Help Baldy shoot for a 72x240-inch print

[Baldy]

We have a wall at SmugMug that is begging for a jaw-dropping pano. We know we want the SF skyline, probably from Bay Bridge to a little past Coit tower. A lot like the shot in the next post, but with supreme sharpness & dynamic range.

[Baldy]

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/11951517_oggAx-X3-1.jpg (http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/299867_7tpPy/2/11902528_UVFtQ#11951517_oggAx-X3-LB)

[Baldy]

I know it's a matter of taste, but ours runs towards seeing the buildings up close & personal, with people in the windows and along the water front. We're not too much into an expanse of water or sky.

One of our fav SF shots, which hangs on our walls, is a variation of the one in the next post by Chris Michel. We like being able to see people and details.

[Baldy]

http://pacific.smugmug.com/photos/316417890_hAssh-X3.jpg

[Baldy]

Anyway, on the pano we're trying to shoot, does anyone know whether we'd get better results using Hasselblad's H3D? I have a friend with one who claims it has extraordinary dynamic range.

I'm a little concerned about how long a lens we'd end up using with it and what it implies for f-stop to get close enough to fill the frame mostly with buildings.

Would love to hear your advice.

[Baldy]

Actually, I take it back. The above pano is in a 12:1 ratio of width to height. Our room actually permits a 60-inch high print continuing across 3 walls for a total length of 700 inches, an almost 12:1 ratio.

[ziggy53]

Anyway, on the pano we're trying to shoot, does anyone know whether we'd get better results using Hasselblad's H3D? I have a friend with one who claims it has extraordinary dynamic range.

I'm a little concerned about how long a lens we'd end up using with it and what it implies for f-stop to get close enough to fill the frame mostly with buildings.

Would love to hear your advice.

There are rumors that the Hasselblad H3D-39 uses true 16 bit A/D sampling and does indeed have very nice dynamic range. One major issue you will have to contend with is noise above ISO 200. This would make a night shot that includes people and large DOF a challenge to say the least.

In this regard, a Nikon D3 with very long lenses and a programmable tripod head, to do the incremental tilts and swings, might be the (currently) best way to go. I'm talking in the hundreds of images, stitched together.

[ziggy53]

Inspiration:

Gigapixel image using, I believe, a Canon D60, 196 exposures across 13 minutes, 40,784 x 26,800 pixels total.
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

[ziggy53]

Inspiration:

13 gigapixel image using 2045 individual images, Nikon D2X, Nikkor 300mm lens, PixOrb head, Autopano Pro software.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/2045-Images-Stitched-Together-to-Create-13-Gigapixel-Panorama.htm

[Baldy]

There are rumors that the Hasselblad H3D-39 uses true 16 bit A/D sampling and does indeed have very nice dynamic range. One major issue you will have to contend with is noise above ISO 200. This would make a night shot that includes people and large DOF a challenge to say the least.Yeah, I'm reading that the dynamic range is amazing but the noise isn't so good above 200. Most guys shoot 50 or 100.

Here's a really good comparison: http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/d2x-h3d/

Excerpt:

The increased level of image detail was expected. The shocker was the dynamic range – this is where the H3D really distinguishes itself. With the D2X, I frequently resorted to bracketing just about any scene with meaningful dynamic range (often 5 or 7 exposures) and then combining them using layer masks in post (I always found this to achieve much better results than HDR in CS2). With the H3D you nearly have to be taking a picture of the sun to blow highlights. In scene after scene where the D2X would have suffered from massive blown highlights, HD3 handled the capture with ease. The difference is truly dramatic, will significantly shorten my landscape workflow, and should improve the resulting images. A sample image from my trip to Death Valley may be found here: http://www.pbase.com/hattenbach/image/77570448 . With the D2X this scene would have required blending at least two bracketed exposures (one for the ground, one for the sky). This image is straight from the camera, curves and levels applied and then downsized for the web. Less than a minute of processing.

[ziggy53]

Here's a 1 gigapixel image of Chicago's night skyline, displayed using "Zoomify":

http://www.docbert.org/ChicagoByNight/

P.S. Technical for above:

Total Resolution Approx 1000 Megapixel (67,000 x 15,000 pixels)
Camera Used Canon 10D, Canon 100-400L lens
Total Photos Used 194, almost all at 510mm (35mm equiv)
Exposure 4 second, f/6.7, ISO 200
Time to take Photos 58 minutes
Software Used to Create Image Autopano Pro
Final Image Size 7 GB!
Web Viewer Software Zoomify, with over 20,000 demand-loaded images

http://www.docbert.org/ChicagoByNight/cbninfo.html

[ziggy53]

Here's a 1 gigapixel image of Chicago's night skyline, displayed using "Zoomify":

http://www.docbert.org/ChicagoByNight/

P.S. Technical for above:

Total Resolution Approx 1000 Megapixel (67,000 x 15,000 pixels)
Camera Used Canon 10D, Canon 100-400L lens
Total Photos Used 194, almost all at 510mm (35mm equiv)
Exposure 4 second, f/6.7, ISO 200
Time to take Photos 58 minutes
Software Used to Create Image Autopano Pro
Final Image Size 7 GB!
Web Viewer Software Zoomify, with over 20,000 demand-loaded images

http://www.docbert.org/ChicagoByNight/cbninfo.html

Note the exposure, "4 second, f/6.7, ISO 200".

To get more people to show up I would suggest no longer than 1/4 second shutter, and that would imply ISO 3200 at f6.7. That's why I suggest the Nikon D3. With a 3 frame exposure bracket at each position you should have similar DR to the Hasselblad with much better noise control. You would simply disregard the DR in favor of people for those frames where it mattered.

[Tango]

Inspiration:

Gigapixel image using, I believe, a Canon D60, 196 exposures across 13 minutes, 40,784 x 26,800 pixels total.
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm


that self proclaimed record must fall. :wink

[Baldy]

Note the exposure, "4 second, f/6.7, ISO 200".

To get more people to show up I would suggest no longer than 1/4 second shutter, and that would imply ISO 3200 at f6.7. That's why I suggest the Nikon D3. With a 3 frame exposure bracket at each position you should have similar DR to the Hasselblad with much better noise control. You would simply disregard the DR in favor of people for those frames where it mattered.Interesting, Ziggy. How will the moving people look blended with a 3-frame exposure bracket?

[Baldy]

baldy, i would really like to see your SF skyline "end result" posted here after you get it....thanksYou can bet we'll post it plus take shots of the room. And we're gonna have open houses. Man, I hope we can get this right.

[ziggy53]

Interesting, Ziggy. How will the moving people look blended with a 3-frame exposure bracket?

... You would simply disregard the DR in favor of people for those frames where it mattered.

In other words, you would only use a single exposure, the most correct for all the elements but adjusted to suit taste. The other exposures (without people) would be discarded. (The single exposure might have to be manipulated and duplicated to simulate multiple exposures just to satisfy the automated HDR of the software used to assemble the images.)

You would only have to do this for images with people or other movement. Yes, it would be tiresome and a pain.

[Richard]

In other words, you would only use a single exposure, the most correct for all the elements but adjusted to suit taste. The other exposures (without people) would be discarded. (The single exposure might have to be manipulated and duplicated to simulate multiple exposures just to satisfy the automated HDR of the software used to assemble the images.)

You would only have to do this for images with people or other movement. Yes, it would be tiresome and a pain.

You can also do it after the fact. Do the HDR blend and then if there are problem areas due to movement, go back to the original exposures and select pieces from the one that best fits the tonal characteristics. The pieces can also be manipulated as well, if need be.

[Baldy]

Well, this is gonna be interesting. I did some test shots with my MKIII and had a few issues. One was vibration with the 300mm lens in the wind. Another was the windows and lights were definitely white holes burned in the photo until I blended the bracketed exposures. It was late and there were few pedestrians out, so I think I'm gonna lose the requirement to show people in the shot.

I ended up at Keeble & Schuchat this afternoon to get the brief on how to use the H3 and a couple of other H3 owners/working pros came in and talked about their experiences and why they spilled the big bucks. I rented it for a car show next week thinking I'd be the only freak with one, but Ron Kimball uses his for all his car shots so maybe I'll be just another bloke.

[ziggy53]

Well, this is gonna be interesting. I did some test shots with my MKIII and had a few issues. One was vibration with the 300mm lens in the wind. Another was the windows and lights were definitely white holes burned in the photo until I blended the bracketed exposures. It was late and there were few pedestrians out, so I think I'm gonna lose the requirement to show people in the shot.

I ended up at Keeble & Schuchat this afternoon to get the brief on how to use the H3 and a couple of other H3 owners/working pros came in and talked about their experiences and why they spilled the big bucks. I rented it for a car show next week thinking I'd be the only freak with one, but Ron Kimball uses his for all his car shots so maybe I'll be just another bloke.

The Hasselblad H3 should work fine at low ISO and longer shutter speeds.

You might be able to avoid some of the wind problems by using a photographers "blind" or some other type of wind break. I would like to be there when you explain what you are doing to the local keepers of the law. :thumb

If it was easy, anybody could do it.

[Tango]

dont skip the people idea, i think you should stage some human element into this...whats wrong with posing some people into the shot to hold for the expo?

[jeffreaux2]

Options....

I have heard good things about the dynamic range capabilities of Fuji DSLR's....but have no experience with one.

I am sure you sandbagged the tripod. If the mount will hold up to it, maybe some ankle weights around the lens barrel?

[Baldy]

Good stuff. Thanks for all the advice.

We got a 60x72-inch print in the office today and it got us really excited about the pano we're trying to shoot...

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/349892231_W9Kx6-XL.jpg

Sam and I made our first attempt to get the skyline pano Saturday night. Skies were quite clear, but it wasn't an epic day. He brought a 1DsMKIII with a 600mm and I wondered, "How's he gonna avoid vibration?" I had the 300 mm on the H3D with the beefiest tripod Keeble rents. I hung sandbags on it and put it behind as good a windbreak as we could figure out. But the wind was coming straight at us and was really hard to deflect.

We had fired off a few H3 test shots during the day and both of us thought they looked quite a bit better than his 1Ds, so we couldn't wait to see the skyline shot with it.

We each shot two complete panos (he shot two rows because his lens was so long), but looking at the shots closely on the back of the camera I was afraid of vibration...

A few hours later Sam came back and did something very smart that I wish I'd done: He put a 25-pound sandbag on the concrete wall and placed his lens between the two lobes of the sandbag to make it rock solid. He shot the whole pano over again, 135 frames at 22 megapixels each by just shifting the sandbag around. He shot ISO 400 at f/5, half a second.

In the next post, I'll show actual pixels of what he got.

[Baldy]

Okay, so the ferry tower isn't very big and the people in windows are pretty small and the island we shot from is far away. But here are Sam's original pixels.

We wish we'd thought of Aaron's idea of putting some people in the shot with red SmugMug hats... Opportunity missed if we don't re-shoot.

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/349992657_BN9DF-O.jpg

[ziggy53]

That's awfully encouraging. :thumb:clap

[Baldy]

Here's a candidate for the 6-foot x 60-foot print we want to make:

http://sams.smugmug.com/photos/356350668_jghCf-O.png

It's 3.3 gigapixels and we haven't been able to stitch it together yet because the Mac crashes.

I'd actually like to see it go further to the left and catch the edge of the island, so maybe we'll take a second swing at the bat. Don't really like the ballpark lights either, and maybe we could catch it on a clearer night for so epic a pic.

[Tango]

get a sail boat out there with lights backlighting the sails and all that neat kinda stuff.....

[BPerron]

This is by far one of the most interesting posts I have read on here...I can not wait to see the finished product.

[digitalpins]

here is a link to a gallery of mine with some pretty big pano's that I have made http://www.lamontphotography.com/gallery/1046111_eUN5M#60063703_BfjiE

let me know if you like anything there, I love panorama's I am always making them

[Rhuarc]

I just found this thread, but I'm fascinated! I love doing panos, nothing to this scale of course! The largest I have done yet are 12"x75" to hang on my cube wall at work. I wouldn't know how to go larger since ezprints doesn't do taller than 12" panos!

Out of curiosity, what software are you using for your stitching? I have been using Photoshop, but if there is something better out there I want to give it a try!

[Baldy]

We were unable to stitch together our 3.3-gigapixel image with Photoshop, so we got Calico to do the stitching. It did fine, took most of the weekend to render, but output a 2.2-gigabyte tif that Photoshop wouldn't open.

So we're re-rendering now and saving to a jpeg.

In the meantime, we received Nick's 72x180 pano of the Chicago skyline and it looks A-W-E-S-O-M-E -!!

[Baldy]

Well. We keep going back because most of the people we hire have the photo bug and when they travel to HQ they wanna climb the coast guard tower and take shots like this:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/359916275_i2TnF-XL.jpg

[Baldy]

So each time I take a new group up there, I try to re-shoot that pano.
Sometimes we get fog:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/359916655_QL4j2-X3.jpg

[Baldy]

But one thing I found last night is we just can't get the skyscrapers crisp and clean with no caffeine unless the temp of the air is close to the temp of the water (around 56 degrees). There seem to be thermals that make the lights flicker and the vertical lines wave and if the shutter speed is at all long, you're toast.

It probably wouldn't make a difference on most shots displayed online, but we're making a 72" high print by 700" wide and each time I go back the sharpness varies wildly, and not on how clear the sky is.

Last night it was a very warm night and we were in T-shirts, the skies were crystal clear, and none of us got sharp shots with the very same equipment we used days previous to produce very sharp images when we were bundled in our jackets.

[NomadRip]

those are really nice, but in my ignorance can i asks why the bridges red color does not show in these shots?

Because that bridge isn't red, the Golden Gate bridge is the red one :deal

[pathfinder]

But one thing I found last night is we just can't get the skyscrapers crisp and clean with no caffeine unless the temp of the air is close to the temp of the water (around 56 degrees). There seem to be thermals that make the lights flicker and the vertical lines wave and if the shutter speed is at all long, you're toast.

It probably wouldn't make a difference on most shots displayed online, but we're making a 72" high print by 700" wide and each time I go back the sharpness varies wildly, and not on how clear the sky is.

Last night it was a very warm night and we were in T-shirts, the skies were crystal clear, and none of us got sharp shots with the very same equipment we used days previous to produce very sharp images when we were bundled in our jackets.


When shooting the Shuttle launch last winter at Cape Kennedy, across the intercoastal waterway, one could see the thermals in the air currents over the water through my long telephoto.

I suspect that you are correct that the air temp needs to be very close to the water temp to minimize these thermals created by the temperature differentials.

Lovely pictures!

[jasonstone]

I'm almost tempted to fly from Switzerland to SmugMug offices just to see this!!! :clap

Truly awesome stuff guys.... gotta love smugmug :thumb

[Baldy]

Hey Ziggy (or anyone), we have a few questions. We have that one candidate shot that seems to be tack sharp, but we haven't been able to achieve that level of sharpness in subsequent attempts with the same equipment.

The night we shot that it was very cold. Probably the air and water temps were the same. In the other attempts it was t-shirt weather and maybe thermals were messing us up. Putting a 40D in live display mode, everything seemed to be moving even when the camera was on a concrete wall nestled in sandbags.

In the meantime we fell in love with another view to print for a different location. It will only be printed 36" high at the most, but be very long:

[Baldy]

http://onedgephoto.com/photos/360418296_yFbUz-X3.jpg

[aktse]

Nice.

Off of skyline?

[Baldy]

I'd love to execute the shot with more sharpness and less blowing of highlights. My MKIII has to go in for repair so I was thinking of renting the D3 you suggest to cover me while it's gone and to try this shot again.

Q1: It looked to me on Phil Askey's review that you get one, maybe one and a half extra f-stops before noise became noticeable. So shooting at ISO 800 instead of 400?

Q2: D700 same chip same performance?

Q3: It was hard to tell, but it seemed to get an extra stop on the highlights for latitude?

Your experience would be great to hear.

Thanks,
Baldy

[Baldy]

Nice.

Off of skyline?Mt. Tamalpais. When it's enlarged you can see the Bay Bridge and the SF skyline really clearly, and the towers of the Golden Gate.

[ziggy53]

I'd love to execute the shot with more sharpness and less blowing of highlights. My MKIII has to go in for repair so I was thinking of renting the D3 you suggest to cover me while it's gone and to try this shot again.

Q1: It looked to me on Phil Askey's review that you get one, maybe one and a half extra f-stops before noise became noticeable. So shooting at ISO 800 instead of 400?

Q2: D700 same chip same performance?

Q3: It was hard to tell, but it seemed to get an extra stop on the highlights for latitude?

Your experience would be great to hear.

Thanks,
Baldy

First, from the previous post, if the air and water temperatures are close together that should be best shooting conditions. When the water is cold and the air is warmer you can get a "blanket" of higher humidity above the water, kind of like fog but you won't see it with the naked eye. Thermals would also be greater when the two regions are different temperatures.

Cooler temperatures are also generally a benefit for the camera and imager.

Q1: ISO 800 and even 1600 should be doable on the Nikon D3.

Q2: I am not convinced that the chips on the D3 and D700 are the same or, if they are the same, that they are processed in exactly the same way. Some D3 users are reporting better high-ISO results with the D3 so I think that is a surer thing. The different results could also be the result of a better heat-sink on the D3.

Active D-Lighting would seem to be indicated for this project.

[pathfinder]

I do not understand the need for high ISO.

If the scene is predominantly bright, tungsten lighting, why do you need high ISO? Why not shoot at 100 or 200 ISO :dunno

Atmospheric clarity seems like the limiting factor here. No thermals, no winds, cool dry air. Does the tide play any role at all in atmospheric clarity - slack tide maybe being better than when the tidal current is running?

[ziggy53]

I do not understand the need for high ISO.

If the scene is predominantly bright, tungsten lighting, why do you need high ISO? Why not shoot at 100 or 200 ISO :dunno

Atmospheric clarity seems like the limiting factor here. No thermals, no winds, cool dry air. Does the tide play any role at all in atmospheric clarity - slack tide maybe being better than when the tidal current is running?

There was a previous desire for trying to capture people at night in the images when possible. High-ISO will also lessen the effects of wind and such on long telephoto lenses. High-ISO can also lessen the exposure time which can be significant when capturing hundreds of images.

In the end, it's a trade-off and compromise in needs versus capabilities and limitations of the equipment.

[dadwtwins]

Baldy,

Instead of renting the D3 camera, borrow mine. You can also use my 200-400VR lens to try and capture the pano you are trying to accomplish. I live in the East Bay, 10 minutes from treasure Island. Just give me the day and time and I will meet you there:wink.

[Baldy]

Baldy,

Instead of renting the D3 camera, borrow mine. You can also use my 200-400VR lens to try and capture the pano you are trying to accomplish. I live in the East Bay, 10 minutes from treasure Island. Just give me the day and time and I will meet you there:wink.Oooo, you've got a deal!

We're actually trying to shoot two panos, the 72x700 of the skyline from Treasure Island, and the 24x220 from Mt. Tam.

I'd love to shoot lower ISOs and longer exposures, but our ability to make the shots tack-sharp has been inconsistent even when we sandbag the camera on top of a concrete wall. I was hoping the shorter shutter speeds would help reduce the effect of whatever is causing the lights to move as we shoot them (thermals, we think).

I looked through Galen Rowell's book, Fog City, and the shots are lovely but sharp they weren't. Looks like he was affected by the same things that are affecting us, only more so.

In his case, most people stood back from his large prints and took in the view. We watch people walk up to ours and peep at the pixels. Being a company that sells prints, we have to get these like razorblades.

[jamesl]

I shoot a lot of cityscape panos. You mentioned lacking some sharpness in your images. Are you using Mirror Lock Up when shooting the frames? Even in longer exposures, I find this makes a noticable difference due to the brightness of the city lights blurring a bit from the mirror slap. Just something to try if you are not already doing it. :) Another idea is to take multiple exposures and stack, but this is very time and resource intensive. For stacking, I will shoot 3 x -1/0/+1 exposures for each frame of the pano (9 total images for each pano frame). Stacking/blending these in photoshop before stitching will gain you sharpness, less noise, and more dynamic range. A good example of this is Shay's old NYC skyline shot highlightning the Sept 11th memorial.

Oh, one other thing I've run into. Make sure that your IS or VR feature is turned off if you have it on the lens. This will introduce vibrations in long exposure shots on a tripod.

James

[aktse]

Instead of renting the D3 camera, borrow mine.
:clap :clap :clap

Way to go Dan! I think you'll have fun just trying this!

I know that Baldy will get the photo that he wants (hopefully someday soon!), and we'll all learn during the progress. In some ways, this will be a dgrin photo! :ivar

Good luck!

[LiquidAir]

I'd love to shoot lower ISOs and longer exposures, but our ability to make the shots tack-sharp has been inconsistent even when we sandbag the camera on top of a concrete wall. I was hoping the shorter shutter speeds would help reduce the effect of whatever is causing the lights to move as we shoot them (thermals, we think).


I have been fighting with night shots in the wind for some time and so far haven't been able to get any kind of consistency; I have a few sharp shots at around 150mm but I have to take 5 to get one. I've got some ideas for and improved camera support which have been on the back burner for a while but I may be able to find some time to put it together. I'll let you know if I find something which works.

[dadwtwins]

Oooo, you've got a deal!

We're actually trying to shoot two panos, the 72x700 of the skyline from Treasure Island, and the 24x220 from Mt. Tam.

I'd love to shoot lower ISOs and longer exposures, but our ability to make the shots tack-sharp has been inconsistent even when we sandbag the camera on top of a concrete wall. I was hoping the shorter shutter speeds would help reduce the effect of whatever is causing the lights to move as we shoot them (thermals, we think).

I looked through Galen Rowell's book, Fog City, and the shots are lovely but sharp they weren't. Looks like he was affected by the same things that are affecting us, only more so.

In his case, most people stood back from his large prints and took in the view. We watch people walk up to ours and peep at the pixels. Being a company that sells prints, we have to get these like razorblades.

Great!!!:barb I will PM you with my contact info.

If need be, you can even use my camera gear without me. I will not need the D3 or the 200-400 lens until October:thumb

[jasonstone]

How many images is that?
Is it like a 270degree pano?
I'm interested as it looks incredible and I have a spot near me where I could go at night and get the lake of Zurich including Zurich and a significant portion of the lake including houses and lights on the other side - maybe not so much as SF but I'd like to try it as you've inspired me with this thread :thumb

http://onedgephoto.com/photos/360418296_yFbUz-X3.jpg

[ziggy53]

Great!!!:barb I will PM you with my contact info.

If need be, you can even use my camera gear without me. I will not need the D3 or the 200-400 lens until October:thumb

This is incredibly gracious of you! :bow:barb:ivar:clap:thumb:thumb

[xris]

Here's a candidate for the 6-foot x 60-foot print we want to make:

http://sams.smugmug.com/photos/356350668_jghCf-O.png

It's 3.3 gigapixels and we haven't been able to stitch it together yet because the Mac crashes.

I'd actually like to see it go further to the left and catch the edge of the island, so maybe we'll take a second swing at the bat. Don't really like the ballpark lights either, and maybe we could catch it on a clearer night for so epic a pic.Great thread folks. Very interesting problem. Photographic spirit at it's finest!! I wait with baited breath to see the end result :clap :clap

BTW: Can I get a wallet print of that?:D
:thumb

[aktse]

Ziggy, would an IR help with the sharpness?????

When people see this, they assumed this is a pano taken on a extremely clear day in the Marin headlands. They are very surprised that they can see through SF and actually see the east bay because this rarely happens; I didn't think it was possible.
http://aktse.smugmug.com/photos/230235777-X2-1.jpg

It's actually a single frame IR shot snapshot taken as I stepped out of the car with a xt body and cheap lens (17-85mm). If you zoom in (http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=703217&postcount=13), you can see people in the water and the windows of the buildings.

It was a clear day (no fog!) for SF, but not as clear as people thought it was. This is a similar photo taken a few minutes later on a 20D with a 10-22mm from roughly the same location (I think I crossed the street and used a tripod).

http://aktse.smugmug.com/photos/230771652_67UqH-XL-6.jpg

Most people use IR during the day and in sunlight, but Dan took an amazing photograph at 3 AM of the city using an IR body and a D3.

Nature's Night Light (http://dthorp.smugmug.com/gallery/4296502_uczUF#268710300_fq6wh-A-LB) <-- I still pause a bit when I see this. :bow

But Baldy might be looking to do a color pano and not a B&W. :dunno

[jamesl]

Nature's Night Light (http://dthorp.smugmug.com/gallery/4296502_uczUF#268710300_fq6wh-A-LB) <-- I still pause a bit when I see this. :bow



EDIT:

Nevermind. I've gotten the details of the image from his site. What an amazing image!

James

[bwg]

But Baldy might be looking to do a color pano and not a B&W. :dunnoI think a B&W would be great. We could use it as a whiteboard :D

[Baldy]

Wow, nice. You got a clear night all right.

This is for our entertainment room where we watch some movies at night, so we were looking for something dark, and color.

That b&w of Daniel Thorp's is mind-blowingly awesome and makes me pause too, but I wonder about how much is Photoshopped? Does someone know? The moon and clouds look like they were placed there. Don't get me wrong, I love it and would consider a print but if it's on our walls we're gonna get asked.

[Baldy]

I shoot a lot of cityscape panos. You mentioned lacking some sharpness in your images. Are you using Mirror Lock Up when shooting the frames? Even in longer exposures, I find this makes a noticable difference due to the brightness of the city lights blurring a bit from the mirror slap. Just something to try if you are not already doing it. :) Another idea is to take multiple exposures and stack, but this is very time and resource intensive. For stacking, I will shoot 3 x -1/0/+1 exposures for each frame of the pano (9 total images for each pano frame). Stacking/blending these in photoshop before stitching will gain you sharpness, less noise, and more dynamic range. A good example of this is Shay's old NYC skyline shot highlightning the Sept 11th memorial.

Oh, one other thing I've run into. Make sure that your IS or VR feature is turned off if you have it on the lens. This will introduce vibrations in long exposure shots on a tripod.

JamesThanks, James. I spent a good half-hour admiring your shots this a.m. :bow :bow :bow

Shay's old NYC skyline is hanging on our walls. :D

We do turn off IS and lock up the mirror. I even shot with a digital Hasselblad one night with a leaf shutter and shooting across all that water, close to the surface, I couldn't get anything sharp.

Then we went to the top of Treasure Island and shot down on the city and the same camera produced images that were sharp as can be.

[jamesl]

Wow, nice. You got a clear night all right.

This is for our entertainment room where we watch some movies at night, so we were looking for something dark, and color.

That b&w of Daniel Thorp's is mind-blowingly awesome and makes me pause too, but I wonder about how much is Photoshopped? Does someone know? The moon and clouds look like they were placed there. Don't get me wrong, I love it and would consider a print but if it's on our walls we're gonna get asked.

I wondered that too myself. :) Also I wondered about the IR part. Dan mentions on his blog that it is a real photo. The only thing I can figure is that he used a very long lens to get the large moon perspective. I still can't figure out the IR part. Is Dan a member of these forums? I'd love the hear the technical details of the shot. :ear

[Tango]

Dan is "Dadwtwins":deal

[jamesl]

Thanks, James. I spent a good half-hour admiring your shots this a.m. :bow :bow :bow

Shay's old NYC skyline is hanging on our walls. :D

We do turn off IS and lock up the mirror. I even shot with a digital Hasselblad one night with a leaf shutter and shooting across all that water, close to the surface, I couldn't get anything sharp.

Then we went to the top of Treasure Island and shot down on the city and the same camera produced images that were sharp as can be.

Thank you! I appreciate the compliment, and that you enjoyed checking out my work. :)

Given what you have said, I think you are onto something then with the thermals or humidity of the bay affecting your shots. I know that in Dallas, the humdity plays a big part in me getting clear images of the skyline. I wait for days where cold fronts come through and dry out the air for most of my skyline shots. Does that ever happen in SFC?

Good luck!

James

[aktse]

Wow, nice. You got a clear night all right. This is for our entertainment room where we watch some movies at night, so we were looking for something dark, and color. That b&w of Daniel Thorp's is mind-blowingly awesome and makes me pause too, but I wonder about how much is Photoshopped? Does someone know? The moon and clouds look like they were placed there. Don't get me wrong, I love it and would consider a print but if it's on our walls we're gonna get asked.

Dan probably won’t answer that question anymore, but you might ask him if/when you see him in person. From my chats with him, Nature’s Night Light is a multi-exposure photo taken on March 2008 (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=88013
) in the middle of the night on an amazing clear night with puffy clouds in the hills of Oakland, CA. He was trying to capture the image that he saw that night on the way home from long day at work – the city below puffy clouds with the moon above the clouds. So... he broke into the backyard of his old house, set up his tripod and attempted to capture what he saw.

And this very photo nearly made him quit photography.

To his surprise, he made the front page of Digg and had over 22,000 views on flickr, but the attention also brought numerous critical people who questioned and attacked him on the authenticity of photo since they believed that “real” photos are the ones that are “straight of camera” – these beautiful panos that you're trying to create would be considered “fake” by their definitions since they are not SOC and used a program to stitch them together. It's the same negative debate the happened with LPS, etc. I think Dan got sick and tired of explaining what he did, of defending a multi-exposure photo, and how any photoshop adjusted (any photoshop -- levels, saturation, curves, etc.) photo is just as real as a SOC photo.

So… find yourself a cold, clear night, take him up on the offer of the D3 and get yourself a big, crisp, beautiful pano! :D

[Jzazzi]

Sorry to hear about Dan having so much difficulty with his shot, I thought it was awesome.

That software Autopano Pro looks absolutely amazing, and I'll be trying the demo over next weekend.

What a great thread, lots to learn here! Most of all, I can't wait to see when it's all done! Oh the joys of living in the valley : )

-J

[Baldy]

Dan probably won’t answer that question anymore, but you might ask him if/when you see him in person. From my chats with him, Nature’s Night Light is a multi-exposure photo taken on March 2008 (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=88013
) in the middle of the night on an amazing clear night with puffy clouds in the hills of Oakland, CA. He was trying to capture the image that he saw that night on the way home from long day at work – the city below puffy clouds with the moon above the clouds. So... he broke into the backyard of his old house, set up his tripod and attempted to capture what he saw.

And this very photo nearly made him quit photography.

To his surprise, he made the front page of Digg and had over 22,000 views on flickr, but the attention also brought numerous critical people who questioned and attacked him on the authenticity of photo since they believed that “real” photos are the ones that are “straight of camera” – these beautiful panos that you're trying to create would be considered “fake” by their definitions since they are not SOC and used a program to stitch them together. It's the same negative debate the happened with LPS, etc. I think Dan got sick and tired of explaining what he did, of defending a multi-exposure photo, and how any photoshop adjusted (any photoshop -- levels, saturation, curves, etc.) photo is just as real as a SOC photo.

So… find yourself a cold, clear night, take him up on the offer of the D3 and get yourself a big, crisp, beautiful pano! :DWow, that's some great history! Dan was extremely gracious and met me on the way to Montclair to lend me his D3 and lenses. I asked him about the photo and he gave me the short story but I could tell it was sensitive.

A guy from our office said, "I knew it was a fake as soon as I saw the moon and how big it was. He put it there. No way the moon is that big above SF." Ironically, when I got to Montclair the moon was low over the horizon and huge. I shot it and will have to compare moon sizes, but I think mine was bigger, right off the camera.

I used to work at an online bookstore for geeks called Fatbrain.com. We got the idea to let people submit their own reviews of books, and we let them pick a star rating. I didn't expect the torrent of pressure from publishers to stop doing it. "Anybody on the Internet can trash a great book."

Four months later Amazon followed suit and the publishers got pissed at them too. But then Jeff showed them something interesting, which is books that got 4-star ratings didn't sell. Books that got a combination of 5 & 1-star ratings sold like crazy. "Proving yet again," he said, "the only real problem in life is to be ignored."

Sounds like Daniel's photo is a 5 & 1-star photo. :D

[Baldy]

Hey Ziggy,

Am I missing something or when I use mirror-up mode on the D3 and want to bracket three shots, I'm tripping the shutter 6 times for one frame? What I'd like is to flip the mirror, take the 3 bracketed shots, mirror back down, next position.

It's not too big a deal, but thought I'd ask.

[ziggy53]

Hey Ziggy,

Am I missing something or when I use mirror-up mode on the D3 and want to bracket three shots, I'm tripping the shutter 6 times for one frame? What I'd like is to flip the mirror, take the 3 bracketed shots, mirror back down, next position.

It's not too big a deal, but thought I'd ask.

I think HarryB is our resident expert on the D3. I'll see if he can stop in to this thread.

[dadwtwins]

Hey Ziggy,

Am I missing something or when I use mirror-up mode on the D3 and want to bracket three shots, I'm tripping the shutter 6 times for one frame? What I'd like is to flip the mirror, take the 3 bracketed shots, mirror back down, next position.

It's not too big a deal, but thought I'd ask.

Unfortunately you will not be able to do that on the D3. One click to lift mirror, one click to take the picture. 2 clicks for every shot.

I would try to use in combination, mirror-up plus exposure delay mode. It gives the camera a 4/10ths of a sec before firing the shutter once depressed.

This function is in the custom setting menu ~ shooting/display ~ d8 Exposure delay mode.

I know I do not have to say this but just to satisfy my paranoia, please use the electronic release when using these functions. :thumb

[dadwtwins]

Sounds like Daniel's photo is a 5 & 1-star photo. :D

:lol4
That is a great rating and story. Thanks.

As the great Ansel Adams said, "No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit." as well as , "You don't take a photograph, you make it." :barb

[LiquidAir]

I would try to use in combination, mirror-up plus exposure delay mode. It gives the camera a 4/10ths of a sec before firing the shutter once depressed.

This function is in the custom setting menu ~ shooting/display ~ d8 Exposure delay mode.

I know I do not have to say this but just to satisfy my paranoia, please use the electronic release when using these functions. :thumb

Its actually similar with Canon bodies. With the delay timer on the camera lifts the mirror, waits 2 seconds, takes the shot and then drops the mirror all from one click. For bracket that at least gets you down to 3 clicks rather than 6.

Canon also sells an extrnal timing unit, the TC-80N which you can program to take 3 shots with, say, a 5 second gap. Using the TC-80N I can shoot an entire bracket with one click. The mirror still flips 3 times, but at least it is automated. Is there something similar in the Nikon world?

[Tango]

Its actually similar with Canon bodies. With the delay timer on the camera lifts the mirror, waits 2 seconds, takes the shot and then drops the mirror all from one click. For bracket that at least gets you down to 3 clicks rather than 6.

Canon also sells an extrnal timing unit, the TC-80N which you can program to take 3 shots with, say, a 5 second gap. Using the TC-80N I can shoot an entire bracket with one click. The mirror still flips 3 times, but at least it is automated. Is there something similar in the Nikon world?

yet another prime example of dgrins help to the masses ....
i never knew this until now....i have this trigger and have been using it in manual mode because im an idiot.....thanks LQair now i have a self teaching lesson this weekend to master....

[dadwtwins]

yet another prime example of dgrins help to the masses ....
i never knew this until now....i have this trigger and have been using it in manual mode because im an idiot.....thanks LQair now i have a self teaching lesson this weekend to master....

When i have the chance I would like to try multiple exposure mode within the camera and see if the mirror stays up or stays down after the first exposure.

this would help with noise levels, shorten the time the shutter is open and it would clean up some of the ghosting in long exposures. At least that is what i read but I have never actually tried it myself. Now my curiosity is screaming:clap

[Tango]

When i have the chance I would like to try multiple exposure mode within the camera and see if the mirror stays up or stays down after the first exposure.

this would help with noise levels, shorten the time the shutter is open and it would clean up some of the ghosting in long exposures. At least that is what i read but I have never actually tried it myself. Now my curiosity is screaming:clap

so if you can imagine me using my t/s lens doing three bracketed shots per shifted frame you see my excitment in this too....

[LiquidAir]

yet another prime example of dgrins help to the masses ....
i never knew this until now....i have this trigger and have been using it in manual mode because im an idiot.....thanks LQair now i have a self teaching lesson this weekend to master....

Here's my full setup for shooting HDRs:

ISO 100 to 400

Aperture Priority f/10, which on full frame is my preferred balance between sharpness and DoF. On 1.6 crop you probably want f/8 or maybe f/7.1

Metering: Center weighted average. This I find gives me the best bet at picking up both the shadows and the highlights with the bracket.

Auto-Bracket: +/- 2 stops.

Delay Timer and MLU on.

WB: Daylight. This is to give me a predictable histogram. Since I shoot RAW, I'll be correcting the WB later anyhow so the camera mode is only about what I see on the LCD.

TC-80N: 3 exposures, 3-30 seconds delay.

During the daytime a 3 second delay is sufficient, but as the sun goes down the exposures get long and a longer and a longer delay is required.

One the 5D, I use the "Custom" setting for HDRs and flip the mode dial over to M for other shooting.

[ziggy53]

i need to hang with you some time....:thumb good info, leads me to more questions, but id hate to highjack a thread from Baldy :D

Feel free to start a new thread in this forum. I love this tangential discussion.

[ian408]

hey baldy. need a d3 manual?

i have one.

[Baldy]

Here's my full setup for shooting HDRs:

ISO 100 to 400

Aperture Priority f/10, which on full frame is my preferred balance between sharpness and DoF. On 1.6 crop you probably want f/8 or maybe f/7.1

Metering: Center weighted average. This I find gives me the best bet at picking up both the shadows and the highlights with the bracket.

Auto-Bracket: +/- 2 stops.

Delay Timer and MLU on.

WB: Daylight. This is to give me a predictable histogram. Since I shoot RAW, I'll be correcting the WB later anyhow so the camera mode is only about what I see on the LCD.

TC-80N: 3 exposures, 3-30 seconds delay.

During the daytime a 3 second delay is sufficient, but as the sun goes down the exposures get long and a longer and a longer delay is required.

One the 5D, I use the "Custom" setting for HDRs and flip the mode dial over to M for other shooting.Great stuff. I'm in total sponge mode here.

I fetched the manual online but youz know more than it tells.

One question is I don't see how to bracket more than 1 stop per shot? That puts me shooting 5 frames to get 3 at +/- two stops. The concern is time to get the nightscape.

Second Q is I'm kinda getting the bug to try my hand at a more artsy HDRish version, but I'm seeing a pretty big dose of noise. I snapped this with the D3 at ISO 400, using 3 frames at +/- 2 stops with Photomatix.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dgrin/HDR-yachts-1000.jpg

[Baldy]

Here are the actual pixels:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dgrin/HDR-yachts-zoom.jpg

[Baldy]

Does it look like maybe I should have tried it with +/- 3 stops, or do I suck at using Photomatix?

[LiquidAir]

One question is I don't see how to bracket more than 1 stop per shot? That puts me shooting 5 frames to get 3 at +/- two stops. The concern is time to get the nightscape.


I have not used a D3; my experience is with the 5D where the bracket step can be adjusted in 1/3 stop increments up to 2 stops.

Does it look like maybe I should have tried it with +/- 3 stops, or do I suck at using Photomatix?

Part of your problem seems to be that some of the boats moved a bit between frames, but I doubt that is the source of the noise. Take a look at the noise level in the brighest image in your bracket; that's the one which should determine your shadow noise. If anything in your merged image is noiser than that, there is something wrong. I haven't used Photomatrix so I don't know what to expect there. I've done most of my HDRs with Photoshop which requires more tweaking, but they come out clean as a whistle.

If you do need more dynamic range, I'd take more exposures. The way I do it is to first set the EC to +2 and bracket and then set the EC to -2 and bracket. That gives me 5 frames 2 stops apart with a duplicate in the center of the range. Not an optimal use of memory, but its quick.

[jasonstone]

Hi Baldy and all,

I've notied in my photomatix hdr merges that I can get a lot of noise in the solid colour areas and that's even shooting at lower ISO (100 and 200 on a Nikon D80).

I don't think the original RAWs were all that noisy.

I'm doing it very simple - just -2/0/+2 then merge full auto in photomatix and then a simple tone map - nothing extreme.

The result is what I want to work on in LR2.0 but yeah it's got significant noise in it -and not necessarily in the areas/objects that were moving.

Love to know if it's a setting or something I'm doing wrong in taking/processing the images.

Cheers,
Jase

[ian408]

Bobo is the Photomatix expert. But I'd be concerned about movement in this shot.

How do the individual frames look?

[Baldy]

How do the individual frames look?Clean.

I drove past Stanford tonight and snapped a few at ISO 200 and they were clean too evan after Photomatix:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/371364611_4y6xU-X2.jpg

[ian408]

I think I'm gonna get a 28-70 for the d3.

Any how, have you tried making an HDR shot from a single frame? Not as good as multiples but might help with the movement.

[jogle]

Hi Baldy, Give PTGui Pro a go for stitching huge HDR Pano's, it handles some seriously large image sizes, will export to blended layers, 32bit .hdr's or even has tone mapping within the software.

Here's a 360 from a couple of weeks ago (from the top of a ski field in New Zealand)

72 images @ 40mm (bracketed) blended and tone mapped in ptgui : http://www.ogle.co.nz/photos/366630896_77rps-X2.jpg (http://www.ogle.co.nz/gallery/5787970_33hWy#366630896_77rps-A-LB)

and one with a wider lens (24mm)

http://www.ogle.co.nz/photos/366614121_kmerA-X2.jpg (http://www.ogle.co.nz/gallery/5787970_33hWy#366614121_kmerA-A-LB)

[Baldy]

Hi Baldy, Give PTGui Pro a go for stitching huge HDR Pano's, it handles some seriously large image sizes, will export to blended layers, 32bit .hdr's or even has tone mapping within the software.

Here's a 360 from a couple of weeks ago (from the top of a ski field in New Zealand)

72 images @ 40mm (bracketed) blended and tone mapped in ptgui : http://www.ogle.co.nz/photos/366630896_77rps-X2.jpg (http://www.ogle.co.nz/gallery/5787970_33hWy#366630896_77rps-A-LB)

and one with a wider lens (24mm)

http://www.ogle.co.nz/photos/366614121_kmerA-X2.jpg (http://www.ogle.co.nz/gallery/5787970_33hWy#366614121_kmerA-A-LB)Wow!! Those are some seriously cool panos! :huh:huh:huh

:bow:bow:bow

Looks like they'd print big ever so well...

[Baldy]

Okay, I know this isn't the HDR thread, but I've been practicing up with the D3 so I can make another run at the SF pano more HDR-like this time. So here's some snaps from Stanford tonight with various tone maps:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/371385895_tkjep-XL.jpg

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/371382752_ud6AS-XL.jpg

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/371396465_cxDmH-XL.jpg

[jogle]

Good luck with your next attempt,

Have you thought about trying to shoot it just after some rain? You may find that will stir up the layers of heat more then on a still clear night. I've only had a chance to shoot in San Fran once when I was there for work. (shooting a tv commercial) We were escorted to the the top of the Embarcadero building (the lift only takes you so far, we had 3 floors of ladders to climb to get to the roof) and I had a chance to shoot this Pano of 27 photos.

http://www.ogle.co.nz/photos/371451461_Wepjb-L.jpg
(http://www.ogle.co.nz/gallery/1563796_EqyVa#371451461_Wepjb-X3-LB)

What a fun city, I can see why you want a huge print of the skyline. :thumb

[rutt]

Thinking about huge prints which look tack-sharp, it's interesting to revisit a master from an older time, Brad Washburn. Here is a good place to start.
(http://outside.away.com/travel_photo_gallery/brad-washburn/index.html) And another. (http://www.panopt.com/images.php?a=1)
He used a large format aerial camera and sometimes shot from airplanes, sometimes from the ground. I used to work a few steps away from his gallery, Panopticon, in Waltham, MA (both Panopticon and I have moved on...) They often displayed 64" x whatever prints of his shots and they were really spectacular. These were digital prints from negative scans.

I have a large Washburn which shows Boston in 1938 from the air. It's the second shot, third row here (http://www.panopt.com/images.php?a=1). Very cool.

Anyway, I know it isn't that helpful in terms of technique, but I hope it will introduce some to Brad's work.

[Marc Muench]

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/371382752_ud6AS-XL.jpg

Great image Baldy:thumb

Bradford Washburn inspired me with his 8x10 aerials of Alaska, I think rutt is onto something. Maybe shoot a pano with a 8x10 loaded with Fuji Velvia film:huh I really like this thread and find sharpness in all digital work illusive, as there are so many factors. I recall some of my sharpest appearing images were taken on Kodak Tri-X black and white nagative film. Not the smallest grain in the world :rolleyes but wow were those granules sharp.
Just in case you have not tried, have you sharpened the files in LAB on the luminance channel?
This always looks the best IMO

I am sure you will get it right:barb

[ian408]

Bradford Washburn inspired me with his 8x10 aerials of Alaska, I think rutt is onto something.

I think the National Geographic article from a few years back was a huge influence for me visiting Alaska. You see that most of his aerials are shot hanging out of the plane in a thermal suit holding a camera that must have weighed a lot.

Though grand in scale, his shots were compelling and captured a great deal of detail.

[Baldy]

I recall some of my sharpest appearing images were taken on Kodak Tri-X black and white nagative film.That's fascinating, Marc. I went back to SF a few nights ago with the D3 set to ISO 400 and this time I bracketed each shot +/- 2 stops. When I got home I looked at the brightest ones closely, got discouraged by the lack of sharpness, and figured it must've been "one of those nights". It made me wonder if I'd ever get the shot and whether I'd need the patience and expertise of a Muench.

Sam has a 4x5 camera, but a pro I met at Keeble & Schuchat said she'd tried to shoot the panorama I'm trying to shoot many times with a 4x5 and concluded that she just couldn't get the camera to stay still enough with the always-present wind, so she finally gave up.

Interestingly, we watched Planet Earth a few nights later and noticed that with the amazing zooms they must have used, even on cold mornings there were thermal waves when the zoom was long (but not as pronounced as on warm days).

So I went back to the D3 shots I took the other night and looked more critically at sharpness. Sure enough, the -2 stop shots are a lot sharper than at 0, and that much more sharp again than at +2. As a matter of fact, at the same shutter speed, the Nikon shots are about the same sharpness as the ISO 400 shots we took with the 1Ds the other night.

My machine is bogging at the moment stitching, but when it's done I'll post examples.

I also notice that when I'm higher on the Island, a few hundred feet above the water, they seem to be sharper still at the same settings.

So, I'm thinking the 4x5 photographer must've been using a slow shutter speed due to low ISO and a maybe a stop like 8.0 and gotten pwned by thermals.

This also explains why when we shot with the Hasselblad at ISO 50 and f/8, the images were nowhere near as sharp as with the 1Ds MKIII at ISO 400 and f/4. I thought the Hasselblad sucked for night shots, but I was getting unbelievably great images with it in the day at ISO 50.

I'm thinking of going back with the D3 jacked to ISO 1000 or 1200, which it seems to be able to handle, the 500mm f/4 prime, and shoot a two-row pano in portrait mode. That's gonna give me a pretty good shutter speed.

I'll shoot one down by the water and one a few hundred feet higher on the island where (a) it's less windy and (b) maybe I don't have to shoot across so much water down by the surface where thermals probaly are most pronounced.

Sound like a plan?

[jasonstone]

This also explains why when we shot with the Hasselblad at ISO 50 and f/5.6, the images were nowhere near as sharp as with the 1Ds MKIII at ISO 400 and f/4. I thought the Hasselblad sucked for night shots, but I was getting unbelievably great images with it in the day at ISO 50.
My mind is doing loop the loop right now trying to figure that one out ... am I right in assuming then that the 1Ds shutter speed was a lot higher therefore there was less time for the thermals to take effect?

I'll admit I'm way out of my depth with this project you're doing but I want to understand it better as it's just so damn inspiring!

I'm thinking of going back with the D3 jacked to ISO 1000 or 1200, which it seems to be able to handle, the 500mm f/4 prime, and shoot a two-row pano in portrait mode. That's gonna give me a pretty good shutter speed.
So does this mean, following on from Marc's post, that a higher shutter speed has bigger grain which therefore somehow makes the image appear sharper as you're anyway printing it at such a high pixel-per-inch that the grains are then made smaller. Did I say that right? :scratch

Like I said I'm trying to understand as I always thought that the longer shutter speed at night would allow you to capture more details...

This thread is major interesting! :clap

[jogle]

My mind is doing loop the loop right now trying to figure that one out ... am I right in assuming then that the 1Ds shutter speed was a lot higher therefore there was less time for the thermals to take effect?

That's exactly it. Think of all the photo's you've seen of a nice flowing stream. It's all about the shutter speed. With a fast shutter speed, you get crisp sharp details in the water. slow the shutter speed down and you get soft blurry motion blurred water.

Thermals in the air act very much like a flowing fluid.

Baldy, I'm worried that even if you get your shutter speed up high enough to get crisp frames, because the warp caused by the thermals in the air is going to be different for each frame, you're going to have more ghosting and errors when you come to stitching those frames together later on.

In Telescope land, they have technology for correcting atmosphere distortion, they call it Adaptive Optics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics) When can we get that in a big L zoom :dunno

[Baldy]

In Telescope land, they have technology for correcting atmosphere distortion, they call it Adaptive Optics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics) When can we get that in a big L zoom :dunnoWow, that is interesting. Dunno why I didn't think of it, but now that you mention it I have an astronomer friend at NASA. I'm gonna call him to see if he has any insight into this project.

I notice the lens I've been thinking of renting for this has a tripod mode for the vibration reduction, to reduce vibration from the shutter:

http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/nikon_super_tele/Nikon_500mm_f4_VR

Anyone know if that makes much of a difference if you're shooting in mirror-up mode anyway?

[dadwtwins]

Wow, that is interesting. Dunno why I didn't think of it, but now that you mention it I have an astronomer friend at NASA. I'm gonna call him to see if he has any insight into this project.

I notice the lens I've been thinking of renting for this has a tripod mode for the vibration reduction, to reduce vibration from the shutter:

http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/nikon_super_tele/Nikon_500mm_f4_VR

Anyone know if that makes much of a difference if you're shooting in mirror-up mode anyway?

Before I bought the 200-400, i tried various lenses. Using the delay function compared to the tripod mode seemed to work in the same way. The shutter was delayed allowing the vibration of the shutter to calm down before actual exposure time began.

There must be a way to defuse the wind before it hits the camera during set up. Since you are using such a long telephoto, making some sort of baffle to protect the camera and lens from direct changes in wind pressure should be obtainable. Almost like shooting from a blind; directing wind around the camera into the direct wind to the camera causing eddy effects which lowers the wind pressure and makes the change of wind flow more consistent. We called them vortex generators and they work quite well.--- is this info too nerdy:crazy:lol3

[bwg]

... is this info too nerdy:crazy:lol3

Yes, and I totally want a vortex blind now :davidto

[Baldy]

Well, during our last exciting episode, I boldly proclaimed that the shorter the shutter the sharper the shot because I haz atmospheric physics insight and thermals doncha know.

But here are the actual pixels from the D3 from the other night for a shot I bracketed. They're all ISO 400 with 400mm on the 200-400 zoom at f/4.5. Outside temp was 56 and I understand that's about the water temp. Winds were 10 mph.

On the left is 0.3 second exposure (-1 stop), center is 0.6, and right is 2.4 (+2 stops):

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/374666060_RsxsG-O.jpg

Some say the left is definitely sharper, some say it's too close to call. I say the better test would have been to shoot the scene by bracketing ISO, not exposure.

[ian408]

What are you using to set the 0 exposure?

[Baldy]

What are you using to set the 0 exposure?Sam brought a meter when he shot with his 1Ds MKIII and ended up with 1 second at f/4.5 and ISO 400. I thought the highlights were just a little blown so I went a little lower.

By comparison, here are the pixels from Sam's shot (he also used a 600mm prime):

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/349992657_BN9DF-O.jpg

[Baldy]

What are you using to set the 0 exposure?Hey Ian, looks like there might be pretty good fog tonight, wanna go up to the city and take another swing at the bat with me tonight? Peeps seem to want fog in the shot.

[ian408]

Hey Ian, looks like there might be pretty good fog tonight, wanna go up to the city and take another swing at the bat with me tonight? Peeps seem to want fog in the shot.
What time?

[xris]

Sam brought a meter when he shot with his 1Ds MKIII and ended up with 1 second at f/4.5 and ISO 400. I thought the highlights were just a little blown so I went a little lower.

By comparison, here are the pixels from Sam's shot (he also used a 600mm prime):Looks like a lens problem to me. All three of the D3 shots are muddy, exposure aside. I don't see any camera movement, but there's a ton of flare and chromatic aberation. Sam's shot appears far sharper with better contrast. Quite a feat, considering there must be at least 5 stops spread from dark to light!:thumb

[ian408]

It looks like Sam's is a tad hot. Is that motion blur on the tower? Look at the lights at the top of the tower and again in the retail space below. The lights below look OE but also as if they are moving.

[Baldy]

What time?I'm afraid fog season is getting away from us, but the last few nights we've had decent fog. They shut of the light to Coit tower at midnight, so I was thinking of shooting around 11 when the fog has had time to build.

[ian408]

I'm afraid fog season is getting away from us, but the last few nights we've had decent fog. They shut of the light to Coit tower at midnight, so I was thinking of shooting around 11 when the fog has had time to build.
See your e-mail.

[Baldy]

The guys at Keeble and Schuchat told me tonight that thermals affect medium shutter speeds, but not short or long, because they tend to average out for longer exposures.

Truth?

[LiquidAir]

The guys at Keeble and Schuchat told me tonight that thermals affect medium shutter speeds, but not short or long, because they tend to average out for longer exposures.

Truth?

Mostly. The only sticking point is blown out light sources which are bright enough to have an impact on the image over a small fraction of the overall exposure time.

[pathfinder]

The guys at Keeble and Schuchat told me tonight that thermals affect medium shutter speeds, but not short or long, because they tend to average out for longer exposures.

Truth?

I am not sure I buy that entirely, Baldy.

I suspect that the intensity of the thermals play the largest role and that they sum over time. I suspect that both fast and long shutter speed images can be adversely affected. As well as medium shutter speeds.

I remember shooting the shuttle night shot in Florida with Harry, and you could see the image warping in the viewfinder when looking through long glass across the ICW, due to the humidity and the thermals from the warm water and the cool air.

If the image is warped to your eye in the viewfinder, I don't think shutter speed will help clarify it that much. Long shutter speeds will average out, as you say, but not by gaining sharpness, but by loss of contrast and clarity. Medium and short shutter speeds will just capture what your eye sees, won't they?

Astronomical photographers deal with this by shooting multiple frames and them stacking them and using the de-noise filters in Photoshop to remove the data that is not consistent from frame to frame, as seen in this video showing how to remove crowds from a landscape shot with a P&S camera (http://frederickvan.com/blog/2008/04/06/photoshop-tutorial-removing-crowds/).

Ken, I didn't see your answer until I had already posted mine:scratch

[ian408]

The guys at Keeble and Schuchat told me tonight that thermals affect medium shutter speeds, but not short or long, because they tend to average out for longer exposures.

Truth?
Wouldn't shutter speed be dependent on wavelength?

[LiquidAir]

I am not sure I buy that entirely, Baldy.

I suspect that the intensity of the thermals play the largest role and that they sum over time. I suspect that both fast and long shutter speed images can be adversely affected. As well as medium shutter speeds.

I remember shooting the shuttle night shot in Florida with Harry, and you could see the image warping in the viewfinder when looking through long glass across the ICW, due to the humidity and the thermals from the warm water and the cool air.

If the image is warped to your eye in the viewfinder, I don't think shutter speed will help clarify it that much. Long shutter speeds will average out, as you say, but not by gaining sharpness, but by loss of contrast and clarity. Medium and short shutter speeds will just capture what your eye sees, won't they?

Astronomical photographers deal with this by shooting multiple frames and them stacking them and using the de-noise filters in Photoshop to remove the data that is not consistent from frame to frame, as seen in this video showing how to remove crowds from a landscape shot with a P&S camera (http://frederickvan.com/blog/2008/04/06/photoshop-tutorial-removing-crowds/).

Ken, I didn't see your answer until I had already posted mine:scratch


Thermals, give or take, cause Gaussian deviations about a point. What that means is that small deviations are more likely that large ones so as you average the small deviations contribute more to the image than the large ones do and the image gets sharper. However, the brighter the point of light the longer it takes to average out.

Conventional averaging works poorly for atronomical photography because bright points of light (and nearby stars are usually blown out so they are very bright) against a black background is absolutely the worst case. For terrestrial night photography you get sharp shadows and halos around the bright parts of the image. At the exposure gets longer, the halos will get dimmer and smaller.

[xris]

The guys at Keeble and Schuchat told me tonight that thermals affect medium shutter speeds, but not short or long, because they tend to average out for longer exposures.

Truth?I have some land in Florida you may be interested in....:rolleyes
:thumb

[Baldy]

I have some land in Florida you may be interested in....:rolleyes
:thumb :rofl Good reply. :D

The next chapter in our continuing saga is I moved locations because Andy wanted to see some reflections off the water, and I was thinking maybe less bridge and more city.

So I moved up the island closer to the bridge, which had the welcome advantage of much better shelter from the wind and presumably lower thermal distortion by being higher off the water.

Then I remembered Sam's suggestion, that maybe we should blend darkness into light along the length of the pano. :huh It sounded too hard when we were shooting off sandbags, but I was able to use The Mother of All Tripods in my sheltered location last night, so I did the exact same pano 5 times as morning broke (see next post).

[Baldy]

So here's the middle exposure (low res quick-stitch style, not correcting for the sucky vignetting I was seeing):

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/375365392_SV2Lj-X3.jpg

[ziggy53]

Now "that" image I like very much. :clap:thumb

[Baldy]

So we were thinking that the bridge looks good dark, the heart of the financial district looks good in between like this with some morning light reflecting off the glass, and that we'd continue getting lighter to the right and maybe even include the Golden Gate as the morning sun hits it (they don't light much of it at night so it makes for a poor inclusion into a nightscape).

Your thoughts.

[ziggy53]

Baldy,

You're definitely on the right track. I love how the buildings are side lit by the early sun.

[xris]

Lookin' good. In fact it'll be stunning -- if it holds sharpness to the 72" height. It's not quite as fresh or as dramatic as the other composition though, is it?. Not as memorable.:thumb

[Baldy]

Baldy,

You're definitely on the right track. I love how the buildings are side lit by the early sun.Thanks! This has been an epic thread for me. I wish they didn't turn off the lights on Coit tower at midnight, but alas, can't have everything.

[Baldy]

Lookin' good. In fact it'll be stunning -- if it holds sharpness to the 72" height. It's not quite as fresh or as dramatic as the other composition though, is it?. Not as memorable.:thumbWell I shot the heck out of the other composition last night too, so I can stitch a few of them together.

In fact, I moved further down the island than I had before to get further from the bridge so that I could get where it joined to Treasure Island top to bottom on the stanchion (in the previous location, the last stanchion was too close to get it in the frame).

But I shot it with the 600mm, two rows with the 1Ds MKIII so it's got a gazillion pixels and will take forever to stitch.

[xris]

Well I shot the heck out of the other composition last night too, so I can stitch a few of them together.

In fact, I moved further down the island than I had before to get further from the bridge so that I could get where it joined to Treasure Island top to bottom on the stanchion (before, the last stanchion was too close to get it in the frame).

But I shot it with the 600mm, two rows with the 1Ds MKIII so it's got a gazillion pixels and will take forever to stitch.So, how many frames is that!:thumb

[Baldy]

So, how many frames is that!:thumbAround 180. Gads. :yikes

[ziggy53]

Thanks! This has been an epic thread for me. I wish they didn't turn off the lights on Coit tower at midnight, but alas, can't have everything.

Have you told the owners about the project and showed them the tests? They might come on board and light special hours if they knew how it would look?

(Is it run by the San Francisco Recreation & Park Department?)

The phone number to the tower appears to be (415) 362-0808.

[xris]

Around 180. Gads. :yikesTry THAT with Kodachrome!:bow

I await the outcome:thumb

[pathfinder]

Around 180. Gads. :yikes


Now that is a lot of pixels, and a lot of gigabytes:D

[Andy]

So here's the middle exposure (low res quick-stitch style, not correcting for the sucky vignetting I was seeing):

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/375365392_SV2Lj-Th.jpg

w00p now we're talkin :D

[DJ-S1]

:lurk

It's been fun watching your process evolve, can't wait to see the end result.

[jogle]

What are you using to stitch it with? I've found the vignetting correction in ptGui to be prety good. http://www.ptgui.com/examples/vigntutorial.html

[Baldy]

it'll be stunning -- if it holds sharpness to the 72" height.Read my clock tower (but I compressed this pretty hard to keep from blowing up your browser):

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/375444602_r3wTz-O.jpg

You can hardly see the clock tower in the low-res pano I posted, above. But 4 gigapixels gets you chicks. I mean ticks. Ticks on the clock.

[Baldy]

What are you using to stitch it with? I've found the vignetting correction in ptGui to be prety good. http://www.ptgui.com/examples/vigntutorial.htmlSomebody in this thread suggested AutopanoPro from France, so I bought it. I like it so far but haven't figured out (haven't had the time to try) the vignetting correction yet. (Baldy crosses his fingers.)

[jogle]

That's fantastic, you're going to have to do your proofs a couple of feet long to even get an idea of how cool it'll look:clap

[Baldy]

The problem is, I can't tell who the show host and guest was on the second story TV. All I can tell is one of them is wearing a blue suit and tie with a white shirt.

Maybe if I shoot this two rows with an 800mm instead of 600, I can correct this deficiency.

[ziggy53]

The problem is, I can't tell who the show host and guest was on the second story TV. All I can tell is one of them is wearing a blue suit and tie with a white shirt.

Maybe if I shoot this two rows with an 800mm instead of 600, I can correct this deficiency.

What was your budget again?

http://hobday.net/fm/n1200-1700/sn200015/slides/_MG_8669.jpg

[LiquidAir]

Dats alotta pixels. I am liking the dawn light in this one; I'll have to get out that way some morning.

Speaking of big stitches, have you seen this?

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/04/11/050411fa_fact?currentPage=1

[xris]

Read my clock tower...Wow! You should be fine. Is there any post sharpening there?:thumb

[xris]

I wonder if Canon would consider this project an interesting way to demonstrate the capabilities of the new 5D MII?:thumb

[Baldy]

Good question about Canon. The 5D MKII does seem like the camera for this. I've loved shooting with the D3 but 21 megapixels... Also we have a Canon 600 f/4 prime, which seems to be doing the trick.

That was shot at ISO 200, f/4.5, 1.3 seconds, mirror up, IS off, autofocus. The only thing I could wish for is a faster shutter to freeze motion better.

[Baldy]

So I have an idea for shooting a dark (on the first part of the Bay Bridge) to early pre-dawn in the financial district, to first light on the Golden Gate with this shot. Tell me if you think it would work:

I know the time diff between darkness and first rays.

I know how many frames it takes to cover the pano.

So I time it. I shoot the first two frames, one high and one low, at say 5:30. There are about 90 frames across. I shoot another every 45 seconds roughly to get me to the Golden Gate at the right time.

Then stitch and blend.

What am I missing?

[jogle]

Sounds like a good experiment, I would increase your overlap to give you more coverage to blend. Say 120 frames across and every 30 sec?

[ziggy53]

Sounds like a good experiment, I would increase your overlap to give you more coverage to blend. Say 120 frames across and every 30 sec?

I agree. In the few panoramics I've stitched together even moderate changes in cloud density show in the final pano, even tho I didn't even notice the difference during the shoot. More overlap will help to smooth the differential.

More overlap will also help with lens vignetting.

At the sizes you intend to print, I think you would notice with too little overlap.

I pity your computer. :D

[Jzazzi]

With the changing light you'll have to adjust exposure, by changing the shutter speed I assume or lowering the ISO. This would give you faster shutter speeds (as you wanted!) for the latter half. Also, temperatures will vary slightly during this whole process, but will it be enough to matter? Truly epic project, I hope this works!

Also, take a couple photos of the setup you're using. When it's printed on the wall and people are drooling over it, it would be fun to show the "making-of" this historic print.

-J

[jogle]

The other way would be to shoot the whole panorama 2 or 3 times as the light changes, run the alignment on all the pictures together so they are all in the same space, then run the merge on each set separately.

That will give you 3 panos that should line up perfectly that you can mask and blend to your hearts content

and yes, I too pity your computer.

[xris]

Being unfamiliar with the area a I need a bit of help with the orientation here Baldy. Are you shooting Northward, panning East to West? -- Right to Left in the photo -- thus putting the early morning light on the side of the bridge facing the camera and the night-time portion to the right in the photo?:thumb

[Jzazzi]

The other way would be to shoot the whole panorama 2 or 3 times as the light changes, run the alignment on all the pictures together so they are all in the same space, then run the merge on each set separately.

That will give you 3 panos that should line up perfectly that you can mask and blend to your hearts content
Also a great idea, much more control over the finished product!

As for location, I'm going to guess the tip of Treasure Island shooting from left to right, south to west.

-J

[BradfordBenn]

Complete novice, but figure I will say I am enjoying reading the thread. I was thinking about your thermals issue, and I wonder if a higher vantage point farther away from the water would be better. Since there is less humidity directly radiating from the water as you get higher up would that reduce the amount of thermal effects you see. Like I said, pure conjecture so I could be wrong.

Also I am not sure that they are all thermal issues, some could simply be wind swirling and getting the reflection from some of the particles in the air. For example with Pathfinder's shuttle launch experience, my personal hypothesis is that one gets the thermals off the water as well as the pressure wave pushing particles in the air around (and to some degree at the viewer) from the shuttle launch even at 9 miles away.

In terms of steadying the camera, have you thought about a tent to keep it out of the wind?

[Baldy]

The other way would be to shoot the whole panorama 2 or 3 times as the light changes, run the alignment on all the pictures together so they are all in the same space, then run the merge on each set separately.

That will give you 3 panos that should line up perfectly that you can mask and blend to your hearts content

and yes, I too pity your computer.So that's the way I shot the one you saw me post a day or two ago. I got 5 panos and posted the middle one. Two are lighter and two darker.

But, in order to get it in a resonable amount of time, I have to shoot one row with a 400mm lens, instead of two rows with a 600 or maybe even 800, which cuts the resolution.

We are working on blending the 5 exposures now but if you pity my computer trying to handle one layer, imagine five images layered... :huh We're having to break it in segments.

And. If I shoot it once, 180 frames with the 600, I may have time to bracket the exposure 2 stops each way per frame. Then HDR the 180 frames together and do the adjustments before doing the stitch.

I dunno how to open an image with more than 30,000 pixels in a dimension in Photoshop. I've heard the 64-bit version of cs4 beta for Windows might be able to open it, so maybe there's hope. The machine would probably need 64 gigs of ram. Probably have to hijack one of our servers from the datacenter for awhile before it gets put in the datacenter.

[jogle]

I don't know if you can do this in autoPano Pro, but my technique is to give the bracketed images to the stitcher (ptgui pro) and get back a 32bit .tif or .psb (photoshop large format) which has the entire dynamic range in it, (though you can also have ptgui spit out each layer separately into the photoshop file or to tif's) it's easier to work with a high dynamic range image then multiple layers, but if you're shooting under different lighting conditions you'll have to use them as separate layers.

You can tone the image using the tone mapping in photoshop, it pops up the dialogue when you convert it from 32bit to 16 bit. I've also had good results with the exposure fusion module in ptGui. Or the real hard graft is to dodge and burn by hand painting layers with multiply & screen blending modes.

It doesn't take that much of a machine to do this, I've stitched 33k wide pano's on my macbook pro (2.2ghz, 3 gig ram) and worked on them in photoshop with 4 or 5 layers. Though these days I tend to use my spare work machine running 64bit windows, (dual quad core xeon, 6 gig ram) it'll stitch a big pano in 4 or 5 hours rather then 16. Ram helps but fast disks make a big difference, 100gig+ of caching is fairly common.

[Chillwag]

Baldy, do you offset your camera so that your pivot point is below the first lens? Seems to me that if the sensor is above the pivot point the first lens is in a different space thus a different perspective. I have only tried to create a pano-shot once and noticed the pictures didn't line up easily even with Canons "stitch assist".

[Baldy]

I was thinking about your thermals issue, and I wonder if a higher vantage point farther away from the water would be better.

Also I am not sure that they are all thermal issues, some could simply be wind swirling and getting the reflection from some of the particles in the air.

In terms of steadying the camera, have you thought about a tent to keep it out of the wind?All good points. On this last attempt I found a higher vantage point on the island out of the wind that got me maybe 200 feet above the water, and got the sharpest results to date.

[BradfordBenn]

So any new updates?

I am out in San Francisco on business and when I flew in I thought about the pano and just kind of wondered.

[ian408]

So any new updates?

I am out in San Francisco on business and when I flew in I thought about the pano and just kind of wondered.

It's gonna be a great couple of days with the weather should come clouds.

[leaforte]

How much does it pay?

[BradfordBenn]

It's gonna be a great couple of days with the weather should come clouds.

It has been great, but I have noticed the clouds/fog rolling in during the late afternoon

http://bradfordbenn.smugmug.com/photos/385517825_FQtUp-M.jpg

Unfortunately for the vast majority of the next three days I will be inside of the Moscone Center.

[Baldy]

It's gonna be a great couple of days with the weather should come clouds.I went up with Ivar and Schmoo for attempt #7 (?). Thanks to Ian for lending me his 1Ds MKIII while I wait impatiently for my 5D MKII...

Based on the feedback I got from the morning light shots last time, I really wanted to shoot from 5ish-6ish am, but just in case the fog was rolling in fast and furious, we went up around 10.

I started in the upper right of this pano because the fog was already coming in on the buildings and worked as quickly as I could to the left, shooting the upper row. I was watching Coit Tower to the right disappear in the fog, so I stopped going left where the bridge connects to land and shot the lower row heading back to the right. You can see how much foggier it was by the time I got to the right, and how AutoPano Pro wasn't able to blend well at all.

Then I shot the bridge, and the fog was really coming in. By the time I finished, the city disappeared and we had to go home.

Fog season ends August 30th, doncha know.

7 attempts and no printable pano yet. :cry If I had shot it one row with a 400 instead of two with a 600, this pano would have looked a heckuva lot better.

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/388078842_mEpsa-X3.jpg

[NomadRip]

7 attempts and no printable pano yet. :cry If I had shot it one row with a 400 instead of two with a 600, this pano would have looked a heckuva lot better.

While I'm sure it's frustrating that you haven't captured "the One" you want, I am having a blast seeing each different iteration you come up with on each attempt :barb

[dadwtwins]

Last night I saw a few photographers on the tower and I hoped it was you. Last night around midnight would of been perfect. The half crescent moon dipped down close to the top of the sky scrappers and the night was clear with a touch of fog in the background.

For the life of me I can not figure out where you found an opening without trees blocking you from this vantage point.:dunno Good luck with this project of yours. The shot will be incredible if it even comes close to your vision. :thumb

[Baldy]

For the life of me I can not figure out where you found an opening without trees blocking you from this vantage point.:dunno *cough* bow *hrum* saw *cough*

[i_worship_the_King]

Read my clock tower (but I compressed this pretty hard to keep from blowing up your browser):

<pic omitted>

You can hardly see the clock tower in the low-res pano I posted, above. But 4 gigapixels gets you chicks. I mean ticks. Ticks on the clock.

Holy cow you can see what's on the TV. Is that sportscenter?:bow

[ivar]

I went up with Ivar and Schmoo for attempt #7 (?). and thanks for having us!

I didn't get too many shots, actually, but I got this one:

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/401256864_VLwV3-X3.jpg

Not as sharp as you would probably need it, but I was happy with my first real pano :D

[dadwtwins]

and thanks for having us!

I didn't get too many shots, actually, but I got this one:

Not as sharp as you would probably need it, but I was happy with my first real pano :D

Hey Ivar, could you please post a sample of actual pixels. I would love to see how sharp you did get it. I would also like to know what lens you used and camera body. PLease:bow:bow:bow

I have tried a few panos from a different angle to the city. I was on a dock and the movement of the dock just killed any hopes of clarity when printed in large format.

http://dthorp.smugmug.com/photos/401292110_BjcEo-XL.jpg

[ivar]

Hey Ivar, could you please post a sample of actual pixels. I would love to see how sharp you did get it. I would also like to know what lens you used and camera body. PLease:bow:bow:bow

I have tried a few panos from a different angle to the city. I was on a dock and the movement of the dock just killed any hopes of clarity when printed in large format.

http://dthorp.smugmug.com/photos/401292110_BjcEo-XL.jpgNo problem :D 30d with 24-105

100%:
http://img.skitch.com/20081024-c9n44ek2mkqernfw5dkypsm3fr.jpg

[xris]

No problem :D 30d with 24-105 100%:Hi Ivar. Interesting work. I particularly like the way the 'clouds' worked out. Questions though: 100% of what? Is this one complete frame from the pano, or a detail from one frame? Is it an 'S' lens?
:thumb

[BradfordBenn]

So will there be a field trip for this task during the DGrin 5th party?:dunno :wink

[Baldy]

So will there be a field trip for this task during the DGrin 5th party?:dunno :winkIn! :D

Ivar, nice shot. This business of making it pixel-peeper-proof at 72x700 kinda sucks. :cry

Daniel, really nice angle. Where were you?

My 5D MKII arrives Friday morning, so I'm gonna start making more attempts. Here's a question of major import: If I shoot 1 row with a 400mm I get 5632 vertical pixels in 72 inches = 78 dpi.

If I shoot two rows, I get maybe 8,500 pixels = 120 dpi.

How much difference do you think that makes in the final print? Reason I ask is if there are clouds and fog, shooting two rows is gonna be really tough, as I found out. It takes so long. And the mount gets more wobbly. And the lens gets tougher to stabilize.

If I shoot with a 400, the head only needs to move in 1 dimension so I can choose a really stable mount. If there is fog or clouds, I can shoot fast enough to get the shot.

If the night is clear, I can do the darkness to daylight thing by shooting the shot 5 times, making layers in photoshop and blending them horizontally. I can't do it that way with the 600 and two rows. With the 600, I have to start shooting dark frames and end with light frames and blend 180 frames smoothly as the light changes.

[pathfinder]

If there are clouds and fog, do you really need 180 pixels per inch in your original image?

You can uprez 78 ppi to ~ 160 with one of the programs like Genuine Fractals can't you? Your 78 ppi figure is original pixels straight from the camera. You can uprezz that in ACR substantially, and choose to output your jpgs into Photoshop at 300 ppi or whatever figure you need. Uprezzing does not really increase resolution though.


I have an image straight from a 5D ( nose art from a B17), that I uprezzed in ACR to the largest choice at 300 ppi. In Photoshop I changed that setting to 78 ppi ( without interpolation ), and achieved an image size of ~60 inches and printed a small portion of the 78 ppi image at 1440 dpi on my Epson 3800. It is essentially grainless, and probably as sharp as the real nose art was in real life.

Shoot a frame ( portrait mode ) with your new camera, try uprezzing that single frame in ACR, then open in Photoshop at 300 or more ppi and change the image dimension in Photoshop to 72 inches vertically at 78 ppi ( without interpolation), and print a small 8x10 inch portion of the image, and see what it looks like. If it looks fine at an 8x10 inch viewing distance, then it should be spectacular as a vastly larger pano, shouldn't it?

Happy Thanksgiving, Chris!

The maximum pixel size in CS4 these days is 300,000 by 300,000 isn't it?

For a dye sublimation printer, you may want the image resolution to match the printer fairly closely according to this document (http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb404440&sliceId=1) about half way down the page.

[Llywellyn]

You should ask your engineer friends to jury-rig something that allows you to stack two cameras so you can shoot two rows at once on the same focal point. :wink

[jasonstone]

You should ask your engineer friends to jury-rig something that allows you to stack two cameras so you can shoot two rows at once on the same focal point. :wink

I'm glad I finished reading to the end before replying as that's EXACTLY what I was going to write! :wave

Honestly it shouldn't be that hard to do - some CNC machine should be able to cut something out of a relatively lightweight but strong metal

Or get one of those RED Epic 617 cameras with 261MP :huh

Cheers, Jase

[ivar]

Or get one of those RED Epic 617 cameras with 261MP :huh Don't tempt him :lol3

[xris]

...Or get one of those RED Epic 617 cameras with 261MP :huhThat's what you want, Baldy!! The sensor is 186 x 56 mm!!:ivar
:thumb

[Baldy]

Hahaha. Sam and I were kicking around the plate idea last night. I will actually have two 5D MKIIs tomorrow, and can rent a second 600mm lens. It will still take longer to shoot the pano than with a 400 because each strip is narrower, but man it would be a lot easier than moving the camera up and down each frame.

Pathfinder: I'll give that a shot too.

[ziggy53]

Baldy,

If you plan on doing a lot of these extremely detailed, stitched images, the PixOrb controlled head has an awful lot of advantages and might speed up the operation as well:

http://www.peaceriverstudios.com/pixorb/index.html

[pathfinder]

Cool looking head Ziggy, but, to me at least, it does not look up to doing that with a 600mm lens or even a 400mm lens I suspect.

[i_worship_the_King]

Baldy,

If you plan on doing a lot of these extremely detailed, stitched images, the PixOrb controlled head has an awful lot of advantages and might speed up the operation as well:

http://www.peaceriverstudios.com/pixorb/index.html

$12K head?:huh

[ian408]

Cool looking head Ziggy, but, to me at least, it does not look up to doing that with a 600mm lens or even a 400mm lens I suspect.
Agreed. And given it's held together w/nut plates, I'm guessing it will be difficult to keep stable. If you really wanted to, I bet that a Celestron fork mount (with the auto drive) could be made to work as well.

[ziggy53]

The PixOrb head was used in the production of the "Yosemite Extreme Panoramic Imaging Project" which currently consists of 45 gigapixels worth of imagery.

http://www.xrez.com/yose_proj/Yose_result.html

It might be worth some more investigation and it may be available as a rental.

Other NC stages and heads are available for the motion picture industry, for example, but I believe many of those run quite a bit more money.

It would also be possible to construct something and I have constructed up to a 3 axis robotic arm myself. (It ran off of a Commodore VIC computer and custom software. The "User Port" of those computers are similar to a serial port except that it is 0 and +5 volts. That interfaced easily to SCRs and TRIACs to control the motors.)

Part of the solution to handling heavy lenses is an appropriate counterbalance. Usually the bearings and gears are capable of handling a balanced load.

[BradfordBenn]

So where and when is the meet up for this exercise?

[Baldy]

So where and when is the meet up for this exercise?I went up at 4 a.m. this morning because the weather reports and skies at my house said crystal clear.

When I got there the visibility was 10 feet. What bridge? I couldn't even see water, just a raccoon who wanted me to feed him. :cry

[jasonstone]

I went up at 4 a.m. this morning because the weather reports and skies at my house said crystal clear.

When I got there the visibility was 10 feet. What bridge? I couldn't even see water, just a raccoon who wanted me to feed him. :cry

So where are the raccoon photos :D

[ian408]

I'm surprised by all this fog. Sunday morning was so clear on the coast.

[Dee]

I went up at 4 a.m. this morning because the weather reports and skies at my house said crystal clear.

When I got there the visibility was 10 feet. What bridge? I couldn't even see water, just a raccoon who wanted me to feed him. :cry

Two weeks ago I was photographing the skyline and I saw that raccoon! I didn't know it was that tame that it was begging for food. :D

The fog this morning caught me by surprise too. I was planning to go out and photograph the moon and planets. Sigh....

[Andy]

Baldy and I went to SF tonight and shot. The weather was perfect, great sky color, etc etc. I think there should be some awesome pixels for Baldy to peep :lol3

I shot with a 300 and baldy shot with a 400.
here's some 100% detail from the camera jpg ... that's pretty darn sharp for 1.8 miles away :uhoh

http://img.skitch.com/20081203-e4uhqf6kprigjw2pexnh7beska.jpg

This was the scene (taken with a 24-105 @ roughly 35mm)
http://img.skitch.com/20081203-1rtqmka3gacjnf52u8kmmxtju3.jpg

Can't wait to process these!

[ian408]

Baldy and I went to SF tonight and shot. The weather was perfect, great sky color, etc etc. I think there should be some awesome pixels for Baldy to peep :lol3


:dunno

[Baldy]

I think there should be some awesome pixels for Baldy to peep Hmmmm, looking at the first few frames from my camera, the first impression is I may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I shot at ISO 400, thinking it would be clean, but we are seeing some noise. Also, I may have overexposed a little, just enough to make some signs bloom.

Last time I shot at f/4.5, ISO 200, 0.8 seconds. This time I went f/5.6, ISO 400, 0.8 seconds... I was just a snitch over-exposed last time in the windows and so I intended to go a little darker this time but failed to do the maths right...

Andy didn't shoot the whole pano, I had the ISO and exposure too high, so back to SF we go. :cry

[Marc Muench]

Hmmmm,

Last time I shot at f/4.5, ISO 200, 0.8 seconds. This time I went f/5.6, ISO 400, 0.8 seconds... I was just a snitch over-exposed last time in the windows and so I intended to go a little darker this time but failed to do the maths right...

Andy didn't shoot the whole pano, I had the ISO and exposure too high, so back to SF we go. :cry
Baldy,

I have noticed on occasion that exposures of anywhere between 1 sec and 1/15 sec can create the most vibration, even considering mirror lockup and a real beef of a tripod. Anything longer than 1 sec and the vibration to exp length ratio is fine, in other words the vibration is very brief maybe only 1/8 sec long. Therefore if the overall exp is substantially longer then the vibration portion of the exp is insignificant. This means the very worst exposure times for potential camera vibration are closer to 1/8 sec. Since you are at 0.8 sec exposure you may want to lengthen your times to 1.6 sec at 200iso:dunno

[Baldy]

Baldy,

I have noticed on occasion that exposures of anywhere between 1 sec and 1/15 sec can create the most vibration, even considering mirror lockup and a real beef of a tripod. Anything longer than 1 sec and the vibration to exp length ratio is fine, in other words the vibration is very brief maybe only 1/8 sec long. Therefore if the overall exp is substantially longer then the vibration portion of the exp is insignificant. This means the very worst exposure times for potential camera vibration are closer to 1/8 sec. Since you are at 0.8 sec exposure you may want to lengthen your times to 1.6 sec at 200iso:dunnoFascinating. That could explain a lot. I had the beefier tripod and the shorter exposures, but my shots are not as sharp as Andy's.

Most disheartening for me was the amount of high ISO noise I'm seeing on the shots with the 5D MKII at 400 ISO. Andy's are clean at 100 but some of us used the word awful (Andy thinks we're exaggerating or being too picky) when looking at mine at 400. I don't remember seeing that much noise on my previous shots with the 1Ds MKIII at ISO 400. I'll post examples when I get some time.

I went to bed glowing last night because the conditions were so epic. I've seen maybe 5 days in my life that clear in the Bay Area. It was a really big bummer to open my files this a.m.. The first ones we opened were a little bit overexposed, but we found ones with good exposure and they still weren't 72-inch print worthy.

The disappointment would be easier to take were it not for the fact that we had an epic day and I went to bed thinking we'd nailed it.

[BradfordBenn]

Looking at this photos I can't wait to get to San Francisco this weekend. Of course I am sure that I will bring for with me.

[Pamela]

I have a new Key West Gallery , if your still looking for photos.:D

www.exposed-images.smugmug.com/gallery/6609715_DPUsg#421255777_CPT7N

[dadwtwins]

Fascinating. That could explain a lot. I had the beefier tripod and the shorter exposures, but my shots are not as sharp as Andy's.

Most disheartening for me was the amount of high ISO noise I'm seeing on the shots with the 5D MKII at 400 ISO. Andy's are clean at 100 but some of us used the word awful (Andy thinks we're exaggerating or being too picky) when looking at mine at 400. I don't remember seeing that much noise on my previous shots with the 1Ds MKIII at ISO 400. I'll post examples when I get some time.

I went to bed glowing last night because the conditions were so epic. I've seen maybe 5 days in my life that clear in the Bay Area. It was a really big bummer to open my files this a.m.. The first ones we opened were a little bit overexposed, but we found ones with good exposure and they still weren't 72-inch print worthy.

The disappointment would be easier to take were it not for the fact that we had an epic day and I went to bed thinking we'd nailed it.


Wow!!! I am so sorry to hear your disappointment Baldy. As a local, I know how rare it is to get such great conditions and not capture what you want. Is it possible that the next time you go, you use two different cameras and different ISO's so this would not happen again. I thought Andy's one exposure was crystal clear. It is too bad that he did not finish all the pano shots. Just a thought of course.:dunno

[Baldy]

Here's what my original pixels looked like with ISO 400 400mm f/2.8 lens at 5.6 and 1/3rd second exposure. I didn't adjust exposure here, but did sharpen in LAB lightness channel 100%.

Tell me what you see in this image:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/429959528_ZvpR2-O.jpg

[jogle]

The noise looks to be worse in the reallllly warm colour temp areas that are lit with sodium light. This is pretty common as there is very little blue and green hitting the blue and green pixels on the sensor so you're only really getting a third of the information you would be with a cooler light. if you can isolate the channels you will see the blue is by far the noisiest.

some of the guys I shoot with swear by cooling filters when shooting in these kind of conditions. they soak up some of the light in the red channel so you need longer shutter times but you will get less noise. An 80A is the strongest, will soak up 2 stops of light but will shift your colour temp from 3200 to 5500

there's a little more in this thread.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/596525/0#5237627

[dadwtwins]

Daniel, really nice angle. Where were you?
http://dthorp.smugmug.com/photos/401293169_v5Nnd-L.jpg


This was shot at the end of a pier at the Oakland Ship yards.
http://dthorp.smugmug.com/photos/429952894_j3bue-XL-2.jpg

zoomed in further to the pier
http://dthorp.smugmug.com/photos/429952886_H7JaG-XL-1.jpg

[dadwtwins]

I have to say that the noise looks very fixable. The shoot (colors, composition, sharpness etc..) from earlier in the thread was so good I think it would be worth it to run it through ninja or noiseware to clean up the noise. Both programs very versatile and adjustable to your needs.

You could always print it on a smaller printer at full size just to see what you will be able to see on print compared to our overly sharp and bright LCD's.

Good Luck Baldy. I am sure enjoying watching you go through this unique process even if it has been a heck of a struggle for you.:bow:clap

[pathfinder]

Baldy, Genuine Fractals 6 is now available.

They say that one can make a 6 foot image from a good 12Mpixel file

A new video describing its new features (http://ononesoft.cachefly.net/video/genuinefractals6/QT/getting_started.mov), looks very nice really. It facilitates tiling and gallery wraps also. That is pretty neat.

I think the noise in your image will not be that noticeable in a print, as opposed to a video monitor too.

[Baldy]

Allright, attempt #10. This is two rows, stitched with CS4, which did a sucky job because the upper half is tilted right. Crazy.

600mm f/8 ISO 100 1.8 seconds. No up or down resing.

What do you think?

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/430593257_L8mR9-O.jpg

[ian408]

This looks better. Not the fuzzy-ness as in the last.

[Baldy]

We started the pano this time mid-span of The Gate:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/430604325_UypiU-O.jpg

[Baldy]

The sky changed as I went, 'cus it takes awhile to shoot a 2-row pano with a 600... More actual pixels:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/430604313_GjTr7-O.jpg

[Baldy]

More original pixels:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/430610891_kUWRv-O.jpg

[ian408]

Stitch it :thumb

Love how the sky is changing color.

[Baldy]

Lovely sky color tonight:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/430635239_P64Kd-O.jpg

[Andy]

So, after two attempts with Baldy, lessons learned:

* @ distance (~ 2 miles to subject!) - there are lots of factors at play

* biggest factors: Atmosphere and glass

* we had clear conditions on both attempts. Two nights ago, I shot with the 300 f/2.8L @ f/8 - RAZOR sharp shots and gorgeous color, contrast, all of it - a beautiful beautiful pano, already stitched it in draft form and it's gorgeous.

* tonight, Baldy shot with the 600L and did two rows, and ended up with what we think is the winner. Reason being, it's 600mm AND two rows, so he's gonna get the desired dpi in the vertical dimension for 72" high printing. Wooop! Lesson: Glass matters.

* tonight, I shot a single row with the 400mm f/5.6L @ f/8 and it failed to achieve the same sharpness that baldy hit. While this is a good lens, it wasn't manly enough for this job.

[Baldy]

The funny thing is I was a little bit pissy tonight because 9 bitter disappointments was getting to me, along with the hazy conditions I was seeing in the sky.

Sam and I pretty much decided to turn around not long after leaving the office, But Andy asked what it would hurt to go take a look at the bay and see. I said, "Okaayyyyy" in that tone of voice which means, "I know who to blame for this waste of time."

As we approached the bridge, I said, "in the 1,000 times I've been here in my life, two nights ago was in the top 5. Tonight is the worst ever. Massive haze fest."

Andy thought it might clear when it got dark, I thought we'd get a good orange sky, but no way did I think it would be clear enough.

I had problems connecting my lens to the tripod and finally gave up just before shooting time. But Sam tried one last time and it connected.

But tonight turned out to be the best of the 10. Amazing.

[Baldy]

he's gonna get the desired dpi in the vertical dimension for 72" high printing.And the horizontal dimension. :D

[pathfinder]

You can see the improvements from the lower ISO, longer shutter speed, and aperture 2 stops smaller than maximum also. These shots are superb in their sharpness, and when you realize the difficulties shooting over water, they are amazing!

Well done, Baldy!

[Llywellyn]

Baldy, those last shots look stellar! :clap Sharp and clean. Looks like you finally nailed it.

Now stitch it and post it so we can all drool! :lol3

[Marc Muench]

We started the pano this time mid-span of The Gate:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/430604325_UypiU-O.jpg


This is looking good:thumb:thumb:thumb

[BradfordBenn]

Holy Cats! Very cool!

Seems like I took the bad luck for you as my travel got messed up so I am not going to make it out this weekend...

[ian408]

Holy Cats! Very cool!

Seems like I took the bad luck for you as my travel got messed up so I am not going to make it out this weekend...
Oh No!

[Baldy]

The noise looks to be worse in the reallllly warm colour temp areas that are lit with sodium light. This is pretty common as there is very little blue and green hitting the blue and green pixels on the sensor so you're only really getting a third of the information you would be with a cooler light. if you can isolate the channels you will see the blue is by far the noisiest.

some of the guys I shoot with swear by cooling filters when shooting in these kind of conditions. they soak up some of the light in the red channel so you need longer shutter times but you will get less noise. An 80A is the strongest, will soak up 2 stops of light but will shift your colour temp from 3200 to 5500

there's a little more in this thread.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/596525/0#5237627That's actually quite fascinating. I remember now I used to do that with daylight films but never considered it for digital. I have to say I'm seeing the same thing with the reds too pronounced and easy to clip, the blues very subdued.

The other thing is lenses don't focus well on red because of the wavelength. Filmmakers hate to film in submarines with the red light.

I'm gonna try this on another night shot I want to do next, from the top of Mt. Tamalpais.

[Andy]

I'm gonna try this on another night shot I want to do next, from the top of Mt. Tamalpais.Okay but can we stay focused on this one for a while please :rolleyes Get Sam to stitch it so I can process it :thumb Then, let's decide how we're actually gonna print this monster
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/photos/16540557_SAUCH-L.gif

:lol3

[Baldy]

Stitch it :thumb

Love how the sky is changing color.Autopano Pro no likey these images. It reports a fine stitch, but gives it that abstract look:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/431426797_JkhVp-O.png

CS4 just says, "Screw you. I'd rather blow up than stitch your stinkin' pano."

[ziggy53]

Autopano Pro no likey these images. It reports a fine stitch, but gives it that abstract look:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/431426797_JkhVp-O.png

CS4 just says, "Screw you. I'd rather blow up than stitch your stinkin' pano."

Are you sure AutoPano Pro is ready for 5D MKII RAW files? (... or is that your point?)

[jogle]

Autopano Pro no likey these images. It reports a fine stitch, but gives it that abstract look:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/431426797_JkhVp-O.png

CS4 just says, "Screw you. I'd rather blow up than stitch your stinkin' pano."

The new 8.1beta of PtGui should support the 5DmkII files as it uses the DCraw libraries (and they do)

[dadwtwins]

isn't this fitting? you got the shot during the 5 year anniversary:clap:clap:clap.

too bad you can't bring a 7.2" by 70" mini pano of the shot with you to the party. Can't wait to see the full version printed hanging proudly on the walls of smugmug:bow

[Baldy]

The new 8.1beta of PtGui should support the 5DmkII files as it uses the DCraw libraries (and they do)So I bought a copy and it does support the 5D MKII but now I seem to need a black belt in using it:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/431790374_9WzQm-O.png

It whipped through the align image routine surpisingly fast (a minute or two), which takes most programs a long time. But then the images were half scrambled, so I've been adding control points for a couple hours and have gotten this far... It's hard to get exact control points for the images of sky.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I'd like to give it the general sequence of the images so it doesn't end up placing a patch all the way on the other side of the pano.

I see there are some pano tools available that are GPLed to install, but the intructions are pretty geeky so I haven't tried yet.

[dadwtwins]

So I bought a copy and it does support the 5D MKII but now I seem to need a black belt in using it:

It whipped through the align image routine surpisingly fast (a minute or two), which takes most programs a long time. But then the images were half scrambled, so I've been adding control points for a couple hours and have gotten this far... It's hard to get exact control points for the images of sky.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I'd like to give it the general sequence of the images so it doesn't end up placing a patch all the way on the other side of the pano.

I see there are some pano tools available that are GPLed to install, but the intructions are pretty geeky so I haven't tried yet.

I have no doubt you are very frustrated by now but this picture is turning out beyond belief. What great colors through out the shot and you managed even to capture the GG during a great time of the day. I do not see the GG bridge so clearly very often from your vantage point. Outstanding Baldy:clap:barb:clap

[Baldy]

I have no doubt you are very frustrated by now but this picture is turning out beyond belief. What great colors through out the shot and you managed even to capture the GG during a great time of the day. I do not see the GG bridge so clearly very often from your vantage point. Outstanding Baldy:clap:barb:clapThanks! I used to wonder when I saw a sky that orange in a photo what the photog had done with Photoshop to make it so. But these are just unaltered RAW files I'm stitching...

[Andy]

Thanks! I used to wonder when I saw a sky that orange in a photo what the photog had done with Photoshop to make it so.

Ereh, ahem, koff koff...

[jcdill]

You should ask your engineer friends to jury-rig something that allows you to stack two cameras so you can shoot two rows at once on the same focal point. :wink

My friend Ladd (automotive machinist, on the left) made two plates for my friend Landon (astronomer/photographer, on the right) so he could take astronomy photos with multiple cameras pointing to the same area in the sky (imaging during a total solar eclipse). Here they are, posing with the 2006 model:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/3089861785_5c69a2758d_o.jpg

Here is another view of the 2006 model:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/3089861703_e0ed910e7f_o.jpg

And here's a view of the 2008 model:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/3090702792_9dc2734baa_o.jpg

(apologies for the short DoF - this was a quick snap at a party, in low light, without a flash) This rig was designed to hold 3 cameras but at the party we were doing the demo with just 2 cameras on the mount. I'll post photos later that show the rig in use at the 2008 total solar eclipse in China.

You may want to make/use a rig like this for your upcoming castle shot in France. If you place 2 or 3 cameras to shoot at exactly the right angle one above the other, you don't need as much overlap (you can just tell the software how much overlap there is between the frames to stitch them into a single "tall" frame, rather than rely on having enough similar "points" in the frame for the software to calculate the overlap). Then you only need to make one pass from side to side, which reduces the number of adjustments you need to make between each shot, and reduces the total number of shots you need to take.

jc

[jogle]

So I bought a copy and it does support the 5D MKII but now I seem to need a black belt in using it:

It whipped through the align image routine surpisingly fast (a minute or two), which takes most programs a long time. But then the images were half scrambled, so I've been adding control points for a couple hours and have gotten this far... It's hard to get exact control points for the images of sky.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I'd like to give it the general sequence of the images so it doesn't end up placing a patch all the way on the other side of the pano.


You can open the "Panorama Editor" window, switch to single image (second icon in the toolbox up the top) and drag each image around into rough alignment and then run the alignment again. You can also run "generate control points for selected images" at any time to lock a specific pair together. If you shot this using a pano head with clicks for each rotation, you can plug the numbers in to it's transformations before even running any allignment.

[ian408]

Ha Ha JC. Tell Landon I said hello--he may not remember but I worked at SGI around the same time he did.

[jcdill]

Ha Ha JC. Tell Landon I said hello--he may not remember but I worked at SGI around the same time he did.

I'll tell him. What did you do at SGI? Were you part of the Cray group? We may have other mutual ex-SGI friends in common. (It's a small internet. LOL)

jc

[ian408]

I'll tell him. What did you do at SGI? Were you part of the Cray group? We may have other mutual ex-SGI friends in common. (It's a small internet. LOL)

jc
Division IT. Managed EIS group in the MIPS org. He worked in Corporate.

[dadwtwins]

Division IT. Managed EIS group in the MIPS org. He worked in Corporate.

I love all the acronyms. Your sentence says it all on how the direction of our communication has gone. Our lives are full of them and the only people who understand what they mean are the ones in the loop. It is almost like we are a bunch of kids with our own secret languages :rofl:rofl:rofl

[ian408]

It is almost like we are a bunch of kids with our own secret languages :rofl:rofl:rofl
Ha ha!

[Baldy]

Where this stands is the pano seems to be crashing the beta version of PtGui, which I need for these new RAW files:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/433168096_ppw6j-L.png

But shooting the pano set us behind on our jobs so we're chilling for awhile. We may convert the files to tiffs before resuming.

[ian408]

Where this stands is the pano seems to be crashing the beta version of PtGui, which I need for these new RAW files:

But shooting the pano set us behind on our jobs so we're chilling for awhile. We may convert the files to tiffs before resuming.
Are you running a 64b version of PtGui?

[Andy]

But shooting the pano set us behind on our jobs
What pano?

:whip :baldy

[Andy]

Baldy at work :lol3

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/434120590_6hxbQ-X3.jpg

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/434120095_CLfrJ-X3.jpg

[Andy]

Shizam ponders

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/434121854_WpZPJ-X3.jpg

When we're' shooting hundreds and he's only shooting two (8x10 film) you have to ponder a lot!

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/434122265_m7tHu-X3.jpg

Money shot? :dunno the film's not back yet :lol3

[Tango]

:lurk

now this is getting even more interesting. a shootout....!!


btw, why is baldy not using live view and a little chair....he is making my neck sore just viewing these images....

[ian408]

Money shot? :dunno the film's not back yet :lol3
Nice tripod :D

[pathfinder]

:lurk

now this is getting even more interesting. a shootout....!!


btw, why is baldy not using live view and a little chair....he is making my neck sore just viewing these images....


Good question.

Hey Marc.....

[Marc Muench]

Good question.

Hey Marc.....

8X10 :barb go dude! BTW did you find Velvia?

Now, personally I usually have three interns standing around, one to carry my chair and the others to work live view and cable release....:rofl

[Tango]

dont forget the model shading you....

[Tango]

Baldy....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/365813-REG/Panasonic_AW_PH400_AW_PH400_High_Speed_Indoor_Pan. html

might as well.... it should match that setup very well...

dont forget to get the controller

:D

[anonymouscuban]

Where is the location you guys are shooting this pano from? I am taking a trip to SF next week and would love to shoot the bay bridge from this same vantage point.

[fogmachine]

They're on Treasure Island at the bottom of the hill from the Bay Bridge exit when heading East from downtown SF - can't miss it. Very popular for wedding shots. No toll if you go back to SF. The stunningly clear and still conditions don't happen very often.

[Baldy]

Breaking news: I thought #10 was the magic ticket, no need to go back, in the bag, signed, sealed, delivered... :deal

Ehem.

Looking out the windows at work today, a day when I ABSOLUTELY HAD NO TIME to break away because it's peak insanity where I work, I could see some interesting weather. Rain. Scattered clouds. Maybe very interesting. Who knew for sure?

So I grabbed camera and rushed to the island and here's what the sky looked like:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/437612380_WZtFE-X2.jpg

[aktse]

So I grabbed camera and rushed to the island and here's what the sky looked like:

Sweet! :D

What time was this? 5:30 pm?

[Baldy]

That's actually the middle exposure of an HDR I shot of that scene +/-2 stops.

The light was changing so fast, I shot this with the 300mm so I have fewer pixels. Maybe that'll get me off my butt to check out the upres stuff youz've been pimping.

The wind was blustery and I couldn't keep the vibration away with my heaviest Gitzo aluminum tripod. It was major despair time until I rushed to the truck after remembering I had a video tripod in there. That was the ticket. No vibration at all from what I can tell.

So... Stormy sky and fewer pixels or orange sky and a plethora of pixels? I'll stitch this later so you can get a better view and we can put it up to public vote.

[ian408]

I want both. Hard to argue against the drama in tonight's sky.

You know Baldy, I was thinking. What about the anti-vibration feet commonly used for telescope tripods? Do you think those would work?

[Baldy]

I want both. Hard to argue against the drama in tonight's sky.

You know Baldy, I was thinking. What about the anti-vibration feet commonly used for telescope tripods? Do you think those would work?Got me. I don't know anything about them. :dunno

So I shot maybe 6 panos in different light from the exact same spot and I'm stitching the second-darkest one now. I'll post a low res version when it finishes.

This means I could still do the blend we thought about from dark over by the Bay bridge to lighter over by the Golden Gate.

[ian408]

I'll have to drop some off. You can give them a twirl but the idea is that they dampen vibration.

[Baldy]

Hokay, here's a quick & dirty low-res stitch:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/437637588_jmpE6-O-1.jpg

Your thoughts.

[Dee]

O H.... W O W

You got to love these COLD but clear nights. I was photographing the sunset tonight and the clouds were fantastic. I actually saw "red rain" falling out to sea.

I'm glad you took a chance and went to the island!

We still have some stormy and very cold weather coming up -- you may not be done yet after all :D

[Baldy]

We still have some stormy and very cold weather coming up -- you may not be done yet after all :DI just set my alarm for 3 a.m.

What have youz done to me? I have work to do. No one told me the quest for this print would be like crack.

[Dee]

That's only 3 hours away -- why go to sleep at all? :rofl

So, you'd get to the island around 4 a.m.? Light before the dawn, then the sunrise?

[Baldy]

That's only 3 hours away -- why go to sleep at all? :rofl

So, you'd get to the island around 4 a.m.? Light before the dawn, then the sunrise?Well I'm thinking of shooting from twin peaks toward the city to the East. So the sun would be coming through the clouds, if there are any.

Kinda this shot but with a long lens to get in on the good parts:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2229224648_c18b700e82_o.jpg

We have more wall space to fill, doncha know.

[Dee]

I haven't been to twin peaks in ages.

Tomorrow (oh, that's actually today, LOL) I'm headed down to San Jose. Wish I knew if Skyline Drive got any snow, I'd take the long way down.

Good luck with your shot I hope it all works out for you. I really like your last Treasure Island shot, can't believe how sharp and clear everything looks.

[Baldy]

Here's a quick & dirty stitch of one taken maybe 10ish minutes before,
when the sky was a little bit lighter.

You like it lighter or darker?

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/437708663_PSnER-O.jpg