Discussion about the now-retired Photosynth Apps for Windows Phone and iOS.
Hi, first of all thank you very much for this nice App.
I know that the stitched images can be seen in the camera roll (but only in low resolution): Is there any chance to export/save the stitched image in highresolution (either from the iPhone or from the photosynth.net account)?
Thank you and best regards.
Megamaus, what resolution is the stitched image in the camera roll?
I honestly wouldn't expect the stitched panorama made with an iPhone to be very high res, as each frame will have been a maximum of 5 megapixels, even on the iPhone 4 and the majority of each captured frame will share much of its content with neighboring frames.
With the added use of the video mode and the backwards compatibility with the iPhone 3GS, I'm not even sure each captured frame is even 5 megapixels, so with all that in mind, the final stitched image may not be terribly large.
Nathanael, thank you for your answer.
Normal photos taken with my iPhone4 are around 1,7 to 1,9MB big (resolution 1936x2592 pixel). Stitched images (3 or 4 frames were stitched) are only around 300kB big (resolution: 544x1301 pixel). More frames (around 15) are around 1,8MB big (resolution: 1474x4096). Even if each frame shares content with neighboring frames I would expect a higher resolution.
Thanks for your help and best regards.
That said, I am not a member of the Photosynth team, so you could always hold out for an answer from them.
I would also love to get and answer to this.
For example, for one of my Photosynths, the 360 degree panorama when uploaded to this site shows a size of 3.45 megapixels, but the flat .jpg image is only 314Kb. It would be GREAT if I could get the full resolution image in flat .jpg form.
I was actually taking some panorama shots for my girlfriend to use for her Master's thesis, but they wouldn't look so hot printed out at only 314Kb -- it wouldn't even be worth it.
I apologise for taking this conversation off track for a moment, but I have been seeing quite a bit of confusion being published recently about megapixels and megabytes being the same thing. They are not.
Megapixels describes how many million pixels are in an image.
Megabytes/kilobytes etc. refer to how much hard drive space a file will take up.
Think of it this way:
Megapixels is like describing the area of a floor to be tiled.
(This measurement is the same, no matter what the tiles are made of.)
Megabytes is like describing how much all the tiles for that area weighs.
(This measurement can be completely different based on what the tiles are made of, even if the area remains the same.)
If we were not taking image compression into consideration, it would be logical to assume that more megapixels always equates to more megabytes, but with JPEG compression being used (and it is, for almost all photography on the internet), this may not always be the case.
Even if we were dealing with uncompressed images, it would be a mistake to think that the number of pixels in an image equated to the number of bytes used to store that image's information because typical color photography contains three different color channels for each pixel: a red value, a green value, and a blue value, meaning that the filesize will grow faster than the number of pixels (although with uncompressed images, the rate of increase for area and weight would at least be constant as they increase).
Basically, this is a long way of saying that even though I'm not claiming that your 314 kilobyte flat JPEG version of the panorama is great, it may not be as bad as you think.
I'm not sure what resolutions you guys are expecting, but as I said above, I believe that the app is capturing shots at a lower resolution than normal shots in order to perform the tracking of the viewfinder against the shots which have been captured thus far.
Here are a few quick examples of the sort of resolution that the Photosynth app exports to your camera roll from Flickr users who have pro accounts (free Flickr accounts always shrink your photos to a maximum of 1024 pixels in the longest direction):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alin-moni/5784543331/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (2014 x 1127)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58647233@N07/5719659875/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (2655 x 865)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4388981287_1e5b263eb1_o.jpg (4474 x 850)
Natelawrence, those are quite low resolution at 4 megapixels or less--- the original data would have included tens of megapixels or more (perhaps much more) -- even ONE original iPhone 4 photo is 5 megapixels.
Perhaps your explanation is correct, or perhaps it is a matter of keeping processing time reasonable. If you are right, a synth of tens of images might still contain many pixels, but none of mine seem to.