DSLRUsers.com

After a number of teething problems, I have finally processed one of the panos I took of the Harbour Bridge.
With reluctance, I have decided NOT to post the unresized image. It runs out to 1.2Gb and is a mere 56,662 pixels wide. (Or was that 560000) How does the site resizing tool hold up Gary?
It is a composite of 21 images from the D800.

At 240dpi it prints at around 6 metres, though the largest I can print it at is 3.6 metres. I knew I should have got a bigger printer I will probably print it at 1.8 metres.

Anyways, here is the resized image:



And a detail from it for the pixel peepers.:
I sharpened the pano, but did not bother to do so with this detail


And another detail. cropped to 1600 wide, sharpened then resized to 756 and resharpened

It has wrapped around my iPad screen three times!

Interesting photo, though. Great sky, well blended from what I can see.

There is a narrow vertical thing just to the left of the left pylon. What is it?

the foto fanatic wrote:There is a narrow vertical thing just to the left of the left pylon. What is it?

It's a fishing rod. Quite clear on my screen. Clearly the iPad screen does not live up to its hype

What! - you can't read what brand and model camera the fourth guy down on the left is carrying - just not good enough...

Mr Darcy wrote:With reluctance, I have decided NOT to post the unresized image.

awwwgoonebeasport

Mr Darcy wrote:At 240dpi it prints at around 6 metres, though the largest I can print it at is 3.6 metres. I knew I should have got a bigger printer I will probably print it at 1.8 metres.

going into the wallpaper biz?

Mr Darcy wrote:I sharpened the pano, but did not bother to do so with the detail

I'm guessing that would have yielded a lesser result? Would be an interesting test.

Nice to see the result.

Great stuff....that 4900 is not cutting it?

why? because you can...

aim54x wrote:Great stuff....that 4900 is not cutting it?

The limitation here is width. not length.
The 4900 will print on a 432 wide roll. Say 430mm for the actual print as I like a border of sorts. That forces the length to a mere 3665mm. Meh. Why bother.

Seriously, my daughter gave us a pseudo pano (separate prints) that went to 3000. We had a real challenge finding a wall to hang it on. I don't think you could find a domestic wall that would cope with a 5.5 metre print and still be able to view it. I have found from experience that hanging a long print down a hallway doesn't work from a viewer's perspective.

I remain quite happy with the 4900, but seem to be doomed to always find the limits of my gear.

biggerry wrote:why? because you can...

And because you can't

I am still exploring the limits of the practical pano. Around 2 metres long seems to be tops, and even then places to hang it are limited. The real limit though is mounting the buggers. I had a huge challenge mounting my 1.8m Sublime Point pano. It is virtually impossible to get mat board, glass etc to frame a photo this size. I can make my own frames so the timber edging not a real issue.
In the end I simply glued it to a sheet of gatorboard and hung it on the wall with a French cleat. The largest size I could find in this country was 2400mm so that is the absolute limit for a mounted pano unless you are going to join multiple sheets.
You could use chipboard or MDF but the weight (not to mention the health issues) would be prohibitive.

I guess the next step for me is to explore the limits of the print resolution. The 4900 claims a resolution of 2880dpi x 1440dpi but whether is useable or simply there for dithering remains to be seen. The print head has 360 nozzles per colour though so it should be capable of quite fine detail. I can just see the promo now: A free microscope with every print

This print would be epic proportions. What's the estimated cost for the ink and paper? [assuming you can do it ine one go ]

surenj wrote:This print would be epic proportions. What's the estimated cost for the ink and paper? [assuming you can do it in one go ]

The biggest print I have done on the Epson 4900 was 320x1800mm.It was printed on Epson Semigloss. That came to around $32 (Paper: 23.40, Ink: 8.83). Interestingly when I printed the same photo on the same paper but on the Epson 1270, the cost was around $70. The small printers really cost a lot more for ink. (Thinks to self...When did an A3+ printer become small? Sheesh!!!)

To print it on 17" paper I would get a shade over 3.6 metres length, I would use Canson Baryta. The paper cost would come to about $60. Ink would be about four times the above as the print would be about four times the area. That would be around $36 for the ink. So say about $100 all up.. On the full size job, probably double that again. Of course I would have to use a commercial printer as I wouldn't want to put a join down the middle. I shudder to think what they would charge.

I have taken down my pano from Sublime Point as it has faded too much now. My big print is the same one on the new printer, but I haven't put it up yet. I am very tempted to print this one to 1.8m length and put it up in its place though. If I crop a little from the end the aspect ratio would be a close enough match to use the same backing board.

As you are presumably well aware, prints from the 4900 on Canson Baryta should last at least several decades without fading, especially without exposure to direct sunlight.

Murray Foote wrote:As you are presumably well aware, prints from the 4900 on Canson Baryta should last at least several decades without fading, especially without exposure to direct sunlight.

According to the documentation at least 76 years under glass.
And there you have the exact reason I changed both my printer and paper choice.
Though I am not using glass for the big ones.

I have just printed this on A2 Hi Gloss. About 59x8 cm. With a magnifying glass, you can clearly make out the people walking the bridge. The handrails are also clearly there. Though I seem to have lost the tiles on the OH.

EDIT: To be more precise print longevity was the motivation behind the new printer. The new printer precipitated a rethink of my paper choices.

Thanks Greg for your detailed explanations!

Mr Darcy wrote:According to the documentation at least 76 years under glass.

Bah, this is way too long. I'd want to change the picture sooner than that. I guess you could just keep adding more walls to your house to hang your new pictures. Or give away some prints; Relos watch out!

Suren. We use a 40' shipping container to keep surplus images. When we get sick of the ones on the wall, we just go out & dig through the pile & pull out a few random pics
The relos won't have a problem until they inherit our mess.