Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Photo Critiques (
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 69814] (

nelmr Oct 3, 2005 1:46 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is another pano like my other one except this is a scaled down version of the original 37 mp file. There are some places that autopano sift, hugin, panotools, and enblend didn't stich properly. These 4 pieces of software is what I use to make panos. It is a slow prosses. The attached file was originally 45 4mp pictures taken at 110mm and I overlaped each picture by 66% to try to prevent stiching problems.

IT took autopano sift 8 hours to generate the control points. I spent 1 hour in hugin to manual add vertical and horizontal guidlines. Hugin took about 30 minutes lining up the pictures. enblend took 7.5 hours to stitch the pano together. So overall it took me 17 hours to make this shot. I'd rather not re run the software and use different stiching points if possible. I'll probably will fix the errors (which are generally minor) by hand using layers and the original images. It still is probably going take some time. I used a 1.7Ghz, P4-m, 640MB RAM, 30Gb harddrive to do this. The temporay files were about 2 gig as well.

Anyway with the attached files it you can't see the stiching errors. The sky on the left side needed to be cloned in a little bit since it part of the top left was missing after stitching and cropping. Of course the actual full image will be done better.

Tell me what you think of the pano so far, this is the image at approximately 10% size:

thatsanicepicture2 Oct 3, 2005 8:20 AM

I'm only seeing an inch of it... I think the file size is to large..

"The file size should not exceed 250400 bytes"


(another Ohio guy)

nelmr Oct 3, 2005 10:52 AM

The image is 1964 x 200 pixels and is around 200kb so it is within the limits of this site. You may need to download it to see it though or click on the link if the forum doesn't show it. If I were to print this at 300PPI the full size image would be around 7 inches by 68 inches. In other words if you monitor is only showing it 1 inch tall it should be about 10 inches long. Remember it is a very wide pano spaning about 160 degrees.

thatsanicepicture2 Oct 3, 2005 7:09 PM

Well i saw your other pano shot and expected it to be showing a similar view including the river. I have a wide screen monitor (1680x1050)and i get more of it then most. So i guess it really looses something in such a reduced size.I bet it will look great if you print it out.


nelmr Oct 4, 2005 7:59 AM

I know the smaller size doesn't do much for the shot, but any larger would have been over 244k with the compression ratios I use. The last pano was looking south. This one is looking north.

JimC Oct 4, 2005 10:05 AM

nelmr wrote:

The image is 1964 x 200 pixels and is around 200kb so it is within the limits of this site.
I don't know what the exact limitations are for width. However, the WowBB software we use doesn't like it if an image is toomuch more than around 800 pixels wide (and it's behavior seems to vary by browser being used, too). It will often refuse to let members see a wider photo, at all.

Using a wider image also makes it much harder for users to read the forum posts within a given thread with most browsers, since they may need to scroll left and right to see an entire line of text.

That's probably why Steve recommends keeping the width to around 640 pixels.

Here's a quote from a forum post that Stevemade a while back titled How to post your photos


It's important to keep the file size toless than 250Kb and all digital camera pictures should be downsizedto around 640x480 pixels before uploading them. Even a 2-megapixelcamera creates a 1600x1200 pixel image and that is way too big to beproperly displayed here.
Yep, that's pretty hard to do with a panaroma like this. ;-)

But, don't be surprised if members can't see a photo that's this wide at all (much less being able to scroll left and right to see it). I can't see it at all using IE on my computer.

nelmr Oct 4, 2005 11:59 AM

But if you click on the attachment IE and Firefox should open a window and allow you to view it. IF using IE you can move the mouse to the bottom left of the image and there will be an icon that shows up. Press on it and it will allow you to see the image at it's resolution.... or maybe it's just the settings I use on IE and Firefox. I haven't tested it on opera yet.

JimC Oct 4, 2005 12:09 PM

Yes, you can view the image by clicking on it (it's just not being displayed within the forum post when the width is this wide).

Whether or not a member can see it without clicking on it probably, depends on more than one factor, including the resolution settings for their display.

Maarten Oct 4, 2005 12:59 PM

That must have quit a job! I bet your were hoping and praying that the PC wouldn't crash. Perhaps you allready know this project? a similar project.

nelmr Oct 4, 2005 1:39 PM

That link was pretty cool of the 2.5GP image. I haven't seen that one. I have however heard about the 1GP image that someome made of the grand canyon by using about 190 something 6 mp pictures. I don't remember the link.

My photo needs more work. The stitching points aren't the most accurate in areas where there are moving objects (cars, buses, boats, etc). As a result the automatic control points PanoTools used weren't the best in some areas. I'll have to go in an manually review each photograph and re arrange stitch points or add new ones in the problem areas. Once done It is another 8 hours of waiting.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:00 PM.