Camera for mural?

[Chat Noir]

I have a particular idea of what I'd like for a wall mural in my home. The wall is appx. 13' x 8'.

 

In over two years of browsing ready-made murals and photos for custom work, I have yet to find what I have in mind except for photos that will cost me $500+ just to have the copyright for one mural.

 

For that price, I've decided I can put that money towards a nice camera myself and get exactly the mural photo I want.

 

Now for my question. I own a Kodak EasyShare DX7590 5.0mp 10x zoom. This camera has served me well for a hobby point and shoot, giving very clear photos for the past 3 years. However, I don't know that it will do well for a mural. For an upcoming vacation, I hate to have the perfect shot, and not have the right equipment.

 

I recently visited a camera store to discuss purchasing a DSLR camera, though I am new to anything that requires manual focusing. The salesman told me I really didn't need to spend a fortune on a new camera body and lenses to get a great photo for a mural of the size described. He recommended just upgrading to a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 7.2mp or a SonyCybershot DSC-H7 8.0mp and not to spend the money for more camera than I need other than this mural obsession I have. The Panasonic is his first recommendation with a bit wider angle, and at $300+ is much less than I expected to spend. However, an upgrade of only 2.2mp from my Kodak seems such a small amount. The Sony has a greater zoom, greater mp, less wide-angle, and about $50 more.

 

I'm great with P/S cameras, and thrilled with my photos. I'd like to stick with one since he recommended it as an option, but I also don't want to just buy something that isn't much better than what I already have for one mural if what I have will do the job.

 

I'm hoping some camera experts here can help me??? Will my 5.0mp Kodak do the job, should I upgrade to another point and shoot, or still consider what I had in mind first, a DSLR such as the Rebel...?

[pierces]

Whatever camera you end up with (Don't forget to check out the Canon S3IS too, though the Sony is well-rated), consider using a panorama stitching program. This will allow you to make a very large high-resolution file out of many smaller segments.

 

This shot is an assembly of 4 handheld shots of the San Diego waterfront taken with my Canon SD800 pocket camera from our ship as we sailed out...

 

The original is a 26MB file that was not re-sized at all and would be tack sharp at 36" x 12" It might even be acceptable up-rezzed to a mural since mural prints are big, but not generally high-res.

 

Here is a piece of the image cut out of the middle to show detail:

 

Imagine what you could do with manual settings and a tripod!

 

I used a free panorama stitcher called Autostitch which you can ger here:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

 

It's unbelievably easy to use and has pages of samples and tips.

 

Then again, you could get one of the new Seitz 6x17 Panorama cameras...

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

...it records a 7,500 x 21,250, 160MB image in one shot and uses view camera lenses for truly amazing quality. However, the $40,000 starting price (without lens) is a little steep for me...I, for one, will keep stitching for now! ;)

 

Anyway, your's sounds like a cool project! Good luck!

 

Dave

[Travelight]

:) Dave, Thanks for sharing your knowledge on taking and fixing great photos!

[Cuizer2]

Well, I was going to suggest what Pierces suggested. Using software that stitches several pictures together, you could easily create a very large photo. However, you will need some high end hardware and software to handle a very large photo file.

 

For example, I used to use a computer that had "only" 1 GB RAM as my photo computer. Unfortunately I often ran out of memory. Now I use a faster computer with 2 GB RAM and have still run out of memory twice.

 

This is one of my favorite photos. It was taken with a 5 MP Canon. There are three or five photos stitched together ...

 

 

Look closely at the horizon to the right of the ship and you can see where the sea level makes a very slight change. This is one point where the photo was stitched together.

 

In this photo it is easier to see where the photos were stitched together. This is caused by a change in the hand held camera position between photos. If you are going to mount something on your wall, the recommendation to use a tripod is a good one ...

 

[Chat Noir]

:) Thank you both... I think what I'm taking away from this is ~ I do not even need to purchase a camera above my 5mps, rather, I need to concentrate on getting even steady shots to be put together for a high quality panorama.

 

Beautiful samples!, and I appreciate the time you all took to reply and give ideas of what can be done.

 

I can hardly wait for the perfect shot (in my mind, anyway) to present itself so I can begin to update our bedroom into the spectacular 'get-away' I am imagining...

[C-Ked]

I have a particular idea of what I'd like for a wall mural in my home. The wall is appx. 13' x 8'.

 

I'm sorry, was this a typo, or are you really trying to get a single photo blown up to 13 by 8 feet?

 

Regardless, if you're going to try for a good panoramic stitched photo, definitely practice with the panoramic settings on your camera before you go. I know most Canon digital point and shoot cameras come with a panoramic setting, which keeps the ISO and other settings constant as you're taking the shots in sequence, which helps make for a cleaner stitching together in the end. I'd also recommend using a tripod, in order to get a steady panning action going, in order to get the straightest panoramic stitch.

 

Good luck with your wall mural dream!

[pierces]

I just posted a collection of panoramas that I've taken ovret yhe last couple of years. All were done handheld with everything from a pocket camers to a DSLR and assembles with Autostitch and cropped for straightening and trimming the edges.

 

http://www.pbase.com/pierce324/panoramas

 

A DSLR or an advanced digicam that has a "manual" metering mode is best for panoramas. A compact or any camera on "Auto" will set the exposure on each frame making them lighter or darker as you rotate. Keeping the horizon level is the most important part. My Canon SD800 has a grid overlay available on the LCD that I keep on all of the time. My Konica-Minolta A2 digicam has a grid that is visible on the LCD and in the viewfinder. My MDSLR doesn't have a grid, but I use the autofocus indicators as a reference.

 

A panorama head on a tripod with your camera set to rotate around the mid-point of the focal length of the lens (nodal point) is the best, but with good software and some basic control over exposure, you can get great results without pawning the jewelery.

 

Dave

[Chat Noir]

I'm sorry, was this a typo, or are you really trying to get a single photo blown up to 13 by 8 feet?

Good luck with your wall mural dream!

 

Ahh... yes... one photo/series of photos... one panoramic image, anway.

 

Am I crazy???:confused:

 

Google/search custom wall murals, custom wall mural, etc to get the idea... That's why I'm here to perhaps get some help with what I need to do... maybe I just need to call the mural designers themselves, and find out if I am way off my rocker with this idea.

 

Maybe I am crazy!?!?

[Chat Noir]

I just posted a collection of panoramas that I've taken ovret yhe last couple of years. All were done handheld with everything from a pocket camers to a DSLR and assembles with Autostitch and cropped for straightening and trimming the edges.

 

http://www.pbase.com/pierce324/panoramas

 

A DSLR or an advanced digicam that has a "manual" metering mode is best for panoramas. A compact or any camera on "Auto" will set the exposure on each frame making them lighter or darker as you rotate. Keeping the horizon level is the most important part. My Canon SD800 has a grid overlay available on the LCD that I keep on all of the time. My Konica-Minolta A2 digicam has a grid that is visible on the LCD and in the viewfinder. My MDSLR doesn't have a grid, but I use the autofocus indicators as a reference.

 

A panorama head on a tripod with your camera set to rotate around the mid-point of the focal length of the lens (nodal point) is the best, but with good software and some basic control over exposure, you can get great results without pawning the jewelery.

 

Dave

 

BEAUTIFUL!!! Your Talkeetna panorama is very close to what I'm looking for, along with a little more foreground. Ultimately, I'd love a shot of a colorful foreground, with cloud covered (not hidden) background mountains. I have seen some of the Maroon Bells (Colorado) that come close, as well as Lake Louise (Alberta), and some from Japan. Most however, are sunny. I must say, our first visit viewing the Talkeetna area resembles your photo... fabulous memories.

 

Your photos are simply amazing; some of your serendipty shots are just amazing in the simplicity!

 

They certainly evoke a feeling or mood within the viewer. And isn't that what great photography is all about!

 

Thank you so much for the tips, and I will be reading more tips from your website as soon as I close out of here.:)

[ghsmith178613]

not crazy at all. you should find a printer that will do the job for you. look in the yellow pages for "signs" or "sign makers". they can give you the parms for what you need as far as camera resolutiion and file size. you can also google for viewing distance. you will be utterly amazed how low the mural resolution is.

 

most of the cameras come with basic software that wil handle any "stitiching"

 

oh.. my first suggestion for camera... the canon rebel xt or xti. with the "kit" lens. takes up a 4 gig cf type micro-drive. about 400 shots in camera RAW.

[donaldsc]

One thing that is extremely important when taking pictures to be stitched together is to use manual exposure setting, not automatic. Also, keep the exposure the same for the entire sequence. If you do not do this, different parts of the picture will be exposed differently and your stitching software will have to deal with this problem.

 

Also, allow for about 1/3 overlap between pictures and try to include a prominent object in both pictures to make it easier to match the pictures.

 

Finally, remember that the pictures you stitch together do not have to be horizonals. They can be vertical or even rectangular.

 

Hope this helps. Doing panoramics is fun.

 

DON

[pierces]

They certainly evoke a feeling or mood within the viewer. And isn't that what great photography is all about!

 

 

If you got a mood evoked from them, then welcome to my target audience!:D

 

I take the travel (and family) photos to recall the good times we have. Recording the light, dark and color in their proper proportions is important, but I like to try to find bits and pieces and the occasional grand view that relate to how we felt at the time. Little things like the colorful trays of gelato in Zihuatanejo or the sign in Fairbanks telling all to "call this number if the red light flashes" with no explanation as to why help recall the little discoveries or revelations that made the moment special. If someone can get a similar reaction without the expense and sore feet, then I guess I did a good job! Thanks for the comments. I'm glad you enjoyed the photos.

 

In your search for mural printers, check out billboard printers. (example: http://www.ambientgraphics.net/ - http://www.signslasvegas.com/large-format-printing-las-vegas.html) They use huge inkjet printers that print up to 16 feet wide, so they would be able to handle you request easily with no stitching. They also do enough volume and have enough competition (especially in Vegas) to keep pricing reasonable. We have a friend in Las Vegas who used to work for one and I've seen the five-meter printers and their output up close. Nice!

 

Again, good luck on your worthy project!

 

Dave

[Cracker Ken]

I echo the concern about getting a camera that has manual settings. If you use a panorama, it's important. I've got an example of doing it with an auto setting somewhere in my photos on the computer here - not good.

 

Depending on the demensions of your wall, you might not even need a panorama shot. A good basic photo, cropped if needed, might do the trick.

 

The higher the resolution, the sharper the pic can be when blown up. Use the highest possible resolution settings your camera can offer. The higher the mega-pixel rating, the better.

 

For a mural, I'd suggest taking your final product, printed on non-glare or mat finish photo paper, to someone such as Kinkos or Staples (somewhere that makes large prints for signs, displays, etc). I used Kinkos. Have them create a high resolution scan of your photos. I had a 5x7 print that I wanted enlarged, and they scanned it at a very high res. It came out at 15MB in memory size. HUGE. I didn't need it as big as the scan would have provided, but it could have covered a wall in my house nicely if I wanted. Then, you can use this super high resolution scan (on a digital file), to have your mural printed by one of the services that do it.

 

Still, the sharper the original is, the better.

 

Ken

[pierces]

Actually a 6MP Digital image is already about 17MB-18MB in memory and printing to any media and then scanning it will lose a lot of detail and color information. A program like Photoshop or Alien Skin's BlowUp will enlarge an image 4x without noticeable loss of detail and no effective loss of color or luminance information.

 

The best way to enlarge a file for a mural print is to provide the company doing the printing with the largest, cleanest digital file you can produce and let them use the enlargement algorithms associated with their printer to do the up-rezzing and apply sharpening geared toward the viewing distance. You also need to provide them with a normal-sized sample print so they can see how you want it to look (color, brightness, contrast, etc.).

 

As for camera resolution, "higher the mega-pixel rating, the better" is only partially true. An "all other things being equal" caveat needs to be added. The hype about 12mp pocket cameras has disappointed a lot of eager consumers.

 

A 10MP pocket camera will produce an image file very much inferior to a 6MP DSLR (or, from my experience, even a good 7MP compact from the same company). Not only are the individual photosites on the tiny chip more susceptible to image noise, but the equally tiny lenses on compact cameras are prone to color fringing, distortion and a host of other problems imposed by physics. They look great on a 4 x 6 print, but start losing a bit at 8 x 10 and it just gets scarier as you go up from there. DSLR's have much larger sensors with better ability to gather light. They also benefit from the ability to replace the marginal kit lens that comes with them (though, some are pretty darn good these days) with stunning examples of optical design. I wrote an article about resolution (Viva la Resolution!) and another about camera choices (uh...Camera Choices)here: http://www.pptphoto.com/Galleries.htm I've been told that they are fairly informative on the subject.

 

The comment about not necessarily needing a panorama picture is true. The normal aspect ratio of a DSLR's with an APS-C sensor is 3:2, so a straight enlargement would produce a 12' x 8' print and would only need minimal cropping at the top and/or bottom at 13' long. The other reason I mentioned a panorama in the first place was resolution. People often forget that panoramas can also be a vertical image and what I had in mind was a combination of both those aspects. Autostitch, and many of the better panorama makers, will stitch multiple row panoramas into a very large, very high resolution image. A 10 MP digital file will make a great billboard...a 36MP 2x2 panorama image will have nearly 4x the resolution and a 100MP 3x4 panorama, over 10x!

 

As I said before, it sounds like a lot of thought has has gone into this project and now it's design and budget time. sym1966's original post mentioned considering a Canon Rebel and I would agree that if it's a quality photo for a mural it the goal, the Rebel XTi, the Sony Alpha 100 or the Nikon D40x would fill the bill nicely for under $1,000 with a lens.

 

Dave

[Chat Noir]

I thank each of you for your insight! I'm beyond the point of wanting useless souvenirs of our travels... photos have always brought back the most memories. I think I will follow through on my own hunch (and recommendations here) to invest in a nice beginner DSLR kit, rather than the point- and- shoots the camera salesman recommended. My Kodak works fine for that.

 

I wish I had taken it, rather than a cheapie pocket-sized on our last cruise.

 

For the next one, and beyond, I plan to be well equiped! My perfect mural shot is out there... just waiting to be discovered... :)

 

Thanks Again!

[Cracker Ken]

I certainly agree that DSLR's are the way to go. While the little camera's take decent pics, there's a left to be desired.

 

I have a Nikon D70s that came with the 18-70 lens. I don't think you can find many D70s out there for sale anymore. I bought mine just after the D80 came out and they were already getting scarce. D80's are super nice camera's. I also have a Nikon N70 with several lenses, so it was nice to be able to keep using them.

 

As pierces says, the Nikon D40x is a nice camera. Nice size, lots of features, and still a DSLR. I think I've seen adds where you can get one of those with two lenses with it for less than $100.

 

pierces - You mentioned 17MB-18MB for a 6MP digital photo. Is that in "raw" format? I use "large" and "normal" for my settings in the N70s, and I usually run around 1.5MB each for jpg's, and a little over 2MB each in "fine" mode. I've never messed with "raw" yet. I'm tempted to start fooling around with it and learn. I use Photoshop Elements 5.0. BTW - When I had the photo I mentioned scanned, I didn't have it in digital format. It was a print mailed to me by the governor's office. I wonder if PE 5.0 will convert to poster or mural size as you mentioned? I'll have to dig out the intruction book.

 

Ken

[Cuizer2]

I certainly agree that DSLR's are the way to go. While the little camera's take decent pics, there's a left to be desired.

 

pierces - You mentioned 17MB-18MB for a 6MP digital photo. Is that in "raw" format? I use "large" and "normal" for my settings in the N70s, and I usually run around 1.5MB each for jpg's, and a little over 2MB each in "fine" mode. I've never messed with "raw" yet. I'm tempted to start fooling around with it and learn. I use Photoshop Elements 5.0. BTW - When I had the photo I mentioned scanned, I didn't have it in digital format. It was a print mailed to me by the governor's office. I wonder if PE 5.0 will convert to poster or mural size as you mentioned? I'll have to dig out the intruction book.

 

Ken

 

Just lefts are desirable? Rights are not? :)

 

You are correct, the large image has to be in RAW or TIF format. A JPEG image would not be that big.

[pierces]

pierces - You mentioned 17MB-18MB for a 6MP digital photo. Is that in "raw" format? I use "large" and "normal" for my settings in the N70s, and I usually run around 1.5MB each for jpg's, and a little over 2MB each in "fine" mode. I've never messed with "raw" yet. I'm tempted to start fooling around with it and learn. I use Photoshop Elements 5.0. BTW - When I had the photo I mentioned scanned, I didn't have it in digital format. It was a print mailed to me by the governor's office. I wonder if PE 5.0 will convert to poster or mural size as you mentioned? I'll have to dig out the intruction book.

 

Ken

 

In you original post, you said "15MB in memory size". In memory is the uncompressed size that an image assumes when it's loaded for viewing and is far larger than it's size on disk. My misunderstanding. My 6MP jpg files are typically 3.5MB-5MB on disk (large - extra fine). I use extra fine to minimize JPEG compression artifacts in general and RAW only when facing things like mixed or high-contrast lighting. RAW is an amazing tool if you have the need for it, but honestly, a lot of people use it only because they heard it was "better". A carefully processed RAW image can, in some cases, produce a more detailed final image than a high-quality JPEG when viewed at 100% on a monitor, but in a regular print up to 11"x14" the difference is indiscernible to the eye. Where it really has value to me is where you have a big variance in lighting sources or a white-balance issue with indoor lights. Being able to play with the white balance after the fact is a real help in those cases. In most situations I just don't see any benefit gained from all the extra workflow.

 

If all you have to start with is a print...at least you have a good digital original now!;) Scanning an 8x10 print at 600 ppi would yield a 4800x6000 image file and would resolve all the detail that a print would give up. I've scanned photos for restoration projects a1 1200 ppi and have gotten no more detail out of the print and a big, bloated file for my trouble.

 

PE 5.0 is a heck of a program. For 95% of the people that use the full Photoshop, Elements will do everything they will ever need and more. If I had a do-over, I'd have probably gone with it instead. As for up-rezzing to mural size, Elements has a good interpolation algorithm already and with a task-specific plug-in like AlienSkin's Blow Up or Genuine Fractals, a mural-sized file could be done. However, what I said before still holds true. Providing the company doing the printing with the largest, cleanest digital file you can produce and let them use the enlargement algorithms associated with their printer to do the up-rezzing is best. Those printers and their graphics servers are made specifically to deal with gargantuan file sizes and are optimized for the output. I have no Idea what kind of system you're running, but mine would get a little cranky manipulating a 4GB file (8'x13' @300ppi):D

 

Dave

[bbbearden]

Hi Sym,

 

The mural you are talking about is large and will be a substantial investment if you have it printed in a quality format that is worthy of display. A point and shoot will never give you the quality you will want and be proud of. You sound like someone who enjoys photography and the resulting pictures. My suggestion to you is to purchase the best D-SLR you can afford. Also, remember that the lenses are as important and the camera body itself. The Nikon D80 and the Cannon Rebel XTi are both great entry level D-SLR's and are easy to use. Sony also makes a D-SLR called the A100, which seems like a great camera, however, I personnally prefer the proven performance of Cannon or Nikon when investing in a camera at this level. The difference in picture quality between the point & shoots and the DSLR is stunning when you compare them. I have gone through this transition myself and can testify how strongly I believe that every penny I spent was well worth it. The suggestions about using a tripod are right on the money. The people that recommended a tripod are exactly right.

 

You will want to do this picture in a RAW format, and I strongly urge you to consider locating a professional lab to print this for you since it is so large. Most consumer type photo labs simply cannot handle images this large and do good job. There are many of these labs on the net and you should be able to find one in your area. Good luck and I hope this turns out well for you. :)

[Chat Noir]

Once again, thank you all for your replies.

 

No kiddin' that this will be a big investment. The companies I'm looking at to customize murals don't seem to have bargain basement specials.

 

A very costly souvenir of our travels!!! Our last Alaska cruise (last minute booking) was likely cheaper than this project is going to be.

 

I can think of no better way to enjoy memories of a trip than by having a beautiful serene/peaceful landscape to look at everytime I walk in our room... and since I'm stuck on the prairie of Oklahoma for the rest of my life, I'll just have to bring the mountains here.:)

 

When this project is complete, I look forward to posting a photo.

 

A few of my favorite (Kodaks P&S) from an Alaskan cruise... not mural shots by any means, but fun, nonetheless.

 

Click to enlarge:

 

my boys, candid!

 

Tormented Valley

N. of Skagway

~quite haunting in person~

 

 

HeckuvaBerg

S. of Juneau

Tracy Arm / Sawyer

 

Space Needle

Seattle

 

You all have been a tremendous help!!!

[Cuizer2]

Click to enlarge:

 

my boys, candid!

 

 

Which one is named Candid (the one on the left or the one on the right) and what is the other boy's name?

[Chat Noir]

Which one is named Candid (the one on the left or the one on the right) and what is the other boy's name?

 

Cute!:)

 

Their names are Lee (l), and AJ ®. Do you recognize them?;)

[pierces]

Tormented Valley

N. of Skagway

~quite haunting in person~

 

 

Yes it is! Mid-June 2004 and it was 34° and sleeting! Don't know where we'd be without the pioneers...but, what the hell were they thinking? They didn't have a mini-van with a heater! :D

 

 

So many places to see...so little time.

 

Dave