Digital BW, The Print

Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some 
comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a Canon 
10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image 
(18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) made 
with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set 
to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid 
type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and 
Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32 
(EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison 
images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and 100% 
of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image is 
80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the 
appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched 
10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching 
is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital 
camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality of 
either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.

http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm

On Dec 10, 2004, at 9:57 AM, Carl Schofield wrote:

>
> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
> comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a Canon
> 10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image
> (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) made
> with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set
> to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid
> type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
> Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32
> (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison
> images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and 100%
> of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image is
> 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the
> appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched
> 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching
> is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital
> camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality of
> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm

Good comparison! Of course many factors at work (different exposure 
times most importantly) but it shows what can be done with stitching.

Just fyi, if you're shooting a lot of panoramas to be stitched, there 
are autostitching possibilities. I see you're on a Mac... you could use 
XPoints (free) and PTMac (not so free) from Kekus.com... for this kind 
of work it's very fast/effective and you shouldn't usually have to do 
much/any manual stitching (unless you have image pairs where there is 
virtually no detail for it to match - like expanses of water). XPoints 
does the job of scanning through your images and generating a PTMac 
project file with control points set for you - then just open in PTMac, 
optimize, and render. Pretty smooth for non-spherical panoramas.

-R

Great work Carl. I vote for the digital. Did you stitch with Photoshop 
automation?
Mark

On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Carl Schofield wrote:

> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
>  comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a Canon
>  10D.� Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image
>  (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) made
>  with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set
>  to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid
>  type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
>  Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.� Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32
>  (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).� The comparison
>  images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and 
> 100%
>  of image size.� The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image is
>  80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the
>  appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.� The stitched
>  10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching
>  is very tedious and time consuming.� You would need a 40 MP digital
>  camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality of
>  either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
>  Please follow these basic guidelines:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <lrec_companion_043004.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Roger,

Thanks for the tip on XPoints.  I downloaded and will give it a try 
with PTMac, which I already had but did not use.

Carl

On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Roger Howard wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 10, 2004, at 9:57 AM, Carl Schofield wrote:
>
>>
>> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
>> comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a Canon
>> 10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image
>> (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) made
>> with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set
>> to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid
>> type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
>> Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32
>> (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison
>> images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and 
>> 100%
>> of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image is
>> 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the
>> appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched
>> 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching
>> is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital
>> camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality of
>> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm
>
> Good comparison! Of course many factors at work (different exposure
> times most importantly) but it shows what can be done with stitching.
>
> Just fyi, if you're shooting a lot of panoramas to be stitched, there
> are autostitching possibilities. I see you're on a Mac... you could use
> XPoints (free) and PTMac (not so free) from Kekus.com... for this kind
> of work it's very fast/effective and you shouldn't usually have to do
> much/any manual stitching (unless you have image pairs where there is
> virtually no detail for it to match - like expanses of water). XPoints
> does the job of scanning through your images and generating a PTMac
> project file with control points set for you - then just open in PTMac,
> optimize, and render. Pretty smooth for non-spherical panoramas.
>
> -R
>

Mark,

No, I did all of the stitching manually using layers, masks, etc.  If I 
were going to do a lot of this I would definitely try the XPoints and 
the  PTMac tools that Roger mentioned in his post.  Also, file sizes 
get ridculously large (>2 gb) when doing this in 16 bit RGB with 
several layers active at once.  The computer I used had only 768 mb of 
ram so I had to do this in 3 sections and then stitch the sections 
together.

Carl

On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:25 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:

>
>
> Great work Carl. I vote for the digital. Did you stitch with Photoshop
> automation?
> Mark
>
> On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Carl Schofield wrote:
>
>> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
>>  comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a 
>> Canon
>>  10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image
>>  (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) 
>> made
>>  with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set
>>  to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid
>>  type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
>>  Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32
>>  (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison
>>  images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and
>> 100%
>>  of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image 
>> is
>>  80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the
>>  appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched
>>  10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching
>>  is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital
>>  camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality 
>> of
>>  either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm

Alan Huntley recommends REALVIZ "Stitcher":

http://www.realviz.com/products/st/

> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:25:59 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE:Digital camera 10Dvs4x5
> 
> 
> 
> Great work Carl. I vote for the digital. Did you stitch with Photoshop
> automation?
> Mark
> 
> On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Carl Schofield wrote:
> 
>> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
>>  comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a Canon
>>  10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image
>>  (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) made
>>  with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set
>>  to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid
>>  type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
>>  Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32
>>  (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison
>>  images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and
>> 100%
>>  of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image is
>>  80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the
>>  appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched
>>  10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching
>>  is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital
>>  camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality of
>>  either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>> 
>> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm
>>

Long night.
Mark

On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Carl Schofield wrote:

> Yahoo! Groups Survey
> Please help us to improve Yahoo! Groups. Take the survey now!
>
>  Mark,
>
>  No, I did all of the stitching manually using layers, masks, etc.� If 
> I
>  were going to do a lot of this I would definitely try the XPoints and
>  the� PTMac tools that Roger mentioned in his post.� Also, file sizes
>  get ridculously large (>2 gb) when doing this in 16 bit RGB with
>  several layers active at once.� The computer I used had only 768 mb of
>  ram so I had to do this in 3 sections and then stitch the sections
>  together.
>
>  Carl
>
>  On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:25 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
>
>  >
>  >
>  > Great work Carl. I vote for the digital. Did you stitch with 
> Photoshop
>  > automation?
>  > Mark
>  >
>  > On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Carl Schofield wrote:
>  >
>  >> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
>  >>� comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a
>  >> Canon
>  >>� 10D.� Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite 
> image
>  >>� (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix)
>  >> made
>  >>� with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 
> set
>  >>� to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a 
> Polaroid
>  >>� type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
>  >>� Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.� Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at 
> f/32
>  >>� (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).� The 
> comparison
>  >>� images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and
>  >> 100%
>  >>� of image size.� The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D 
> image
>  >> is
>  >>� 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately 
> the
>  >>� appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.� The 
> stitched
>  >>� 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the 
> stitching
>  >>� is very tedious and time consuming.� You would need a 40 MP 
> digital
>  >>� camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and 
> quality
>  >> of
>  >>� either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>  >>
>  >> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm
>  �
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
>  Please follow these basic guidelines:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Carl,

Great comparisons! Get Realviz Stitcher 4.0 and "painful stitching" will be a thing of the past! Not inexpensive software, but, IMO, the best out there for doing this type of work.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
> Date: 2004/12/10 Fri PM 12:57:41 EST
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] RE:Digital camera 10Dvs4x5
> 
> 
> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some 
> comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a Canon 
> 10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image 
> (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) made 
> with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set 
> to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid 
> type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and 
> Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32 
> (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison 
> images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and 100% 
> of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image is 
> 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the 
> appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched 
> 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching 
> is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital 
> camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality of 
> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.

--- Carl Schofield <scho@...> wrote:
 You would need a 40 MP digital 
camera to get single shot images comparable to the
size and quality of 
either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.

--

Not sure I agree; others have calculated 4x5 as
equally to 'roughly' 200 MP.  And Roger Clark is no
technical slouch:

<http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#digicamres2>

Matt




=====
E-mail: wensing@...
Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

True, no question that a high quality scan of a well exposed 4x5 
negative can produce much larger images and prints, but I was not 
talking about the theoretical MP equivalence of 4x5 .  I said that if 
one wanted to make images with a single shot digital camera suitable 
for producing images with the same quality as the images I obtained 
with the 4x5 and the stitched 10D, which were both designed to be 
printed at approximately 16x20 inches at 360 ppi, then you would need a 
40 MP digital camera.

On Dec 10, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Matthew Wensing wrote:

>
> --- Carl Schofield <scho@...> wrote:
>  You would need a 40 MP digital
> camera to get single shot images comparable to the
> size and quality of
> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>
> --
>
> Not sure I agree; others have calculated 4x5 as
> equally to 'roughly' 200 MP.  And Roger Clark is no
> technical slouch:
>
> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#digicamres2>
>
> Matt

Carl,

Good work - but so surprise here.

We should remember that placing a matrix of 3 columm x 6 rows APS 
sized sensors (your ~80 MPix) is not the same as placing the entire 
80 MPix into a single APS (or even full frame 35  mm film) sized 
sensor.  No doubt that modern DSLR sensors(>6 MPix) capture detail 
close to (or by some people's opinion, even better than) modern high 
res film of the SAME APS SIZE.  Your comparison is actually very good 
at showing that a small format lens has a great deal more resolution 
than LF lenses.  As I read somewhere else recently, "there ain't no 
substitute for real estate".  Your test shows that an 80 MPix sensor 
approximately 1/2 the physical size of 5x4 film will beat 5x4 film 
scanned on an Epson 3200.  To beat a high end drum scan may take 200 
MPix onto a 5x4 sensor.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some 
> comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a 
Canon 
> 10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite 
image 
> (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) 
made 
> with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 
set 
> to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a 
Polaroid 
> type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and 
> Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at 
f/32 
> (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The 
comparison 
> images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and 
100% 
> of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image 
is 
> 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately 
the 
> appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The 
stitched 
> 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the 
stitching 
> is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital 
> camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality 
of 

> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm

On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Alan.Huntley@... wrote:

>
> Carl,
>
> Great comparisons! Get Realviz Stitcher 4.0 and "painful stitching" 
> will be a thing of the past! Not inexpensive software, but, IMO, the 
> best out there for doing this type of work.

I've owned Stitcher licenses for several versions, and finally gave up 
on it... while it can be convenient for easily stitched subject matter, 
I often had frames that couldn't be stitched in Stitcher. After 
switching to a PanoTools-based workflow (PTMac on Mac OSX - PTGUI, 
PTAssembler, or Hugin on Windows) I will never look back... both for 
spherical panos (QuicktimeVR, etc) and for more traditional panos. Too 
many crashes and unstitchable scenes, and poor blending, not to mention 
the high-cost. The PanoTools workflow seems a bit complex at first, but 
it's very very capable, and not nearly as difficult as it may seem - 
especially now that there are tools like XPoints to automatically find 
your control points, and enblend to do first-class seam blending. It 
can be an entirely automated process now, but with far better quality 
than Stitcher.

Your mileage may vary, of course!

Cheers,

Roger

I can recommend any of the gui front ends for panorama tools. I've been 
using panorama tools for over 6 years now for stitching anything from 
full spherical 360 panoramas to partial panoramas with longer lenses to 
get higher resolution for signboards. PTmac for Mac users, PTAssembler 
and PTGui on Windows, and Hugin on Linux. Don't forget Enblend (Windows) 
and XBlend (Mac and Linux I think) for procesing final remapped images 
and getting rid of any colour differences in the overlap sections. There 
is also a program called autopano which makes a decent effort at 
automatically aligning the images and generating a project file for 
loading into the GUI programs above.

There's a list PanoTools@yahoogroups.com

also there is the beginnings of a very good site attempting to collect 
the wealth of knowledge available for stiching panoramas panotools.info

Good luck

Glenn

Steve Kale wrote:

> 
> Alan Huntley recommends REALVIZ "Stitcher":
> 
> http://www.realviz.com/products/st/
> 
> 
> 
>>From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
>>Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:25:59 -0500
>>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE:Digital camera 10Dvs4x5
>>
>>
>>
>>Great work Carl. I vote for the digital. Did you stitch with Photoshop
>>automation?
>>Mark
>>
>>On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Carl Schofield wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
>>> comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a Canon
>>> 10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image
>>> (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) made
>>> with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set
>>> to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid
>>> type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
>>> Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32
>>> (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison
>>> images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and
>>>100%
>>> of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image is
>>> 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the
>>> appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched
>>> 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching
>>> is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital
>>> camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality of
>>> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>>>
>>>http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Roger,

My experience with Stitcher has been exactly opposite of yours...have you 
used the latest version? It's the only one I have experience with. I started 
out with PTAssembler and, though I believe Max did a first-rate job of 
providing a reasonable GUI front-end for the more complex Panotools lying 
underneath, I never found the stitching process to be very intuitive using 
this tool. Additionally, seams on the final renders required quite a bit of 
work to blend everything together nicely. I never had any problems setting 
appropriate control points, but always seemed to have the point-of-view set 
slightly wrong. And, when "things" (yaw, etc) messed up I was not able to 
fix the image to my satisfaction. Probably some of my issues stemmed from 
lack of knowledge on how to effectively use PTAssembler and Panotools, but I 
finally just gave up.

However, after reading several positive reviews of Stitcher 4.0 and 
contacting a couple of photographers on the 'net that I knew owned the 
software and who's opinions I respected, I ordered it. This was a very 
unusual move for me because I don't usually buy software that I haven't 
taken out for a test drive, first! I had been forewarned that though a demo 
version was available it was so limited that one could not really judge it 
properly. To be honest, I had to contact tech support with a few questions 
about how to set certain final rendering characteristics, but that was it. 
To my mind, this software is pretty intuitive to use. After playing around 
with several renderings of Canon 10D images creating psd layer-based output 
with layer masks, and rendering the same image as a single layer tiff file, 
I decided that the enormous file sizes required for the former were just not 
necessary. I created the layered output because of my experience with 
PTAssembler; figuring I'd have to go back and play with the seams to get 
things right. However, I found that this workflow was not necessary. 
Whatever algorithms Stitcher 4.0 uses for blending seams is, to my eyes, 
totally invisible. Now, I only ever create single layered tiff output.

As the saying goes...different strokes for different folks. Don't get me 
wrong, I think PTAssembler is a great tool; especially for the price! I've 
never used the tools you mention but, for me, Stitcher has worked out great.

Regards,
Alan Huntley

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger Howard" <rogerhoward@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE:Digital camera 10Dvs4x5




On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Alan.Huntley@... wrote:

>
> Carl,
>
> Great comparisons! Get Realviz Stitcher 4.0 and "painful stitching"
> will be a thing of the past! Not inexpensive software, but, IMO, the
> best out there for doing this type of work.

I've owned Stitcher licenses for several versions, and finally gave up
on it... while it can be convenient for easily stitched subject matter,
I often had frames that couldn't be stitched in Stitcher. After
switching to a PanoTools-based workflow (PTMac on Mac OSX - PTGUI,
PTAssembler, or Hugin on Windows) I will never look back... both for
spherical panos (QuicktimeVR, etc) and for more traditional panos. Too
many crashes and unstitchable scenes, and poor blending, not to mention
the high-cost. The PanoTools workflow seems a bit complex at first, but
it's very very capable, and not nearly as difficult as it may seem -
especially now that there are tools like XPoints to automatically find
your control points, and enblend to do first-class seam blending. It
can be an entirely automated process now, but with far better quality
than Stitcher.

Your mileage may vary, of course!

Cheers,

Roger

Carl, very interesting experiment, it certainly shows the potential 
of the stitching technique. I must however point out that you have 
inadvertantly biased the results in favor of digital, by your lens 
choice. I own a  Fuji 240 A, and I consider it my very worst 4x5 
lens. In fact, I consider it to be one (small) step above coke-
bottle grade glass. And Polaroid PN film isn't all that sharp 
either, at least I've never been able to get resolution comparable 
to sheet film out of it. Not to 'nitpick', but the 4x5 should have 
been able to do better!

Steven Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some 
> comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a 
Canon 
> 10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite 
image 
> (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) 
made 
> with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 
set 
> to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a 
Polaroid 
> type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and 
> Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at 
f/32 
> (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The 
comparison 
> images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and 
100% 
> of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D 
image is 
> 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately 
the 
> appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The 
stitched 
> 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the 
stitching 
> is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP 
digital 
> camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and 
quality of 

> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm

-----Original Message-----

From: Glenn Barry [mailto:glennrbarry@...] 
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:41 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE:Digital camera 10Dvs4x5


I can recommend any of the gui front ends for panorama tools. I've been 
using panorama tools for over 6 years now for stitching anything from 
full spherical 360 panoramas to partial panoramas with longer lenses to 
get higher resolution for signboards. PTmac for Mac users, PTAssembler 
and PTGui on Windows, and Hugin on Linux. Don't forget Enblend (Windows) 
and XBlend (Mac and Linux I think) for procesing final remapped images 
and getting rid of any colour differences in the overlap sections. There 
is also a program called autopano which makes a decent effort at 
automatically aligning the images and generating a project file for 
loading into the GUI programs above.

There's a list PanoTools@yahoogroups.com

also there is the beginnings of a very good site attempting to collect 
the wealth of knowledge available for stiching panoramas panotools.info


Nice one goodly master Barry...very nice.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Steven,

I agree that the 4x5 should do better than what I obtained in this 
comparison.  Although, I'm surprised by your comments on the Fujinon 
240 A quality.  I purchased this lens based on the rave reviews in the 
largeformat photography forum and on Kerry Thalman's web site.  Mine 
seems to have about the same level of sharpness as my Rodenstock 
Sironar-S 135mm f/5.6, which is the only other lens I have for the 4x5. 
  The 240 gave the better focal length match to the 135 on the 10D so 
that is why I used the 240 for this comparison.  A few other factors 
that may be involved are wind (as affecting film flatness - there was 
some movement of the envelope during the 2 second exposure), possible 
focusing error, and scanner quality.  I added 3 more comparison images 
using the scan from a second negative shot at the same time as the 
first and this one seems to be slightly sharper, although I'd still 
give the 10D composite a slight edge in sharpness.  Both the 10D 
composite and the 4x5 scan produce very good 16x20 inch prints so in 
terms of the end product its' a toss up.

Carl
http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm

On Dec 11, 2004, at 2:09 AM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>
>
> Carl, very interesting experiment, it certainly shows the potential
> of the stitching technique. I must however point out that you have
> inadvertantly biased the results in favor of digital, by your lens
> choice. I own a  Fuji 240 A, and I consider it my very worst 4x5
> lens. In fact, I consider it to be one (small) step above coke-
> bottle grade glass. And Polaroid PN film isn't all that sharp
> either, at least I've never been able to get resolution comparable
> to sheet film out of it. Not to 'nitpick', but the 4x5 should have
> been able to do better!
>
> Steven Karafyllakis
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
>> comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a
> Canon
>> 10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite
> image
>> (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix)
> made
>> with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200
> set
>> to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a
> Polaroid
>> type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
>> Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at
> f/32
>> (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The
> comparison
>> images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and
> 100%
>> of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D
> image is
>> 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately
> the
>> appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The
> stitched
>> 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the
> stitching
>> is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP
> digital
>> camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and
> quality of
>> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> Steven,
> 
> I agree that the 4x5 should do better than what I obtained in this 
> comparison.  Although, I'm surprised by your comments on the 
Fujinon 
> 240 A quality.  I purchased this lens based on the rave reviews in 
the 
> largeformat photography forum and on Kerry Thalman's web site.  
Mine 
> seems to have about the same level of sharpness as my Rodenstock 
> Sironar-S 135mm f/5.6, which is the only other lens I have for the 
4x5. 

Carl;

I've never been able to get particularly sharp images out of mine; 
Perhaps I should have it checked? It seems adequate for 4x5, but I 
use all my lenses on both 4x5 and 2x3 (common lensboards) and it 
just won't hold up for 2x3. One of these days I'll probably sell it 
on ebay, so I'm happy to hear it has a good reputation!

BTW-nice photo either way, though I think I prefer the longer-
exposure water-blur.

Steve

But what you are comparing is the digital camera to the scanners
quality no the 4X5 once you scan the image it becomes a digital image
no longer a film image. 

I have never understood why this is always the case. If you want to
compare digital with optical then do it that way don't cut optical off
at the knees and half way through convert it to digital.

I guess you could do a digital capture then print a digital print and
then scan it to compare to the same method used with the 4X5

Mark W.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<scho@m...> wrote:

> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some 
> comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a Canon 
> 10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image 
> (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) made 
> with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set 
> to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid 
> type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and 
> Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32 
> (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison 
> images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and 100% 
> of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image is 
> 80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the 
> appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched 
> 10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching 
> is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital 
> camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality of 
> either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm