Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Re: Sigma 10-20 any experiance?

Expand Messages
  • JD Smith
    ... Yes, I can see that being an issue. However, with a screen width of 1600 pixels, all you must do is to set the initial zoom field of view to 60 degrees
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 4, 2006
      On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:32:58 -0500, Sacha Griffin wrote:

      > These are all good arguments.
      > Things I've noticed that have influenced my decisions...
      > 1. When shooting 10mm rectanlinear sphericals in areas of high detail (ie
      > grass), its REALLY difficult to compress down under 7MB without downsampling
      > and downsampling. The amount of detail even at the same resolution you would
      > take with a fisheye like the sigma f4 is astounding creating a larger file
      > at the same resolution.
      >
      > 2. People don't zoom. It's hard enough to get them to read any instructions
      > on the screen for anything. It's quite amazing and disheartening.

      Yes, I can see that being an issue. However, with a screen width of
      1600 pixels, all you must do is to set the initial zoom field of view
      to 60 degrees (hardly "zoomed in"), and you will properly sample *all*
      the detail in a 10000x5000 pano without any more zooming required. In
      the fullscreen era, some of the old maxims aren't as useful.

      > It also depending on the subject. I like the clarity in your shot, am not
      > ignorant about zooming, and enjoy the scene. If you did this as a complete
      > sphere you'd either need to downsample or living with slow delivery issues.
      > For areas, where you are delivering photography for the clients of your
      > clients and know you are dealing with people that most likely won't zoom or
      > even click and drag despite every blinking instruction... creating sharp 360
      > photography downsampled and compressed to 2-3 MB seems perfect to do the
      > job.

      I agree that for a full sphere this would probably have been about
      twice as large, but a full sphere shot at 10mm (instead of 18mm) would
      be about the same or even a bit smaller (5MB, say).

      When delivering hundreds of sphericals is your business, every byte
      counts, and it may indeed be overkill to go beyond 5000x2500, or for
      that matter to use full screen display. But that is based more on
      business decisions than technical decisions. It's perfectly possible
      with today's technology to target ~2 arcmin/pixel (twice the "ideal" 1
      arcmin/pixel I mentioned) without wasting pixels, and without
      requiring the user to zoom in. In fact, I would hazard a guess that
      in the pano I posted, you were already interpolating pixels on your
      screen when you loaded it (primarily because I start reasonably zoomed
      in). Going forward, this will only become easier (as
      bandwidth/processor/graphics cards improve), and more pressing (as
      monitors grow in size and pixel density).

      An interesting side-question is whether and when it will be "easy" to
      acquire panos at the mythical 1 arcmin/pixel. The answer comes in
      considering the pixel pitch of digital camera sensors going forward.
      The maximum pixel pitch of a DSLR today is roughly 180 pixels/mm
      (5.5um pixels). Smaller pixels suffer greater noise (limited by
      photon noise, so no way around it), and out-resolve the image circle
      delivered by even very good lenses, especially at small apertures,
      where diffraction dominates. Here's an interesting take:

      http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pixel-count.shtml

      So, at 180 pixels/mm, to obtain the "ideal" target resolution of 1
      arcmin/pixel, you must shoot at:

      f = 1 arcmin/pixel / 180 pixels/mm * (1 radian/(60*57.3 arcmin)) = 19mm

      On a full-frame sensor, shooting at 19mm offers about 65 degrees of
      view in portrait orientation. Shooting a full sphere will thus
      require two or three rows, and at least 6-8 images around (and many
      more on a 1.5x cropped sensor camera).

      So it seems even with advances in cameras and detectors, the only way
      to resolve 1 arcmin/pixel in the future in a system with single row
      full 360s is to use a camera with a much larger sensors (physically),
      say 70mm x 50mm. This type of sensor is pretty much guaranteed never
      to show up in a consumer or mainstream pro system, simply because it
      would make the entire camera much too large. Here's a 39MPix digital
      back with 6.8um pixels at 50mm x 36mm. Note how large it is:

      http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/P%2045.aspx

      JD
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.