I did take a nice pano inside the Pantheon, however, as well as one that would have been beautiful in Pompeii if I had been wise enough to use a smaller aperture (my wife was slightly out of focus).
Ah, you should've had the girl running behind you, moving to the end of the pan and have her in the the picture twice. Like the presentation. That I'd like to try.
so does anyone know if this feature is available on the previous iPhones? I have the 4 and the 3GS but I can't seem to see how to activate it. It must not be supported.
The killer would be a panorama app that could tile (horizontal and vertical) as well as create an image much larger than the amount specified in this article. I've done panoramas with my Canon 60D and the software I use is tied to a photo printing facility that can print really large panoramas. They calculate the largest size possible with the image submitted, trying to keep people from sending them low-resolution images and getting less than optimal prints in return. The 10K x 2.5K image isn't useful on anything much longer than 30" or so. Yes, that sounds big until you see printed panoramas in excess of 6 feet. This application is a great start, which I'll be trying on Friday or Saturday on my iPhone 5,
Our iDevices take photos at just 72ppi (whereas DSLRs are ~ 288ppi). The photo purist motto is not to print lower than 150ppi which holds true for magazines and the like but not for massive prints you put up on your wall. It's like sitting one foot away from a 60" 1080p TV and saying you can see the pixels. These panorama shots are 10k pixels wide - that's a shed load and look awesome printed when utilised at the native resolution which works out at over 12 feet!
The killer would be a panorama app that could tile (horizontal and vertical) as well as create an image much larger than the amount specified in this article. I've done panoramas with my Canon 60D and the software I use is tied to a photo printing facility that can print really large panoramas. They calculate the largest size possible with the image submitted, trying to keep people from sending them low-resolution images and getting less than optimal prints in return. The 10K x 2.5K image isn't useful on anything much longer than 30" or so. Yes, that sounds big until you see printed panoramas in excess of 6 feet. This application is a great start, which I'll be trying on Friday or Saturday on my iPhone 5,
Our iDevices take photos at just 72ppi (whereas DSLRs are ~ 288ppi). The photo purist motto is not to print lower than 150ppi which holds true for magazines and the like but not for massive prints you put up on your wall. It's like sitting one foot away from a 60" 1080p TV and saying you can see the pixels. These panorama shots are 10k pixels wide - that's a shed load and look awesome printed when utilised at the native resolution which works out at over 12 feet!
PPI makes no sense referring to a camera. Pixels per inch of what?
PPI makes no sense referring to a camera. Pixels per inch of what?
ppi is the resolution, MP is how big a photo is.
Yes, but resolution where? On the sensor? When you print it to some arbitrary size? It is meaningless to refer to PPI on a camera - all that matters is MP.
PPI matters on a display or on a print - nowhere else.
Yes, but resolution where? On the sensor? When you print it to some arbitrary size? It is meaningless to refer to PPI on a camera - all that matters is MP.
PPI matters on a display or on a print - nowhere else.
Agree it's meaningless when the photo is sitting on your camera but as soon as you pull it into Photoshop and go to print it becomes material.
Yes, but resolution where? On the sensor? When you print it to some arbitrary size? It is meaningless to refer to PPI on a camera - all that matters is MP.
PPI matters on a display or on a print - nowhere else.
Agree it's meaningless when the photo is sitting on your camera but as soon as you pull it into Photoshop and go to print it becomes material.
A 3k pixel wide photo taken on a DSLR at 288ppi will look better on screen and in print at 100% than one taken on an iphone at 72ppi. However the iOS panorama photos at 10k pixel wide @ 72ppi print out natively at almost 4m so you will be standing far enough back from the print for it not to be material.
Cliffs - iPhone 5/4s & iPod Touch with (iOS6) can take panoramic photos that look awesome when printed full size (up to 150") at a high enough dpi.
When you go to display or print the image, the available resolution (PPI) on the display medium is entirely determined by the ratio of the linear size of the image from the camera and the linear size of the print or display. That is why "taken on a DSLR at 288 ppi" or "taken on an iPhone at 72 ppi" are both completely meaningless and incorrect statements.
When you go to display or print the image, the available resolution (PPI) on the display medium is entirely determined by the ratio of the linear size of the image from the camera and the linear size of the print or display. That is why "taken on a DSLR at 288 ppi" or "taken on an iPhone at 72 ppi" are both completely meaningless and incorrect statements.
Agree with that, couldn't edit my clouded thinking in time due to a solid bottle of South African red
PPI determines the effective print size - my point was that printing a 10k px wide photo at 72ppi works fine as it comes out so damn big.
When you go to display or print the image, the available resolution (PPI) on the display medium is entirely determined by the ratio of the linear size of the image from the camera and the linear size of the print or display. That is why "taken on a DSLR at 288 ppi" or "taken on an iPhone at 72 ppi" are both completely meaningless and incorrect statements.
Agree with that, couldn't edit my clouded thinking in time due to a solid bottle of South African red
PPI determines the effective print size - my point was that printing a 10k px wide photo at 72ppi works fine as it comes out so damn big.
OK - we agree then. And 72 PPI is certainly OK for a large print on the wall, although I would upsample to 150 just to prevent any obvious pixelation when you get closer to it than intended - I prefer that the visual resolution limiting factor not be the pixels. Although even 72 will look just fine with enough red wine.
OK - we agree then. And 72 PPI is certainly OK for a large print on the wall, although I would upsample to 150 just to prevent any obvious pixelation when you get closer to it than intended - I prefer that the visual resolution limiting factor not be the pixels. Although even 72 will look just fine with enough red wine.
Yup I find red wine to be an excellent visual resolution limiting factor
OK - we agree then. And 72 PPI is certainly OK for a large print on the wall, although I would upsample to 150 just to prevent any obvious pixelation when you get closer to it than intended - I prefer that the visual resolution limiting factor not be the pixels. Although even 72 will look just fine with enough red wine.
I'm having a difficult time understanding the resolution situation. I understand how in Photoshop(PS) you can take an iPhone5 72ppi (3264x2448) image and it does not need to be upsampled to print at 306ppi (2448x3264pix) giving a 8x10 print using all the pixels. If I wanted to print this image at 24x32 it would print at 102ppi indicating I may wish to upsample, add more pixels.
If I save the iPhone pic at 306ppi & 8x10" file size (no upsampling) it uses all the pixels supplied. If I open this pic to view it, it looks identical to the original, being fuzzy with loss of detail.
_________________________________
If I take a pic from my real camera the info from PS gives:
300ppi 13.3x10"(W/Ht) 4000x3000pix 2.6MB
A photo from iPhone5 info from PS gives:
72ppi 45.3x34'(W/Ht) 3264x2448pix 3.49MB
** I can take this iPhone pic & upsample in PS to give the following info:
So at this point,except for file size (2.6MB vs 4.45MB) both pics (one from my home camera & one from iPhone5) are sized the same. If I open each on my iMac the home camera pic is far superior in detail, sharp & crisp to the iPhone pic, even though the iPhone pic has almost double the total MP. The iPhone pic always looks the same on the monitor compared to its untouched original. How can the iPhone image have so much more total MB size yet look so much inferior? What am I missing here? Why does my home camera pics look so much better even when I supposedly make both (home camera & iPhone) pics of equal quality?
My camera takes pics at 300ppi resolution. The iPhone takes at 72ppi resolution. Import both pics to my computer (27" iMac 2.8 GHz Quad Core i7; 8 GB DDR3 SDRAM 2x4; 2 TB Serial ATA Drive; ATI Radeon HD 4850 Graphics with 512 MB) and they are not the same quality when viewed on monitor. My monitor is set to 2560x1440 resolution. When the iPhone pic is processed to match the camera pic via PS (changed from 72 to 300ppi & equal size) it still looks significantly of lower quality. I don't understand how this can be when the iPhone pic has the pixels to work with.
OK - we agree then. And 72 PPI is certainly OK for a large print on the wall, although I would upsample to 150 just to prevent any obvious pixelation when you get closer to it than intended - I prefer that the visual resolution limiting factor not be the pixels. Although even 72 will look just fine with enough red wine.
I'm having a difficult time understanding the resolution situation. I understand how in Photoshop(PS) you can take an iPhone5 72ppi (3264x2448) image and it does not need to be upsampled to print at 306ppi (2448x3264pix) giving a 8x10 print using all the pixels. If I wanted to print this image at 24x32 it would print at 102ppi indicating I may wish to upsample, add more pixels.
If I save the iPhone pic at 306ppi & 8x10" file size (no upsampling) it uses all the pixels supplied. If I open this pic to view it, it looks identical to the original, being fuzzy with loss of detail.
_________________________________
If I take a pic from my real camera the info from PS gives:
300ppi 13.3x10"(W/Ht) 4000x3000pix 2.6MB
A photo from iPhone5 info from PS gives:
72ppi 45.3x34'(W/Ht) 3264x2448pix 3.49MB
** I can take this iPhone pic & upsample in PS to give the following info:
So at this point,except for file size (2.6MB vs 4.45MB) both pics (one from my home camera & one from iPhone5) are sized the same. If I open each on my iMac the home camera pic is far superior in detail, sharp & crisp to the iPhone pic, even though the iPhone pic has almost double the total MP. The iPhone pic always looks the same on the monitor compared to its untouched original. How can the iPhone image have so much more total MB size yet look so much inferior? What am I missing here? Why does my home camera pics look so much better even when I supposedly make both (home camera & iPhone) pics of equal quality?
My camera takes pics at 300ppi resolution. The iPhone takes at 72ppi resolution. Import both pics to my computer (27" iMac 2.8 GHz Quad Core i7; 8 GB DDR3 SDRAM 2x4; 2 TB Serial ATA Drive; ATI Radeon HD 4850 Graphics with 512 MB) and they are not the same quality when viewed on monitor. My monitor is set to 2560x1440 resolution. When the iPhone pic is processed to match the camera pic via PS (changed from 72 to 300ppi & equal size) it still looks significantly of lower quality. I don't understand how this can be when the iPhone pic has the pixels to work with.
You seem to be confusing different ways to measure the image. Camera sensors have discrete elements that produce an image comprising an equivalent number of pixels (e.g. 3264 x 2448). There are no linear dimensions associated with that image file, so PPI does not mean anything until you project or print that image to a particular size. The iPhone does not take 72 PPI images, it takes 3264 x 2448 pixel images.
When Photoshop opens an image it associates it with document dimensions as shown in the "Image Size" dialog box, and those document dimensions are arbitrary. The resolution (PPI) shown there is just the pixel dimension (number of pixels) in a given direction divided by the document dimension in that direction, and it only exists in the context of the assigned document dimensions. PPI is generally the same in both directions since the pixels are equally spaced in both directions. You can change document dimensions or PPI in Photoshop by resampling (changing the number of pixels) or you can change both inversely with one another without resampling provided new PPI x new linear dimension = unchanged linear pixel dimension (number of pixels in that direction).
The file size (MB) does not always correlate well with pixel dimensions (number of pixels in the image) because you are using compressed JPEG files rather than lossless TIFF files, so the file size depends on both the number of pixels and the level of compression. You can change the amount of compression in Photoshop, but different cameras compress by default to different levels.
As for the relative image quality - that is determined by much more than simply the number of pixels. Lens quality, focussing precision, sensor noise, noise reduction algorithms etc. all affect image quality. A real camera with a much larger lens may well take much better images even with fewer pixels.
Comments
Ah, you should've had the girl running behind you, moving to the end of the pan and have her in the the picture twice. Like the presentation. That I'd like to try.
so does anyone know if this feature is available on the previous iPhones? I have the 4 and the 3GS but I can't seem to see how to activate it. It must not be supported.
Originally Posted by antkm1
I have the 4 and the 3GS but I can't seem to see how to activate it. It must not be supported.
Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
The killer would be a panorama app that could tile (horizontal and vertical) as well as create an image much larger than the amount specified in this article. I've done panoramas with my Canon 60D and the software I use is tied to a photo printing facility that can print really large panoramas. They calculate the largest size possible with the image submitted, trying to keep people from sending them low-resolution images and getting less than optimal prints in return. The 10K x 2.5K image isn't useful on anything much longer than 30" or so. Yes, that sounds big until you see printed panoramas in excess of 6 feet. This application is a great start, which I'll be trying on Friday or Saturday on my iPhone 5,
Our iDevices take photos at just 72ppi (whereas DSLRs are ~ 288ppi). The photo purist motto is not to print lower than 150ppi which holds true for magazines and the like but not for massive prints you put up on your wall. It's like sitting one foot away from a 60" 1080p TV and saying you can see the pixels. These panorama shots are 10k pixels wide - that's a shed load and look awesome printed when utilised at the native resolution which works out at over 12 feet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObsidianOrder
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
The killer would be a panorama app that could tile (horizontal and vertical) as well as create an image much larger than the amount specified in this article. I've done panoramas with my Canon 60D and the software I use is tied to a photo printing facility that can print really large panoramas. They calculate the largest size possible with the image submitted, trying to keep people from sending them low-resolution images and getting less than optimal prints in return. The 10K x 2.5K image isn't useful on anything much longer than 30" or so. Yes, that sounds big until you see printed panoramas in excess of 6 feet. This application is a great start, which I'll be trying on Friday or Saturday on my iPhone 5,
Our iDevices take photos at just 72ppi (whereas DSLRs are ~ 288ppi). The photo purist motto is not to print lower than 150ppi which holds true for magazines and the like but not for massive prints you put up on your wall. It's like sitting one foot away from a 60" 1080p TV and saying you can see the pixels. These panorama shots are 10k pixels wide - that's a shed load and look awesome printed when utilised at the native resolution which works out at over 12 feet!
PPI makes no sense referring to a camera. Pixels per inch of what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
PPI makes no sense referring to a camera. Pixels per inch of what?
ppi is the resolution, MP is how big a photo is.
Yes, but resolution where? On the sensor? When you print it to some arbitrary size? It is meaningless to refer to PPI on a camera - all that matters is MP.
PPI matters on a display or on a print - nowhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Yes, but resolution where? On the sensor? When you print it to some arbitrary size? It is meaningless to refer to PPI on a camera - all that matters is MP.
PPI matters on a display or on a print - nowhere else.
Agree it's meaningless when the photo is sitting on your camera but as soon as you pull it into Photoshop and go to print it becomes material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObsidianOrder
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Yes, but resolution where? On the sensor? When you print it to some arbitrary size? It is meaningless to refer to PPI on a camera - all that matters is MP.
PPI matters on a display or on a print - nowhere else.
Agree it's meaningless when the photo is sitting on your camera but as soon as you pull it into Photoshop and go to print it becomes material.
A 3k pixel wide photo taken on a DSLR at 288ppi will look better on screen and in print at 100% than one taken on an iphone at 72ppi. However the iOS panorama photos at 10k pixel wide @ 72ppi print out natively at almost 4m so you will be standing far enough back from the print for it not to be material.
Cliffs - iPhone 5/4s & iPod Touch with (iOS6) can take panoramic photos that look awesome when printed full size (up to 150") at a high enough dpi.
When you go to display or print the image, the available resolution (PPI) on the display medium is entirely determined by the ratio of the linear size of the image from the camera and the linear size of the print or display. That is why "taken on a DSLR at 288 ppi" or "taken on an iPhone at 72 ppi" are both completely meaningless and incorrect statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
When you go to display or print the image, the available resolution (PPI) on the display medium is entirely determined by the ratio of the linear size of the image from the camera and the linear size of the print or display. That is why "taken on a DSLR at 288 ppi" or "taken on an iPhone at 72 ppi" are both completely meaningless and incorrect statements.
Agree with that, couldn't edit my clouded thinking in time due to a solid bottle of South African red
PPI determines the effective print size - my point was that printing a 10k px wide photo at 72ppi works fine as it comes out so damn big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObsidianOrder
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
When you go to display or print the image, the available resolution (PPI) on the display medium is entirely determined by the ratio of the linear size of the image from the camera and the linear size of the print or display. That is why "taken on a DSLR at 288 ppi" or "taken on an iPhone at 72 ppi" are both completely meaningless and incorrect statements.
Agree with that, couldn't edit my clouded thinking in time due to a solid bottle of South African red
PPI determines the effective print size - my point was that printing a 10k px wide photo at 72ppi works fine as it comes out so damn big.
OK - we agree then. And 72 PPI is certainly OK for a large print on the wall, although I would upsample to 150 just to prevent any obvious pixelation when you get closer to it than intended - I prefer that the visual resolution limiting factor not be the pixels. Although even 72 will look just fine with enough red wine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
OK - we agree then. And 72 PPI is certainly OK for a large print on the wall, although I would upsample to 150 just to prevent any obvious pixelation when you get closer to it than intended - I prefer that the visual resolution limiting factor not be the pixels. Although even 72 will look just fine with enough red wine.
Yup I find red wine to be an excellent visual resolution limiting factor
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
OK - we agree then. And 72 PPI is certainly OK for a large print on the wall, although I would upsample to 150 just to prevent any obvious pixelation when you get closer to it than intended - I prefer that the visual resolution limiting factor not be the pixels. Although even 72 will look just fine with enough red wine.
I'm having a difficult time understanding the resolution situation. I understand how in Photoshop(PS) you can take an iPhone5 72ppi (3264x2448) image and it does not need to be upsampled to print at 306ppi (2448x3264pix) giving a 8x10 print using all the pixels. If I wanted to print this image at 24x32 it would print at 102ppi indicating I may wish to upsample, add more pixels.
If I save the iPhone pic at 306ppi & 8x10" file size (no upsampling) it uses all the pixels supplied. If I open this pic to view it, it looks identical to the original, being fuzzy with loss of detail.
_________________________________
If I take a pic from my real camera the info from PS gives:
300ppi 13.3x10"(W/Ht) 4000x3000pix 2.6MB
A photo from iPhone5 info from PS gives:
72ppi 45.3x34'(W/Ht) 3264x2448pix 3.49MB
** I can take this iPhone pic & upsample in PS to give the following info:
300ppi 13.3x10" 3990x2993 (essentially 4000x3000) 4.45MB
So at this point,except for file size (2.6MB vs 4.45MB) both pics (one from my home camera & one from iPhone5) are sized the same. If I open each on my iMac the home camera pic is far superior in detail, sharp & crisp to the iPhone pic, even though the iPhone pic has almost double the total MP. The iPhone pic always looks the same on the monitor compared to its untouched original. How can the iPhone image have so much more total MB size yet look so much inferior? What am I missing here? Why does my home camera pics look so much better even when I supposedly make both (home camera & iPhone) pics of equal quality?
My camera takes pics at 300ppi resolution. The iPhone takes at 72ppi resolution. Import both pics to my computer (27" iMac 2.8 GHz Quad Core i7; 8 GB DDR3 SDRAM 2x4; 2 TB Serial ATA Drive; ATI Radeon HD 4850 Graphics with 512 MB) and they are not the same quality when viewed on monitor. My monitor is set to 2560x1440 resolution. When the iPhone pic is processed to match the camera pic via PS (changed from 72 to 300ppi & equal size) it still looks significantly of lower quality. I don't understand how this can be when the iPhone pic has the pixels to work with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Bloyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
OK - we agree then. And 72 PPI is certainly OK for a large print on the wall, although I would upsample to 150 just to prevent any obvious pixelation when you get closer to it than intended - I prefer that the visual resolution limiting factor not be the pixels. Although even 72 will look just fine with enough red wine.
I'm having a difficult time understanding the resolution situation. I understand how in Photoshop(PS) you can take an iPhone5 72ppi (3264x2448) image and it does not need to be upsampled to print at 306ppi (2448x3264pix) giving a 8x10 print using all the pixels. If I wanted to print this image at 24x32 it would print at 102ppi indicating I may wish to upsample, add more pixels.
If I save the iPhone pic at 306ppi & 8x10" file size (no upsampling) it uses all the pixels supplied. If I open this pic to view it, it looks identical to the original, being fuzzy with loss of detail.
_________________________________
If I take a pic from my real camera the info from PS gives:
300ppi 13.3x10"(W/Ht) 4000x3000pix 2.6MB
A photo from iPhone5 info from PS gives:
72ppi 45.3x34'(W/Ht) 3264x2448pix 3.49MB
** I can take this iPhone pic & upsample in PS to give the following info:
300ppi 13.3x10" 3990x2993 (essentially 4000x3000) 4.45MB
So at this point,except for file size (2.6MB vs 4.45MB) both pics (one from my home camera & one from iPhone5) are sized the same. If I open each on my iMac the home camera pic is far superior in detail, sharp & crisp to the iPhone pic, even though the iPhone pic has almost double the total MP. The iPhone pic always looks the same on the monitor compared to its untouched original. How can the iPhone image have so much more total MB size yet look so much inferior? What am I missing here? Why does my home camera pics look so much better even when I supposedly make both (home camera & iPhone) pics of equal quality?
My camera takes pics at 300ppi resolution. The iPhone takes at 72ppi resolution. Import both pics to my computer (27" iMac 2.8 GHz Quad Core i7; 8 GB DDR3 SDRAM 2x4; 2 TB Serial ATA Drive; ATI Radeon HD 4850 Graphics with 512 MB) and they are not the same quality when viewed on monitor. My monitor is set to 2560x1440 resolution. When the iPhone pic is processed to match the camera pic via PS (changed from 72 to 300ppi & equal size) it still looks significantly of lower quality. I don't understand how this can be when the iPhone pic has the pixels to work with.
You seem to be confusing different ways to measure the image. Camera sensors have discrete elements that produce an image comprising an equivalent number of pixels (e.g. 3264 x 2448). There are no linear dimensions associated with that image file, so PPI does not mean anything until you project or print that image to a particular size. The iPhone does not take 72 PPI images, it takes 3264 x 2448 pixel images.
When Photoshop opens an image it associates it with document dimensions as shown in the "Image Size" dialog box, and those document dimensions are arbitrary. The resolution (PPI) shown there is just the pixel dimension (number of pixels) in a given direction divided by the document dimension in that direction, and it only exists in the context of the assigned document dimensions. PPI is generally the same in both directions since the pixels are equally spaced in both directions. You can change document dimensions or PPI in Photoshop by resampling (changing the number of pixels) or you can change both inversely with one another without resampling provided new PPI x new linear dimension = unchanged linear pixel dimension (number of pixels in that direction).
The file size (MB) does not always correlate well with pixel dimensions (number of pixels in the image) because you are using compressed JPEG files rather than lossless TIFF files, so the file size depends on both the number of pixels and the level of compression. You can change the amount of compression in Photoshop, but different cameras compress by default to different levels.
As for the relative image quality - that is determined by much more than simply the number of pixels. Lens quality, focussing precision, sensor noise, noise reduction algorithms etc. all affect image quality. A real camera with a much larger lens may well take much better images even with fewer pixels.