Increasing Resolution From Multiple Stills

[user_deleted]

I am a stop-motion animator, and I have recently become interested in extremely large formats, in particular IMAX. I have used Digital SLRs to capture animation, and they deliver a descent quality image, but nowhere near IMAX resolution. My question is: Due to the nature of Stop-motion, I will have the opportunity to take as many photos of each frame as I want. Is there a way I can take say, 4 photos, scale them up by 4x, then place them over top of one another and take 1 pixel from each of the 4 to make up what used to be 1? What about upping the resolution then blending frames?

-Thanks
CAPounds

[user_deleted]

hmm, i think the only thing you can improve by multi exposures are dynamic range and noise..
to improve resolution you'd have to offset the camera by a fraction of a pixel between shots and use pretty sophisticated software i guess. but why not use a digital medium format back?
++ chris

[user_deleted]

less $$$ to equip multiple animation bays with consumer DSLR's. Also size and weight.

[user_deleted]

yeah, and less pixels
++ chris

[joojaa]

Well you can stitch images together so you could rig up 8 cameras next to each other (or you could device a special optic prism thing to do it with one but its more costly than having more cameras). However i dont suggest you moving one camera since you will not get it back in place after the move. (if you do stopmoves make sure to get a way to remotely trigger camera shot forma computer or a remote trigger button)

Anyway the imax film would need 6k*12k pixels so youd need a whopping 72 mega pixels that basically means about 8, 10 mega pixel digital slrs.

So getting a few cheap consumer cameras with remote shot capabilities might save you BIG BIG BUCKS. Thing is the only thing they loose on is niot surprisingly pixel resolution but quality of optics range. However since your rig will be unwieldy anyway for very close macro shot it wont matter you will be working in their comfort range, LITERARY.

[user_deleted]

the only way to do it would be to shoot a sort of panorama i guess, three images horizontal by two images high and then try stitch them all together, which means six times the images per frame and praying it registers right each time.

Imax is generally scanned in at - 5616 x 4096 or to put it another way 22 mega pixels. (well more or less)

you can blow up 12 mp images to about 25 mp (the adobe camera raw does this very well) without to much softness being introduced, after you add a bit of grain well...

[user_deleted]

stitching pix together is a nice idea in theory..
however i'd be worried about getting all of them to focus on the same plane, distortion artifacts on the seams, exposure variations etc.. worst of all is probably going to be perspective problems (parallax) in close-up work (not to speak on the processing time needed, both in manual work and cpu time).

a 20MP back for 4.5x6 cameras should get you close to (or dare i say over) IMAX quality while still being easy to handly. but they still run into 15'000 i think.
++ chris

ps: while 15k sounds like a lot, the whole post processing and output to IMAX will be so much more expensive anyway that i dont see the point in skimping on the camera.

[user_deleted]

I am considering shooting some tests on a very low budget (like out of my pocket) and a DSLR is within the budget. As to the ideas about photo stitching, I have been considering building a camera rig that allows you to slide a single camera to precise points. This lowers the number of cameras needed (8 cameras would take hours to focus and would not be within my budget), and solves any problems with the stitching (I am of course exagerating, there are always problems, but Shake has a pretty descent stitching function). My worry then becomes getting a lens that will zoom enough to enable me to photograph a tiny puppet in 8 segments.

[user_deleted]

imo you'll definitely get ghosting of background elements and gaps in foreground elements around the seams if you move the camera..
if anything pan and tilt it around the optical center of the system, but i still think that you'll have a lot of issues to solve in post (stabilize, deflicker, warps etc).. i'd rent a high end dslr for a short test and try with 4 exposures per image.

++ chris

[user_deleted]

forgot to add:
photoshop CS3 is quite amazing for stitching pix together.
also try to get a lens with as little distortion if possible if you go this route.. a nice 50mm or 100mm macro should be good.
last but not least, most cameras have a shutter life of around 100'000 exposures. with 8 exposures per frame, that's like 12'000 frames or around 5 minutes for IMAX

[joojaa]

Yes so whatever way you put it the 15,000 is a baragain. Besides you can put off that price in your taxation.