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