I have a related question about APP and TIFs - maybe this has been discussed too?

When I stitch a large pano using APP and try and render it, APP tells me there is a 2Gb limit on TIFs and will only allow me to save it as a PSB. If I save as a PSB then load the PSB into Photoshop, it will save the file as a TIF with LZW compression. What is going on here? Why can't APP save as a TIF if PSB can? (TIFs with LZW compression is my default setting in APP.)

Is it because PS is interpreting "save as a TIF" as an imperative command i.e. "do whatever you need to do including losing detail to save this picture as a TIF"?

Or is APP missing a trick? This seems unlikely but perhaps APP's estimate of the size is not taking compression into account?

Aeris

Last edited by Aeriscera (2008-09-08 13:00:09)

Aeriscera wrote:

I have a related question about APP and TIFs - maybe this has been discussed too?

When I stitch a large pano using APP and try and render it, APP tells me there is a 2Gb limit on TIFs and will only allow me to save it as a PSB. If I save as a PSB then load the PSB into Photoshop, it will save the file as a TIF with LZW compression. What is going on here? Why can't APP save as a TIF if PSB can? (TIFs with LZW compression is my default setting in APP.)

Is it because PS is interpreting "save as a TIF" as an imperative command i.e. "do whatever you need to do including losing detail to save this picture as a TIF"?

Or is APP missing a trick? This seems unlikely but perhaps APP's estimate of the size is not taking compression into account?

Aeris

That was a problem in Photoshop. Which version do you use?

best, Klaus

Hi Klaus,

klausesser wrote:

That was a problem in Photoshop

I'm not sure what you are referring to by "that". Do you mean that my suggestion about what PS is doing actually happens?!

I am using CS3.

Aeris

AlexandreJ answered the question very well so I think we can consider the topic closed?

ps. "do whatever you need to do including losing detail to save this picture as a TIF" - no, TIFF files never degrade the stored image (unless you use JPEG compression in them).

". . but what can I do to make a TIF/LZW file that *is* smaller than 2Gb?"

you could resize it . . . .

btw.: are you talking of "smaller than 2GB" in terms of already compressed (LZW) files? Or do you mean an unpacked 2GB-file - one which is displayed?

Last edited by klausesser (2008-09-09 01:21:07)

Aeriscera wrote:

Or I could apply a space-saving colour optimisation and approximate every colour as white :-)

KlausEsser wrote:

btw.: are you talking of "smaller than 2GB" in terms of already compressed (LZW) files? Or do you mean an unpacked 2GB-file - one which is displayed?

Well in deference to AlexandreJ's and Dr Slony's remarks, this is purely academic, but I am talking about LZW files. As I understand it, if you have an uncompressed image and then compress it and the resulting file is more than 2GB, then you can't save it as a TIF (using APP and most other software although the limit is technically 4GB).

A

You mean AFTER LZW compressing it´s still more than 2GB? That means about 4GB unpacked . . are you kidding? What kind of picture could that be? A multi-gigapixel-image shot with a compact-camera - made of 5000 shots??

Did you see this one - 16 GigaPixel:

http://www.haltadefinizione.com/en/cenacolo/look.asp

and the making of:

http://www.haltadefinizione.com/en/cena … kstage.asp

klausesser wrote:

You mean AFTER LZW compressing it´s still more than 2GB? That means about 4GB unpacked . . are you kidding? What kind of picture could that be? A multi-gigapixel-image shot with a compact-camera - made of 5000 shots??

Well, it's a bridge not a compact and it's only 386 shots, and it probably doesn't qualify as a panorama in your eyes :-) but "yes". Here it is http://share.gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=8792.

2Gb for a compressed TIF is nothing for us hard-core gigapanners

Aeris

Last edited by Aeriscera (2008-09-09 04:23:13)

DrSlony wrote:

In my experience though, most of the time huge panoramas are not nice panoramas [...] www.gigapan.org has some really ugly gigapixels

Aloha APPro afficionados,

Just back on line after a power supply and mother board burn-out.  I took the plunge into 64 bit computing, although I didn't get my dream Mac Pro with 32 gigs of RAM.  Now using Vista Ultimate, AMD64 dual core processor, and 8 gigs of RAM.  I'm currently testing out the Alpha version of the Giga-APPro.  A 42C x 11R image is aligning now (15 Sept.), and I hope to render it on 16 Sept.

Responding to DrSlony, in regards to "ugly" gigapixels:
Since I take large panoramas (usually), I suspect that some of your ire is directed at me.  As an initial beta tester (since July 2007), and Fine Family Foundation grant recipient through Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), it is expected of me to push the GigaPan unit, and compatible cameras, to their limits, both with image size and complexity.  I also don't take gigapans, necessarily, to try to make a living.  I shall not soon give up my day job as an Environmental Health Specialist for the Hawaii Department of Health.  My main impetus for using the GigaPan is for education and scientific documentation, and occassionally just for fun. 
Please look at the gigapan.org website to learn more about the GCP (Global Connection Project), a joint effort between CMU, NASA, National Geographic, and Google.  I don't expect it to change how YOU expect to make an image (and I wouldn't want to do that), there is just a difference in philosophy about what may be desireable, or acceptable, in an image meant to educate, and or entertain, rather than one from which a profit is made (although I fully understand that the concepts are not mutually exclusive).  The GigaPan web site is open to all panorama makers to upload his/her work to, with the only conditions being that you register at gigapan.org and that your panorama is >.05 gigapixels.  The image need not be take with a GigaPan unit either.  Just because the gigapan.org viewer allows one to zoom in >100% doesn't mean that you MUST.  Gigapan.org is much more egalitarian than many of you on this forum seem to be able to endure.  Too bad, you miss out on so much fun!
I'm also a liason between the gigapan team and Kolor in the development of a GigaPan friendly version of APPro, where prerendering tools are rather sophisticated, but alignment of very large image arrays still leaves a bit to be desired. 
That's all for now.

Regards,
Richard Palmer (Apapane)

http://gigapan.org/viewProfile.php?userid=319

Eh seems we have a big misunderstanding Apapane. So several points:

Apapane wrote:

I suspect that some of your ire is directed at me

On the contrary, there wasn't much emotion whatsoever in what I wrote. Stating that "most of the time huge panoramas are not nice panoramas," is just matter-of-fact. Also please note that "most", not "always". If you would like, I could list many urls to "huge panoramas" and point out why they're not nice, list all the errors, but then again that would be getting somewhat involved, which is not something I want to do, which is why I'm writing this reply - in hope to end the misunderstanding :]

Apapane wrote:

there is just a difference in philosophy about what may be desireable, or acceptable, in an image meant to educate, and or entertain, rather than one from which a profit is made (although I fully understand that the concepts are not mutually exclusive)

Well of course, but that is not the issue. The issue is me saying that most big panos aren't nice aesthetically.

Apapane wrote:

Gigapan.org is much more egalitarian than many of you on this forum seem to be able to endure.

Umm that doesn't sound nice and I can't agree, but I decided that discussing this point could get more unfriendly so I wont :]

Making huge panoramas sure can be fun, as with breaking any records. I also recently posted 2 panoramas here - my longest pano ever, and my hardest pano ever. Both are ugly, but it was sure fun making them, breaking my own records and learning from my mistakes. Same as it is, I suppose, with many gigapan.org users. But the fact that it's fun and blabla doesn't make those 2 panos of mine, or theirs, any nicer :] Bad stitching is bad stitching, ugly light differences are just that - ugly. Pleasing and challenging though it may be, you cant get wine from a cow just because you have some expensive equipment that can break records. But then I never said that milk isn't fun :]

Regards and in hope of better understanding on friendlier terms
Maciek Dworak

Marco,

This is a frustrating thread for me because I like gigapan and I think it is valuable, but it seems to me that some people that post here don't seem to get the point of it. I could of course say "That's their loss" and get on with the rest of my life. However, this forum is about a tool that I'd like to use for contributing to gigapan, so I have to contend with people who post here and, in my opinion, some of them are routinely and unnecessarily dismissive of the panos at gigapan.

In particular, it seems to me that whenever I raise questions concerning large images and the problems of processing them, I encounter an automatic resistance to the idea that anything good can be achieved by attempting to work with a gigapixel image. Sometimes - and here I am not referring to DrSlony's post in this thread - people make rude, arrogant and elitist remarks. Perhaps insult is not intended on these occasions, but the fact is that some people are arrogant and insensitive.


DrSlony,

With regard to your contribution, there is no doubt that you are an expert, you bring a lot to this forum and have a sense of humour which is always welcome and I think you could bring even more to the group if you read up on what gigapan is all about. To me, gigapan's scope and ideals are worthy and exciting and it's fun to do! May I suggest that you look upon gigapan as different from, but not unadjacent to what you do? Current technology prevents gigapanners from treating their images with the skill and care that you exercise on your images, but that doesn't mean we don't want to. Indeed, the reason I participate in this forum is to ask how you guys can help me get closer to what you are already doing.


Aeris

rhadorn wrote:

When saving a pano of whatever size as a 16 bit TIFF, the file appears as a striped gray scale picture in some preview programs and as a black surface in my current picture editor, LightZone.

I am used to save TIFF files from other programs and to load them in LightZone, without meeting any problem up to now.

Question: what is the special characteristic of the TIFF file saved by AutoPano? What is the roundabout?

Reto

Hello,

As far as I see in this first question the issue encountered by Reto, for his first question, is quite far away from the use of a motorized pano head… This becomes a little out of topic for him…

Here are a couple of links concerning the use of Tiff files when rendered with APP. There are lots of threads talking about that… Just search on the word - Tiff - and author  - AlexandreJ -

http://www.autopano.net/forum/p5520-200 … 9-19#p5520
http://www.autopano.net/forum/p13707-20 … -54#p13707

Last edited by beeloba (2008-09-17 11:44:52)