Maybe my 25 foot calculations aren't far off for a person with 20/20
vision (which I don't have)
Chuck Norcutt
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I've never tried stitching macro before either but I think it would be
> very difficult. It would place a real premium on having the camera/lens
> adjusted very, very precisely to avoid parallax error between frames.
>
> But I don't think such sophistication is required. An image that is 3x3
> meters is intended to be viewed from a long ways away. Some really
> rough calculations based on human visual acuity (1/60 degree) tells me
> that 23ppi would probably look "sharp" from about 25 feet away.
>
> You could easily do a little experiment. An 8x10 printed at 23ppi would
> be a 184x230 pixel crop of some larger image. Crop out a piece that
> size and try to print it at 23ppi. Actually, I don't know if typical
> software would let you print that coarsely. But maybe it will. If it
> does then stand back until it looks "sharp".
>
> Time out....
>
> I'm back. I was curious enough to perform my own 23 ppi experiment and
> the quality is actually better than I expected. I cropoed out a section
> of an image as described above and printed it on plain paper at low
> (text) quality to make an 8x10. At 6 feet away it looks pretty good but
> I can still see a bit of pixellation along the gunwale of a boat. By
> the time I'm 12 feet back all pixellation is gone.
>
> I used PW Pro to do the cropping, resizing and printing since I don't
> know how to do a precise pixel size crop in PhotoShop but it's easy in
> PW Pro.
>
> Your camera has an image height of 2736 pixels. A 2736x2736 crop should
> cover 3x3 meters at 23.2 ppi. Frame the flower carefully. z:-)
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> Frank Wijsmuller wrote:
>> Hi Rickard,
>>
>> no idea about resolution requirements, but the lens you have at your
>> disposal could be the critical thing. If you can go macro enough, you could
>> 'autostich' overlapping pictures to get the megapixels you need. Never done
>> stitching a macro picture myself though.
>> Good luck. And congratulations with their trust in you ;-)
>>
>> Regards, Frank.
>>
>>
>> 2007/8/24, Rickard Nilsson <rickard.nilsson@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been asked to urgently help out by
>>> photographing a flower that should be printed
>>> in about 3x3 meters and used in a company's
>>> exposition. That's about all information I
>>> have for the moment, I have no idea of what
>>> type of paper or canvas that will be used.
>>>
>>> Is it just plain stupid to try to do this with
>>> the E-500, or could the result be acceptable?
>>> I read somewhere that 23 ppi should be an
>>> appropriate resolution for such big images.
>>> If so, I guess 8 megapixel could be just about
>>> enough. Is that number completely off?
>>>
>>> Any other quick tips about this sort of assigment?
>>> I realise I'm not really the right man for the
>>> job, but I thought I could give it a try.
>>>
>>> / Rickard
>>>
>>> ==============================================
>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> ==============================================
>>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|