Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / December 2005
True life size photo
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Larry - 27 Dec 2005 13:26 GMT I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on how to take a photo so the resulting print image is exactly true life size. What camera settings do I need, or auxiliary aids, so that when photographing for instance something like a $20 gold piece, the resulting print, regardless of paper size, shows the coin exactly the size of the real one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its advanced mathematics?
Thanks
Matalog - 27 Dec 2005 14:12 GMT Would it not just be a matter of making sure the object was printed to it's real-life dimensions? By resizing the photo while having activated the rulers in your editing software you could do it.
> I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of > books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks Peter Irwin - 27 Dec 2005 14:29 GMT > I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of > books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its > advanced mathematics? The easiest thing to do is to take a picture of a ruler with the lens set exactly the same way as in the photograph of the coin and then enlarge/scale the photograph to match. You could visually match the coin, but matching the ruler is easier because the ruler will tell you exactly how much you need to correct from your first attempt.
In the days in which people made life-size images on film to be contact printed, the method was to set the film plane to object distance at four times the actual (measured) focal length of the lens. (This method assumes that the nodal space of the lens is negligible at full size copying).
While you could theoretically set an exact reduction to the digital sensor by measurement, this is not likely to be very practical because you would need to know: 1) the actual focal length of your lens 2) either the position of the nodes of the lens or the amount of nodal space. 3) the exact location of the sensor/film plane (sometimes marked by a line through a circle)
There are excellent tables of optical formulas in any edition of the British Journal of Photography Almanac or in any book on photographic optics.
In practice, taking a picture of a ruler and then adjusting is likely to be your best option.
Peter.
 Signature pirwin@ktb.net
Bob Salomon - 27 Dec 2005 14:30 GMT > I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of > books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks To make an image at 1:1 (life size) all that you need to do is make the image on the film/chip exactly the same size as the actual image. That means that if your subject is 5" long you can not make a 1:1 image in camera on any camera using film or a chip that is not at least 5" long.
If your camera has too small a capture medium then you would have to output it so that the image of the object was exactly the same length as the original.
As for what you will need that is camera specific. On a view camera you would only need a lens/lensboard and film/chip of the proper size.
On a 35mm type camera or a medium format camera you would also need a bellows or extension tube set. You could us a close up lens in some cases but not if you want the best results.
To shoot 1:1 you need a lens extension 2x the focal length of the lens.
 Signature To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 27 Dec 2005 15:56 GMT > To make an image at 1:1 (life size) all that you need to do is make the > image on the film/chip exactly the same size as the actual image. That > means that if your subject is 5" long you can not make a 1:1 image in > camera on any camera using film or a chip that is not at least 5" long. This may be confusing to the original poster. The post asked about life size on the print, not necessarily in the camera. Peter Irwin gave a good response.
Stewy - 27 Dec 2005 15:21 GMT > I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of > books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its > advanced mathematics? If you want to focus 1:1 i.e. to photograph a 24x36mm area on a full frame 35mm camera, then bellows or extension tubes were usually needed, however if the lens was pretty good at closest focus then it was a simple matter of placing the object on the enlarger table and setting the enlarger to expose at that magnification.
Modern lenses for digital cameras will focus much closer than the old SLRs - My Fuji S7000 will focus down to about 1cm meaning I could print a 1c or English penny on paper measuring 33x25cm (bigger than A4) at 300dpi - about 15-20x full size.
Printing actual size, simply resize the canvas to the actual size of the coin.
Advanced mathematic are unnecessary, just accuracy in measuring the subject and calculating canvas size.
One way to easily record a coin at full-size is to use a flatbed scanner - years ago, coin dealers used to photocopy their coins for ads etc.
David Dyer-Bennet - 27 Dec 2005 17:34 GMT > I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read > lots of books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > coin exactly the size of the real one. No doubt I've missed some > simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its advanced mathematics? There are infinitely many ways to do it. You get to adjust the size at two steps, once when you take the photo, and again when you make the print. So essentially anything you choose at the first step you can compensate for at the second step (sometimes with consequences) to get the result you want.
The easiest thing to do is probably to include a ruler in the photo (in a location where you can crop it out). Then adjust size in Photoshop to make an inch on the ruler exactly 300 pixels, and then print telling the printer to print 300 DPI.
 Signature David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Fred McKenzie - 27 Dec 2005 19:23 GMT > I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of > books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its > advanced mathematics? Larry-
Its math, but not very advanced. Peter Irwin's suggestion to use a ruler, is a good idea regardless.
To start, a digital photo itself doesn't have a size, it has pixels. Your screen displays so many pixels per inch, resulting in an object having a certain size on the screen.
Then when you print, the printer has so many pixels per inch, resulting in an object having a certain size on the printed page that may be different from that shown on the screen.
With bit-image graphics programs, you might need to do the math. With "Draw" programs that use vector-graphics, there is usually a grid on the screen that indicates the size of an object, including the printed size. In other words, the program works with the printer driver to ensure the final image is the specified size.
Examples of such vector graphics programs are Claris Draw, Adobe Illustrator and the Draw functions of ClarisWorks and AppleWorks.
Fred
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 27 Dec 2005 21:33 GMT > To start, a digital photo itself doesn't have a size, it has pixels. I've seen this often stated, but do not agree. What is the logic?
In the camera, pixels certainly have a size. The sensor coupled to a lens (a camera) has each pixel subtending an angular size. The lens focuses a spot in the field of view covering that angle onto the pixel. For example, a 3 meter spot on a distant mountain can be focused onto a pixel. Thus there are 3 sizes:
1) size on the object being photographed, 2) angular size, and 3) pixel size on the sensor.
In astronomy, the angular size is referred to as plate scale, for example in arc-seconds per pixel. NASA spacecraft images of planets refer to plate scale as meters (or kilometers) per pixel on the planet.
I think where the confusion comes from is the resulting number derived from the pixel has no size as it is just a number in a computer (although one could argue that the electrons in memory occupy space, so even the number has a size in the computer, or a magnetic area on a disk).
Roger
Bart van der Wolf - 29 Dec 2005 00:52 GMT >> To start, a digital photo itself doesn't have a size, it has >> pixels. > > I've seen this often stated, but do not agree. What is the logic? My personal take on it, a pixel only has a physical size when coupled to a tangible medium. A (e.g. EOS-20D) 3504 x 2336 pixel image has no physical size unless coupled to either the sensor array or sensel size (~< sensel pitch), or (magnified) output. Output pixel size can be anything, depending on magnification or interpolation. Original subject size can be anything, depending on magnification factor (focal length and subject distance).
> In the camera, pixels certainly have a size. The sensor coupled > to a lens (a camera) has each pixel subtending an angular size. I prefer referring to sensor elements (or sensels) when talking about a sensor array and it's size. It also is closer to ISO terminology, and tends to avoid a lot of confusion. You are obviously correct in coupling a physical size, or alternatively an angle of subtended vision (sensel Field of View, FoV) which varies by lens (focal length), to a sensel (which has physical medium dimensions).
> Thus there are 3 sizes: > > 1) size on the object being photographed, Not really a sensel characteristic, but more an optical (magnification) parameter, IMO.
> 2) angular size, and Varies with focal length, and since it varies IMO not too useful in general photography. Granted, it's vastly useful in photogrammetry and astronomical photography, because it simplifies subject size calculations.
> 3) pixel size on the sensor. IMHO the only useful metric for resolution and output characteristics, but only approximately derivable from sensel pitch (sensor array dimension divided by no. of sensels).
Bart
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 29 Dec 2005 18:14 GMT >>> To start, a digital photo itself doesn't have a size, it has pixels. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > size can be anything, depending on magnification factor (focal length > and subject distance). Isn't this like saying a map has no scale if there is not a scale bar attached to the map? Even if the map has no scale bar, it still has scale, just missing information. Same with an image: the fact that someone may give you a digital file with no information doesn't mean that the sensor size disappears. It simply means you weren't given all the information. That's like giving the distance between two cities as 36. 36 what? kilometers? Miles? Hours of driving? But that doesn't mean there is no distance between the cities.
>> 3) pixel size on the sensor. > > IMHO the only useful metric for resolution and output characteristics, > but only approximately derivable from sensel pitch (sensor array > dimension divided by no. of sensels). Yeah, I wish the manufacturers would publish the fill factor of the sensor in each camera. But again, this is just missing information and doesn't negate that fact that it exists.
So, the bottom line is, while there are real physical dimensions, measured a number of ways, us consumers usually have some pieces of the information hidden from us.
Roger
Ilya Zakharevich - 31 Dec 2005 11:00 GMT [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> computer (although one could argue that the electrons in memory > occupy space, so even the number has a size in the computer, > or a magnetic area on a disk). Right; and a recently read image has larger size (and weight!) than one not read for a long time - it occuplies space both on disk and in cache.
Best wishes for the new year, Ilya
John A. Stovall - 31 Dec 2005 13:06 GMT >I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of >books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its >advanced mathematics? A 1:1 macro.
************************************* A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However" replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." Stephen Crane
|
|
|