- Messages
- 1,588
- Edit My Images
- Yes
...but surely he still needed photoshop to do that?
35mm film - All cut up and glued down. then photographed with... something else. I want to say a film medium format but I could be wrong.
...but surely he still needed photoshop to do that?
aye, not seen the brenizer technique being applied here.I have to say : stiching a load of f8 frames is just called stitching.
The essence of the Brenizer technique is to use a longish fast aperture (e.g. 85mm 1.4) on a scene to create the illusion of a wide angle, ultra-fast lens when stitched together - not just stitching a load of f/8 shots to create a highly detailed shot that otherwise looks the same.
aye, not seen the brenizer technique being applied here.
although the IQ is quite impressive. nevertheless, I have stiched some images taken with D40, 16 images to compile one pano. that is hanging on my wall as a 3 lots of A3 canvas and the resolution is great.
So yes unless you blow the image to size of a small house I am afraid even the cheapest SLR will do the job and certainly don't need D800
The "Brenizer" technique just joins images from a smaller format with a longer lens to simulate a larger format. There's nothing special going on. It's exactly what's going on here. I just chose to shoot at f8 300mm is all as I wanted deeper DOF. Same technique, same tools.. same everything.
Why do these threads bring out the anoraks?
Most joiners were made using Glue scissors and a backing board....but surely he still needed photoshop to do that?
The shallow DOF is a trademark feature of the method, why deny it with added insults?Why do these threads bring out the anoraks?
The shallow DOF is a trademark feature of the method, why deny it with added insults?
The shallow DOF is a trademark feature of the method,
Because it's our contrary David And one of the reasons I enjoy his threads
Take an obscure technique, attribute it wrongly to Brenizer (a guy only nerds have heard of) then accuse everyone else of being an anorak LOL It's an interesting thread though, even if it's just an example of multi-row stitching - basically a glorified panorama.
I think the only thing we have all learned from this thread is that Davids garden is a sh1thole
Some might believe you, most will just think youre just a Pikey putting down rootsCome and do it if you want
It's all being levelled in summer if planning permission for the extension goes through OK. Even if not, still being levelled and a lawn being laid. I'll be buggered if I'm weeding all that for 3 months!
Give us the co-ordinates for Google Earth and we'll be the judge.Then they'd probably wonder why the front gardens are nice and neat
How have I wrongly attributed it?
<snip>
Tell me why that's not using the Brenizer method.
Does it really?End result? Image appears to be shot on 50mm at around 1.2, ...
certainly the uncropped version David posted looks more what people would expect to see from a 'Brenizer' I wonder how shallow it would have looked at say f2.8.
I think the Brenizer method is more apt to describe a certain application of the technique, in terms of wedding/portrait work. Some people seem to dislike it being sold as a brand new technique rather than just a jumped up way of achieving a medium/large format look.
I for one really like the effect for all it can look unreal at times. I have incorporated it into my own work flow.
Whats your take on the whole discussion of it apparently compressing noise?
Does it really?
certainly the uncropped version David posted looks more what people would expect to see from a 'Brenizer' I wonder how shallow it would have looked at say f2.8.
I think the Brenizer method is more apt to describe a certain application of the technique, in terms of wedding/portrait work. Some people seem to dislike it being sold as a brand new technique rather than just a jumped up way of achieving a medium/large format look.
I for one really like the effect for all it can look unreal at times.
Whats your take on the whole discussion of it apparently compressing noise?
To be fair to Ryan Brenizer, the technique has been dubbed The Brenizer Method by others, so he's gone with the flow and adopted it.
but he's made it popular by using it to show shallow DoF that would be impossible any other way, while exploiting digital stitching techniques to make it practical.
The other benefit is dramatically improved sharpness and reduced noise because every frame multiplies photon capture and pixels, and optimises lens performance. But you cannot really see much more than the super-shallow DoF without outputting to very large sizes.
Give us the co-ordinates for Google Earth and we'll be the judge.
Because the Brenizer Method is primarily intended to create ultra-shallow depth-of-field impossible on smaller formats, and the effect can be seen in normal size outputs. And it can also be used to create wider fields of view than would be possible on very large formats.
Your greenhouse image could have been shot on a normal full-frame camera, as you state, and the real benefit of multi-stitching there is amazing image quality, as shown by your crop. But unless you have a monitor 20ft wide there's not a lot of point and it looks the same as the unstitched version. And not like a Brenizer
http://ryanbrenizer.com/category/brenizer-method/
Not sure about these DoF equivalence calcs David. If for example you shot with a 10x8in large format camera and 300mm standard lens at f/8, then did the same with a smaller format (any format, but using a 300mm lens at f/8) and shot enough pictures so that the final stitched physical image dimensions were 10x8in, then DoF would be the same.
The whole point of Brenizer is to do something that cannot be achieved in one shot,
Hey, im not the one who said my front garden was nice and neat, probably gonna have to pay a hard up student follow you home
FY4
Steady on now David, youre getting a little paranoid, you know i like to wind you up.
The cheesy shallow DOF is what the Brenitzer method is about,Using it to achieve theoretical apertures and stupidly shallow DOF is overused, and a bit cheesy,
The cheesy shallow DOF is what the Brenitzer method is about,
sensible DOF is just stitching.
You just stitched. This is my only point. Nothing more. Where you live and how much tidier your garden is than mine was simply a cheeky distraction by Gary.
I did say on that other thread my other half says im her homework, the little red geezer with horns on my left shoulder says im OK though.I genuinely never know when you're serious or not That's always an unsettling trait for someone to have!
I did say on that other thread my other half says im her homework, the little red geezer with horns on my left shoulder says im OK though.
<snip> Nothing in here was ever intended as exemplar in terms of the "Brenizer" technique.
Nothing apart from the thread title... you could always call it The Pookeyhead Method
Interesting thread though, and if you do give it another bash, would be great to see just how shallow the DoF can go and follow your methodology
Multiple stitched images to increase quality and detail at normal apertures and viewing angles is usually called a mosaic.
It is often combined with focus fusion to increase depth of field in large or gigapixel shots where each row in a landscape is re- focussed. ( not normal practice for stitches as it slightly changes the position of the entry pupil, but is not a problem at greater distances)
Brenizer effect is the reverse of the usual mosaic using a wide aperture.
I'm impressed enough with the in camera pan stitching that modern cameras can do without spending hours of computer time stitching all those shots together!
Whatever the technique is called and whoever invented it, I can see it being popular in the same way that HDR was then fading in popularity as it saturates the collective consciousness.
Actually... I'm trying to strike a compromise between the larger format and shallow depth of field, not see how shallow I can get the DOF. Still the same technique and calculations t be made, whatever the outcome.
If you're merely stitching together images focused at relatively long distances to merely increase resolution. I'm trying to accurately and faithfully reproduce the look of 10x8, so magnification and depth of field are still a primary concern... I'm just not trying for ultra shallow DOF. To suggest it's not the Brenizer method because of that is like suggesting it's not studio lighting if my intent is to make it look like natural light
Yep.. I mentioned focus stacking multiple versions on page 1 if you recall. It would be more effective than shifting focus per row, as doing that will effect vertical objects on the same focal plane. However, stacking 4GB images will be very processor and memory intensive. I suspect I'll need some serious memory upgrades by the time I've finished with this.
No camera's internal processing can handle files this big
The absolute quality capable will no doubt be scaled down ultimately. Even someone as obsessed with big prints as me realises that a gigapixel image is just not necessary, and is just a novelty. I'm more interested in capturing the aesthetics of large format. I actually have a 5x4 camera, but with new film getting on for £50 a box for certain types, and out of date film getting harder to source, I just have trouble justifying it. I can borrow a 10x8 camera from work, but the price of 10x8 film is just outrageous now... in fact... it's around £150 for 10 sheets, which is the smallest box you can buy.
I'm not sure many would have the patience for this on a regular basis... due to the required amount of processor grunt and memory. 6cores and 12 threads running at nearly 5GHz here, and it's painful! The actual stitching takes an age, but what really kills it is a 16bit TIFF at this resolution is nearly 4GB, so doing anything WITH that file is ridiculous. It took this machine 10 minutes just to flatten the layers! Also looks like the maximum of 64 GB of RAM this board can support is not enough, and is still paging to a swap file! This is not something you can do on a laptop or 500 quid PC. Ideally we're talking dual 12 core Xeons and 128GB of RAM here. That's one expensive computer. The alternative is waiting quarter of an hour every time you perform an action on anything. I can't imagine this being a popular. I can only imagine how slow this must have been for someone like Max Lyons 10 years ago! It must have taken weeks to finish each image. Then again.... something about that level of commitment appeals to me.
I did some more testing today. At f32 dof is reasonable, but still not there. Looks like focus stacking may be necessary. That will be problematic due to the fact that not every part of the mosaic will be in exactly the same place on each version. I'm not sure how successful that will be. However, if the crops are utterly identical, once flattened, it shouldn't matter.
[edit]
Forgot to mention.. the scratch disk is a dedicated Samsung 840 SSD, only used as scratch. I can't imagine what this would be like with a mechanical HDD as a scratch disk.