The higher resolution of the Fuji X-Pro2 coupled with the lower noise has led me to begin using if for creating stitched image panoramas capable of producing extremely large images. This photo of the Chrysler taken as the setting sun briefly popped out from behind cloud cover to throw a golden light onto the top of the Chrysler Building. I didn't have much time, and under the circumstances couldn't even use a tripod. Nonetheless, I decided to take a change of capturing several hand-held images with the Fuji 100-400 fully extended and try to combine them later.
The photo below is the result of this effort. It is comprised of four vertical images stitched together in
PTGui stitching software. Because I was not on a tripod the edges of the images did not overlap exactly and left steps on the sides. Rather than crop then straight or fill them in, I preferred to leave them as is to draw the viewer closer into the process used to create the final photograph.
The final image size is 40" tall with image quality capable of making a 6-8' vertical print.
Hi Tom, nice image. I'm curious, how did you come up with the 40" and 6-8' calculations?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Dave
Well, the first number of 40" is the exact size of the final image once the 4 photos were combined. The second 6-8" (72-96") is based on my experience that a good quality, high res image can go to 2 to 2 1/2 times its base size, which in this case is 40". Of course this differs on a case by case basis depending upon the exact quality of the original image. I find it generally true that you can take an image much higher is size as a print than you can take it on a screen.
ReplyDeleteHow can a digital image have a size measured in inches?
DeletePixel resolution and inches are both forms of linear measurement so one can be converted to the other. The conversion to inches is a result of dividing the pixel size by the resolution as expressed in DPI. For instance, this print is 12,000 pixels in length at 300 DPI. Dividing 12,000 by 300 we get 40", which would be the size of a same-size print made from the image.
DeleteI understand about resolution, but that requires talking about a specific DPI number, which wasn't mentioned in the article. Using physical measurements to describe a digital image just complicates things unnecessarily. The image isn't actually 40" or 6' or any physical measurement, it's just a virtual grid of numbers and it's confusing to talk about it in physical terms, especially when you say it's simultaneously "40 inches tall" and also "6 to 8 feet tall".
DeleteI disagree. The camera has a set resolution and will record a specific size image. That image can be measured in pixels, centimeters, inches, or any linear measurement. For photographers who anticipate making prints, especially large prints, as I do, it is important to know the physical size an image will be when printed on paper. Pixels won't do it. Inches will.
DeleteFurthermore, there is not a specific DPI number. I used 300 because that is the basic number of most digital cameras today. Change the DPI and the pixel size will also change accordingly to preserve the same file size. So a 40" size with 300 DPI will also be 40" at 72 DPI. In that sense, inches is much easier to comprehend.
I have been a professional photographer for over 40 years and have always had to consider the print size my images will become, whether in a magazine, web, or art print. Pixels may work for web (but even that requires a specific dpi), but not for the other two.
Tom, thanks for your responses, I thought I knew how you came up with the print dimensions, but I asked the question above to verify it. Great blog.
DeleteSincerely,
Dave
" The camera has a set resolution and will record a specific size image. That image can be measured in pixels, centimeters, inches, or any linear measurement."
DeleteSorry but no, it can't. The sensor is made of physical pixels, and there is a fixed number of them. On the X-Pro 2 the image is 6000×4000 pixels, that's all.
"it is important to know the physical size an image will be when printed on paper. Pixels won’t do it. Inches will."
Of course it's important to know the physical size, but you do that at the time you print it, not beforehand. Until you're making an actual print, the image has no physical size. Like I said before, it's just a bunch of numbers, and until those numbers are translated to a physical medium like ink on paper, they have no inherent physical size.
" I used 300 because that is the basic number of most digital cameras today. Change the DPI and the pixel size will also change accordingly to preserve the same file size."
What does "basic number of most digital cameras" even mean? It makes no sense. Cameras output a grid of pixels, nothing more. Some might tag the image with a DPI number but it's meaningless and can be changed arbitrarily.
Furthermore, changing the DPI doesn't affect the pixels at all unless you also tell the software to maintain whatever arbitrary intended physical output size you've set. Again, this is backwards, and also going against the natural flexibility of a digital image. Keep the pixels as they are, and let the printer determine how big those pixels should be on the paper. Don't destroy data by resampling the image to some meaningless number of pixels.
"Pixels may work for web (but even that requires a specific dpi)"
No. No it does not, and it's madness to bring DPI into the equation when dealing with the web. There is no 'web DPI'. Every screen has a different resolution, from the tiny but high resolution 450 DPI screens on modern smartphones to the 100 DPI screens on low-end laptops, to the DPI of projectors which is completely dependent on how far the projector is from its screen.
Andy, you keep talking about camera pixels. This blog post only discussed one size and that was the size of the final print comprised of four captures from an X-Pro2. That print is sized at 40" on the long size. Take the file of the print, open it in Photoshop, and the image size specs out to 40" tall. And, yes, the DPI is 300, which is important to use in this case for printing purposes. I just don't know why you need to keep bringing this discussion back to camera pixels.
DeleteAside from the large stitch of this image, the actual color on the Chrysler Building is remarkable.
ReplyDeleteWhich reminds me, Tom: Have you ever experimented with recreating the Technicolor look so prevalent in classic films like 'Funny Face', or The Searchers', e.g. >>
http://mitteleuropa.x10.mx/files/film/searchers_1956_frame_00_15_54_elephant_butte_north_window_cly_butte_AB_01_01a.jpg
Haven't found anything truly solid about that online.
Cheers,