Page 1 of 1

Autopano giga panorama seems to be 140% larger than the actual photos

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:52 am
by inMotion
The image on the left that is open in photoshop is the 100% zoom on the panorama rendered from APG. Image on the left is one of the original 21.1 megapixel images from the camera that is used to make up the panorama. Something doesn't seem right here. Why would the final resulting image be so much larger? It is about 138% larger in the panorama then the file from the camera shows.

I used the Merlin/Panogear head and pappywizzard with 20% overlap with a canon 400 lens with a 1.4 converter for a total of 560 focal length. 1028 images at 21.1mp each. Resulting image rendered from AGP is 15 gigapixels 236,000 x 65,000 pixels and is 113GB as a .PSB. Does that seem right?

Any idea what is going on?


PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:23 am
by inMotion
Wow, you really worked that out well in your head! I think I did did include the dimensions, but just in case, here they are again.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm
by inMotion
Yeah, I upgraded my machine specifically for this. 32gb ram (not enough, wish i had 64), 256gb samsung 830 SSD, 4 core intel i7 2700k OC at 4.3ghz. This panorama is bringing it to its knees though. It opens in photoshop yeah, but it takes forever to save and i need at least 1TB free HDD just for scratch disks. My workflow is to usually break down the image into smaller parts, work on them, then combine them back.

That "ugly grey square" was intentional (and super easy to fix in PS) as I removed an image or two that had the cable car in it and was screwing up the water around it.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:12 pm
by inMotion
Also, what do you guys think of the sharpness of the 100% zoom on the people?

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:12 am
by AlexandreJ
The 100% value is calculated over all images, by using the one that has the longest focal length and make it 1:1 ratio.
You can get such results in a gigapixels if one image among the hundreds other is a bit too long in focal length.
So check then in layer editor by shorting them by focal length. I guess, we'll find one that is not right.