Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
Thanks Bigsmoke! It was more of the hula hoop that caused the pattern, my shutter was long enough to catch it. It makes me want to go out and buy a light stick to try light painting with but I can't justify it right now; I was told each hula hoop was $300 and there were about 2 or 3 different ones.

Very nice Womp Womp! I'm a huge sky fan and wish there were some more clouds in the sky to make it interesting but nonetheless, the colors are incredible and the details look really clear!
So, about one or two years ago, my father bought himself a Sony Cyber-shot DSC HX400V Bridge camera. Since then, he also purchased a Canon reflex camera, so he left the Sony for me to play with. I was already a bit familiar with it by then, but that's when I truly started experimenting. Smile

Here's one of the nicer shots I happened to make:

This was captured on April 29th 2017, right out of my window.
1200mm, ISO 80, 1/25, f/6.3. No real post processing, I only centered it and added some more of a black border.
Oh, wow. That's a glorious shot Nik! Nothing wrong with adding more of black space around it, that extra space around it really adds to the photo.

This here is a 111MP panorama (10MP uploaded) stitched from 29 photos.

Car Panorama by Alex Glanville, on Flickr
That looks really awesome, and the stitching (which I'm assuming was done by computer) is seamless!
Why do you need such detail for a bunch of random cars?
Because they are sweet cars and it looks really nice, I think.
_iPhoenix_ wrote:
That looks really awesome, and the stitching (which I'm assuming was done by computer) is seamless!

Thanks! Yeah. I made the mistake of not switching my camera to full manual exposure so each photo was exposed slightly differently, so I had to bump the exposure up on about half. There's is one error that's obvious in this picture (I didn't match the exposure perfectly for one photo) and then some very small details that are noticeable at 100% zoom where the program didn't stitch the images together very well.
The count goes up to 30 but I had to retake #25 because of minor discrepancy. And the count on the folder view is 61 because even though the program is non-destructive, I still edit copies (hence all the 2's in white boxes and the "1 of 2" on that one thumbnail.)

allynfolksjr wrote:
Why do you need such detail for a bunch of random cars?

For someone who enjoys photography it's almost like you don't know how stitching photos creates a bigger photo. So, let's do a run down.

A phone camera is around 12MP these days and they do take panoramas. One regular photo from the phone will be 12MP because it's 4000x3000 pixels but when the camera takes a panorama creating a photo that's 4000 pixels tall and an arbitrary number of pixels wide. It doesn't then force that photo down to 12 megapixels. So, a panorama at 10k pixels wide will create a 40MP photo.

Same idea here. My camera has a 20MP sensor. This panorama is comprised of 29 photos, despite that this photo is not 580MP in size. There's plenty of overlap in each photo to ensure lens distortion and other factors are mitigated, as well as ensuring the program (and myself if required) has enough information to align and order the photos. Ideally you want something like a third of overlap but I went with half overlap going across and a third of overlap top to bottom.

The cars are visible in the top, middle and, bottom photos and when going left to right I positioned the edge of the frame in the center of the next photo. So when it's all said and done I am left with a 111MP photo.

But why do a panorama instead of back up more or use a wider angle lens? I couldn't really back up anymore due to various obstacles behind me and I couldn't use a wider lens because the distortion would not have made an attractive photo from that distance. My wide angle is more for capturing a vast landscape rather than subjects ~12 feet in front of me. PLUS, the cars on the outside would have looked smaller due to the nature of "extreme" wide angle lenses. There's also the fact that I still wouldn't have been able to get back far enough to have adequate buffer on either side of the line up.

So, that left a panorama. On the plus side, now the car club has a high enough resolution photo to get printed on a poster at 300DPI if they ever want to. I particularly am not fond of this photo and think a photo for a poster should be more prepared. So I hope they invite me back and we can set up a proper photoshoot for a poster. Maybe I'll take the time and make it bigger, heading into the 200 or 300MP range.

It's not like I wanted to take a 100+MP photo, it was just my only option. But now I wanna take a larger one.

Fun facts about this photo for anyone who is interested:
15518x7181 pixels (111,434,758 pixels total, or technically 111.4MP)
f/7.1 and 28mm of zoom (on a 24-105mm lens)
29 photos (755.6MB total)
Panorama consumes 417MB of disk space

How am I going to take a 200+MP photo?
By zooming in! I plan to get them all lined up and get a tripod on wheels or something. Roll down the line of cars to prevent distortion and maybe zoom in to about 50mm or so. I'm not sure how many passes it'll take but if each car is like 3 photos long and they have the full club out of ~12 cars. I'll also probably have about 6 images top to bottom. That's 72 photos now plus maybe a few extra to pad the sides of the images, so 84 total?

That'll give me roughly 1,680,000,000 pixels to work with (or 1,680MP). If the example above is anything to go by, where 580MP were merged into a 111MP pano, I should be somewhere around 290-300MP.

It's something I'll have to work on as I've never really taken panoramas on a DSLR before - it's all been on my phone - so I'll probably start by doing photos of my cars for practice and then scaling that up to the car club.
Went for a 75 mile drive to escape the city light as best we could last night. This night has been weeks in both preparation and planning. I started really getting serious on New Years when I photographed myself out in the woods near Yosemite. I've gone out at least twice a month starting in April to practice star photos and then starting in June photographing the Milky Way. I'm hoping to continue this every month until September.

I first photographed the Milky Way last year but only had the one photo to work with so I knew I had to photograph it more so I could have a good sample size of photos to get familiar with. I tried making a preset in my editor to speed up the process but that's proving useless. The places I went to were about 20 miles North of a major city, which is unfortunate because the Milky Way rises in the South so I was never able to escape the light pollution. Which is why I drove 75 miles away this time.

The next major city was about 120 miles away. I was positive I'd get some light pollution but I didn't get any. It was great. However, we did encounter fog. A lot of it. You can see it in the photo below and we had to abandon our main stop because of it. We were driving through some thick fog, couldn't see probably 50 feet in front of us, and as we rounded a corner the fog just vanished. It was incredible. We stopped so we could stop and evaluate our position, such as do we stay where we are or keep going forward? We stopped because we could see the fog return about 3 miles in front of us. It was weird, we saw the fog going down the mountain behind us, out over the ocean then, back up the mountain in front of us. It was one of the coolest weather things I've ever seen.

So, we continue on. Hoping either our final stop is before the fog returns or after the fog. We stop right at the edge, about enter the veil of fog. It wasn't gunna work. On top of that it was windy and super cold wind too. The place we stopped at a few minutes prior was windy and warm; almost as if the warm inland air was rushing out and the cold air over the ocean was rushing in. Anyways, we easily stayed for 3 or so hours just having a grand time. We tried our hand at light painting, below, and I even spent an unusual amount of time waiting for cars come around a corner behind us to light up the foreground.

Schwarzenegger Under the Stars by Alex Glanville, on Flickr

We drove back to a bridge we wanted photos with but it was super foggy there. We kinda knew it would be, as we passed it on the way in but we were hopeful. We still spent about an hour there light paining on the bridge.

Now. Seeing the Milky Way is something I haven't been able to say I've done. I've photographed it and through the powers of RAW and editing I was able to pronounce it in my photos through the light pollution. I was also able to always see the tail of our galaxy but never our galactic core. I can finally say I've seen the galactic core and it wasn't as noticeable as I thought it would be. I've seen photos where others have edited the Milky Way to the level of noticeability but never believed it. I was always telling myself "Well there's light pollution that's why it's not as clear." I was wrong. It really is that hard to see. Below is my take on the level of visibility the Milky Way has to the eye, versus what the camera sees versus, the minor level of editing required to make the image pop. You'll also see why I waited for cars to round the corner behind us, the cliff is just a dark blob, the headlights gave it some character.

I look forward to sharing the rest of the photos Smile
Bundestag by Nikky, on Flickr
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 30 of 30
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum