some big files off the drive, to be sure I wouldn't have it fail right at the last moment. ^_^; The PSB out of PTGui was over 7GB, and the trimmed image, removing the rough edges, came out of Photoshop as a bit over 12GB. Such projects do require a bit of patience.. !

And then there was all the input data - each RAW's about 10MB, each exported TIFF around 30MB, plus PTGui's intermediates.. ! (Thankfully, PTGui permits selecting other drives for scratch space, as does Potatoshop)

Thankfully, JPEG-2000 does a very good job of crunching the size down - a low quality (10!) version is about 33MB, and Q=50 is still "only" 100MB or so. Not bad for a two gigapixel image!

Indeed, the city's quite proud of that status, with the Heritage Site emblem set into the cobblestones outside the baths, and a day of related activities taking place next weekend. Really quite a gorgeous place, brimming over with atmosphere - wander down the quiet alleyways at night, and you almost expect to bump into a small group of visitors from the 1770s around the corner. =:)
Blimey, did you take that? I'm impressed! What on earth did you use as a camera for a resolution like that?
Just the D90 - and a tripod, so I could take all 711 shots without the Nikkor 300mm f/4D getting a bit heavy after several minutes of scanning up, down, bit to the right, repeat.. ^_^;

I tried the same shot a week or two earlier, but I must've missed a couple slivers, as there were two cuts in the final stitch, plus a substantial crease in the middle. With the tripod, it was much easier, knowing that as I raised and lowered it, I was doing so genuinely vertically. (Shake wasn't really an issue, as I was at 1/1600th)

Only trouble with a large stitching project like that is it does rather chow down on disk - each RAW's about 10MB, and the exported TIFFs (after a little tweaking in Aperture) are about 30MB at 8 bits/channel. Then there's all the intermediates PTGui generates - I wound up close enough to running out of space on the internal drive (using an external for PTGui's scratch, too) that I wound up having to shovel off a few gigs onto the external, so as not to lose the final output PSB file (Photoshop Large Document - start going over 32K or 64K pixels on an image axis, and some file formats start getting tetchy, or exceeding 2GB or 4GB for the file). Unfortunately, it does seem things got tight enough at the wrong moment that Mail was given some indigestion, complaining the index was damaged and needed rebuilding - except accepting that option didn't actually cause a rebuild, just the same error. At this point, I'll probably wait until the replacement HD arrives, as the risk of bad sectors is a little too tangible - the previous Aperture library lost two RAWs. Thankfully, not especially noteworthy ones. Meanwhile, the iPad's happily slurping email as usual.

I was thinking a Blade Runner-style video clip might be fun to do with that sometime.. maybe go the whole hog and claim it's a test run of some exciting new image processing technology, whilst of course not actually offering anything for sale. ^_^
How many shots?!
*giggle* It did take a bit of time. ^_^; Not all that long, but still, probably around 10-15 mins. I could have got away with many fewer, but it's not a bad thing to have plenty of overlap in a panorama stitching - makes the process more robust. I learned about the utility thereof in last Spring's ultrawide from San Bruno, where I deliberately only shot with relatively little overlap between each image, which made them trickier to stitch together well. (That, and some portions of the horizon not having many very distinct or static features. I'd love to retry it, possibly renting a motorised panorama head & tripod, so each shot would inherently have accurate position information)
That is straight-up science fiction.

Tell me, do you have any interest in the Lytro, or the concept behind it?
Apparently not! :D
You are apparently unacquainted with my amazing powers of procrastination. =:) *hug*

I've not really looked into it too much as yet, as it's more of a tech demo at this point - the output resolution's not up to much, as I recall. But the fundamentals are quite intriguing, unquestionably, though I sort of wonder if they're not targeting the wrong market at this stage: this posting was one I found quite insightful.
Amazingly outstanding ^^'
Really impressive , 711 shots but how much time to build the full final image ?
Egh! Way too long. ^_^ From start to finish, the whole process was about 12 hours. It would be much faster on a system with an SSD, I suspect, as it's fairly I/O-bound - each original RAW's about 10MB, and exporting all those to 8-bit TIFFs took an hour or two, at around 30-40MB each, having applied the same set of modest adjustments to each, which itself took another hour or two. (Nothing dramatic, just slight sharpening, a bit of additional contrast to offset the day's haze, and suchlike) The actual stitching from TIFFs was maybe around six hours, again mostly a matter of it reading in all that data, at only around 30MB/s peak.

I'm very tempted to shell out for PTGui, though I wish they'd deliver a genuinely native app, rather than something very obviously cross-platform toolkit based - the UI's quite alien in feel, though at least better than Hugin, both in UI and performance. (That's the reason for the watermarking - this was performed using the demo version, which kindly doesn't really have many restrictions - the major one is simply that overlay)