Get three times your photo quality from stills...

[KS-6]

Stitching images together isn't doing anything to improve image quality or increase resolution.

If DJI ever makes a bird with a camera that does not have garbage for corners in terms of smearing of details this would be true.

However, I often find that if I am running a photo more than a full page in a magazine, has to go big at a point of sale display, I am wise to do a 4-tile of the same horizontal image in order to add about 20-25% more image area to crop the intended photo out of to get rid of bad image quality in the corners.

As to what others have said here, let’s say you have an image that fills the frame with a 50mm lens. If you use a 150mm lens and shoot multiple overlapping frames and stitch them to achieve the same field of view, you now have more overall resolution.

One of the best examples I have of this was in 2007 as assigned from the Colorado Board of Tourism when they approached me in a panic in needing a super high resolution image of the Maroon Bells to be printed 8’x10’ feet for a trade show in less than a week. They wanted a blue sky day so they could drop in big text in the sky above, budget was $4,000.

These famed peaks are in my neighborhood so I drove up the next morning, carefully shot frames (a lot) with a 200mm lens, stitched them, got them the image and collected payment.

I did a job on Friday where I shot a ranch for sale and used my EVO II for the stills because it actually has good corners (!) but in order to get a vertical, I had to do what I normally do and that is stitch 4-6 horizontal shots. One positive byproduct of that is more resolution in terms of pixel count and it really shows in the image.

And frankly, it has been showing in the printed image for a very long time. For example, if you go through magazine covers of Arizona Highways or Outdoor Photographer from the 90’s, you can really tell even from an 8.5” x 11” printed image which ones were in 35mm, medium format or large format.

People contact print 8”x10” large format negatives for a reason, the image quality gains even at that size are still very much noticeable.

 

[Bussty]

To sum up in one sentence ... more pixels doesn't equal improved image quality.

• Took a single shot with my DSLR Horizontal 4:3 Format
• Then switched camera to vertical, slightly increased telephoto to match vertical field of view of single image (same as moving drone forwards)
• Took 6 vertical shots
• Stitched in PTGUI
• Cropped horizontal ends of image to match single image field of horizontal view
• Small crop of both images below. Left Single, Right Stitched images.

The shot on the left has 20,155,392 Pixels the shot on the right has 37,330,459

The right image clearly has better image quality so I don't understand why you are saying what you are saying?

View attachment 148979


All high res jpegs, single and stitched images here.
StitchvsSingle - Google Drive

 

[Meta4]

The right image clearly has better image quality so I don't understand why you are saying what you are saying?

You aren't looking to compare image quality at all, you are comparing the detail from two images shot with different focal length lenses.
It's obvious that you get more detail in the shots taken with the longer focal length lens.

You have a single shot taken with a 68mm (35mm equiv) lens
In the image there is a distant house that occupies occupies 81 x 74 = 5994 pixels of the 3888 x 5184 image

Then you took a number of shots of the same area with the lens zoomed in to 94mm (35mm equiv) and the house now occupies occupies 113 x 93 = 10509 pixels

It's no surprise that the tiny area of the distant house looks better when shot with a longer focal length and now has nearly twice as many pixels.

You are comparing 0.05% of the images shot at 94mm vs 0.03% of the image shot with the 68mm equiv lens.
It's hard to see how this translates to panoramas shot with a drone and a fixed focal length lens.

But you seem to have your own idea of what constitutes image quality and it's not what photographers generally mean by the term image quality.

 

[Bussty]

But you seem to have your own idea of what constitutes image quality and it's not what photographers generally mean by the term image quality.

What I am trying to do is show new drone users how they can capture the same scene by switching to vertical and taking several shots then merging to give a better result. Whether it means it refers to image quality on a sensor basis (which is what you are really talking about and I am not) or an overall comparative scene basis is not really the point.

Mission is to do the best you can with a small sensor that for many around the world will be the only drone option they will be able to use.

Let's just agree to disagree, I see your point but it's not what I'm saying.

 

[RogerDH]

What I am trying to do is show new drone users how they can capture the same scene by switching to vertical and taking several shots then merging to give a better result. Whether it means it refers to image quality on a sensor basis (which is what you are really talking about and I am not) or an overall comparative scene basis is not really the point.

Mission is to do the best you can with a small sensor that for many around the world will be the only drone option they will be able to use.

Let's just agree to disagree, I see your point but it's not what I'm saying.

What you're doing is getting a wider field of view without losing detail -- a free alternative to a higher resolution camera with a wide-angle lens -- which is extremely useful, whatever you call it.

 

[Bussty]

What you're doing is getting a wider field of view without losing detail -- a free alternative to a higher resolution camera with a wide-angle lens -- which is extremely useful, whatever you call it.

Isn't the field of view (in the final image) the same though? You effectively move the drone closer to achieve that? The single shot and stitched shot in the file link...
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RrwA-EyyYQ9KMMkhXX1SSbufMyYyFoU1?usp=sharing
...show the same field of view in the two different images "Stitched" and "Single"

But yes agree whatever you call it is a great tool in the tool box and I will be using it a lot!

 

[Meta4]

Isn't the field of view (in the final image) the same though?

No ... you're talking about covering the same area with a single distant shot or a composite image recorded from closer to the image.
When photographers use the term Field of View, they aren't talking about the area photographed.
FoV always refers to the angle that a lens can see.

 

[RogerDH]

Isn't the field of view (in the final image) the same though? You effectively move the drone closer to achieve that? The single shot and stitched shot in the file link...

Yes, I meant for any given distance; so yes, equivalently, you can make use of that to get closer and get more detail without giving up field of view.

 

[RogerDH]

No ... you're talking about covering the same area with a single distant shot or a composite image recorded from closer to the image.
When photographers use the term Field of View, they aren't talking about the area photographed.
FoV always refers to the angle that a lens can see.

He's talking about moving in closer and covering the same angular field of view with multiple images. That gives you the same apparent field of view, but with more detail.

 

[Meta4]

He's talking about moving in closer and covering the same angular field of view with multiple images. That gives you the same apparent field of view, but with more detail.

I know what he's trying to talk about, but he confuses himself with misunderstanding of standard photographic terms.

 

[Bussty]

I know what he's trying to talk about, but he confuses himself with misunderstanding of standard photographic terms.

The mistake you are making is that you are treating this like a science project, it's not. It's a way to make your photos look better.

 

[Meta4]

The mistake you are making is that you are treating this like a science project, it's not. It's a way to make your photos look better.

This whole thread has been confused right from the start.
Your thread title was : Get three times your photo quality from stills.
It's not about making photos look better.

Your whole pitch is actually Get closer and you get more detail.
That's not a new concept and shouldn't need three pages of discussion.

​

 

[Bussty]

This whole thread has been confused right from the start.
Your thread title was : Get three times your photo quality from stills.
It's not about making photos look better.

Your whole pitch is actually Get closer and you get more detail.
That's not a new concept and shouldn't need three pages of discussion.

​

Have you not considered the reason it's three pages long is due specifically to your involvement?

No point discussing further we are now achieving nothing. I'm happy that there will be flyers out there now with the Mini 3 Pro that will look to take stills in a different way to maximize the abilities of this small sensor.

 

[RogerDH]

No ... you're talking about covering the same area with a single distant shot or a composite image recorded from closer to the image.
When photographers use the term Field of View, they aren't talking about the area photographed.
FoV always refers to the angle that a lens can see.

Well, if you want to be pedantic, what you're talking about is more properly called the angle of view (AOV), whereas field of view is a more general term meaning how much of the scene is visible. For a single image out of the camera, the FOV = AOV, but a cropped or composited image can have a different FOV.

Your whole pitch is actually Get closer and you get more detail.
That's not a new concept and shouldn't need three pages of discussion.

That's unfair. His "pitch" is that you can get more detail without giving up field of view, or you can get more field of view without giving up detail.

 

[Meta4]

That's unfair. His "pitch" is that you can get more detail without giving up field of view, or you can get more field of view without giving up detail.

It wasn't unfair at all.
After three confusing pages suggesting that image quality could be improved 3 times, it turned out that all he was talking about was that you get more detail up close.
What a revelation !

 

[RogerDH]

It wasn't unfair at all.
After three confusing pages suggesting that image quality could be improved 3 times, it turned out that all he was talking about was that you get more detail up close.
What a revelation !

I can appreciate your not wanting to use "image quality" to describe what he's doing, but it seems to me that that's the discussion that went longer than necessary. It's more helpful to discuss what stitching does do for you, but it seems you'd rather not, so let's drop it.

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

Hey Meta4

So a couple of things...

Firstly can you post a series of stitched vertical images that match a single image view from the same sensor to demonstrate that increased pixel number doesn't increase image quality? Seeing is believing and you might be surprised.

Secondly that software you are talking about... Imagine using that on the stitched result above... you would have even better image quality.

The aim here is to get the best possible result from a small sensor and that is what I am exploring.

Cheers

Software that interpolates raster images adding more pixels to them does not increase image quality. In fact it lowers it. There is a place for rezzing up the pixel count of images in specialized circumstances but it never improves image quality and it's a mistake to believe that it does.

 

[EpicFlight]

Sure, any additional line of code costs money, support etc.
But why build a drone with the gimbal going up to 60 ° and then let the automatic mode just do the same old 20 ° flip like all the other models?

Why? Because there is no shortage of people willing to buy it right now like that with the prospect of better functionality in a future firmware update.

And DJI wants to make money. Sooner rather than later.

That simple.

 

[KS-6]

Software that interpolates raster images adding more pixels to them does not increase image quality. In fact it lowers it. There is a place for rezzing up the pixel count of images in specialized circumstances but it never improves image quality and it's a mistake to believe that it does.

One could argue that enlarging any image beyond its native size degrades image quality and yet, it has been done for decades.

The way to look at it is what is the target output?

Is it the web? A large fine print in a gallery to be viewed at any distance the viewer desires? A billboard that you can't get any closer than 20' feet to? A giant multi-panel LED display in a hotel lobby?

Establish the target then establish the viability of the particular image chosen in getting to that target. Up rezzing a digital file to 100X it's native resolution or enlarging a 35mm Tri-X negative to 30"x50" may appear to break "rules" but at the end of the day, you use evaluation, techniques and tools to achieve what you want with expectations well managed.