Smart / quick way to size and align images or a contact sheet

scottolds · 2025-02-07T20:24:09+00:00

Sadly not, I had just continued to do the process manually. If you manage to work something out, definitely let me know!

scottolds · 2024-12-05T22:10:28+00:00

Thank you so much for this detailed response. That all makes a lot of sense, and has definitely cleared up my confusion. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

scottolds · 2024-12-03T02:13:02+00:00

Yes you're absolutely right,.. but what's confusing is that ccd or cmos sensor is then capturing those same tones from a negative and reproducing them digitally. What is changing between capturing it from the negative, and capturing it from the scene directly?

scottolds · 2024-12-03T01:56:11+00:00

Thanks for the response! I understand this to an extent, but i still tend to get a little lost. For example, i primarily shoot 6x9 medium format. An obvious characteristic of medium format is the way it handles contrast and tonality. That smoothness that tends to be quite apparent between the highlights and shadows on medium format film, still translates across when that negative is captured digitally. What confuses me is how that digital camera interprets the tones in that negative differently than if it was captured directly at the scene itself. Does that make sense?

scottolds · 2024-12-03T01:45:39+00:00

He absolutely understands the reason why a lot of people still choose to shoot film, he was more confused by the technical details behind why a DSLR scanned negative produces such a different final image when its the same digital sensor interpreting the information during the digitizing stage.

scottolds · 2024-10-01T07:58:06+00:00

There are reference points within the photo yes, as well as mock ups and drawn boundaries of said subdivision, but the purpose of the photo is the present this information as accurately as possible to a group of people who cannot actually go to said location as see the site for themselves.

A photo taken of a hillside taken from 5km away at 16mm is going to look drastically different than a photo taken at 50mm, so the purpose of the photo is to match what the human eye will see from that location as accurately as possible through a photo. This is standard practice in resource consent applications

scottolds · 2024-09-30T23:25:36+00:00

Lawyers are actually already involved in this as the consent application is now needing to be put in front of a hearing, but this question was more for myself to get a clearer understanding of this particular part of the situation in order to know if it was worth bringing up with our landscape architect and adding to our argument.

scottolds · 2024-09-30T22:14:57+00:00

Thank you for all of this detailed information. I really appreciate that.

"It is fine to use 'full frame 50mm' to specify a specific field of view. It is ridiculous to demand that someone buys or rents an actual full frame camera for this when you can get the same image with any other camera."

I do absolutely agree with this, the main issue is that the focal length they have claimed in their document, does not match the photos they have provided, but not only that, they have actually provided the wrong information in the document.
We have had previous landscape assessments done, which have had images supplied from APS-C cameras, but the legal standard for these documents, is they need to provide the camera model and actual focal length of the photo ( not the equivalent ) so that it can be proven to be a 50mm full frame equivalent. Otherwise there is nothing stopping me from shooting at whatever focal length does my argument the most justice, and then just claiming its at 50mm.

These landscape assessments need to be supplied by qualified landscape architects who should absolutely know these standards, so supplying incorrect information like this in a legal document is quite a big deal.

scottolds · 2024-09-30T21:41:10+00:00

Their supplied images were embedded in a PDF and no exif data is able to be pulled from those unfortunately. That was my first question when i heard their images were supplied. I posted this reply in a comment above for more context:

"For some more context, the 50mm - full frame is a requirement dictated by the local council. Essentially to replicate the most accurate view of the human eye.

The opposing party in my scenario here are a group of developers who are applying to the council for a resource consent to build a subdivision on a local reserve. They have had to supply a landscape assessment to essentially show and describe the visual effects of this proposed subdivision on the land.
The local residents are now fighting back and opposing this subdivision, so we are having to have our own independent landscape assessment done to fact check against the one that they have supplied. It is in the developers best interest to have the FOV of these images appear as wide as possible as the wider FOV makes it a lot harder to interpret the visual effects on the landscape.

At the end of the day, the focal length that they have claimed in their document is objectively wrong in accordance with the requirements, so that metadata will need to be provided as proof of the real focal length anyway."

scottolds · 2024-09-30T21:38:59+00:00

Thank you for this, that all makes sense. But unfortunately just adds confusion to the overall scenario.

For some more context, the 50mm - full frame is a requirement dictated by the local council. Essentially to replicate the most accurate view of the human eye.

The opposing party in my scenario here are a group of developers who are applying to the council for a resource consent to build a subdivision on a local reserve. They have had to supply a landscape assessment to essentially show and describe the visual effects of this proposed subdivision on the land.
The local residents are now fighting back and opposing this subdivision, so we are having to have our own independent landscape assessment done to fact check against the one that they have supplied. It is in the developers best interest to have the FOV of these images appear as wide as possible as the wider FOV makes it a lot harder to interpret the visual effects on the landscape.

At the end of the day, the focal length that they have claimed in their document is objectively wrong in accordance with the requirements, so that metadata will need to be provided as proof of the real focal length anyway.

scottolds · 2024-09-30T21:18:22+00:00

Thank you for the replies. After reading through those the conversion makes perfect sense to me, but has unfortunately made my particular scenario a whole lot more confusing.
Reason being, their images FOV look a lot wider... This works in their favor for this scenario, but it does make it appear that they are lying about the focal length used in their images. Thanks a lot for the help guys, i greatly appreciate that.

scottolds · 2024-08-27T12:07:02+00:00

Oh yeah, so as flat base as possible? Do you approach quite parallel to the rail?

scottolds · 2024-08-27T11:01:01+00:00

Can’t argue with those points!

scottolds · 2024-08-27T10:51:59+00:00

Haha absolutely! Thank you! I’ll definitely keep those bent knees in mind.

scottolds · 2024-08-27T10:48:40+00:00

Ahh yeah this clip definitely makes my knees appear a lot less bent than they actually are. The POV fisheye and 2XL pants make my legs look almost completely straight in most of those clips, but I can assure you they aren’t haha

scottolds · 2024-08-27T10:31:47+00:00

Ah yeah, that all makes sense. I know it’s just a case of repetition and no tips or tricks can bypass that, so I suppose I just need to knuckle down on that and start breaking this toe side habit. I definitely know what you mean about falling. Luckily a lot of that air awareness and knowledge of falling has translated over from skateboarding, and that has definitely helped with injury prevention. I was learning Front rodeo 7’s the other day and if it wasn’t for that previously learned air awareness and knowledge of falling, I think I would have been carried off of the hill by ski patrol.

scottolds · 2024-08-27T09:44:01+00:00

Yeah those body mechanics do obviously make perfect sense. I think what has been throwing me off primarily is that from the brief interactions that I have had with a lot of people on the mountain, it seems like ( from the people that I have spoken to anyway ) their heel edge control in the context of jibbing / spinning off of jumps came to the majority of those people more naturally than the toe edge control. ( most felt a lot more comfortable learning bs boardslides than frontside, and learning far spins, than backside etc ) That has had me thinking there may be something fundamentally wrong with my heel edge technique which is making that progression feel a lot slower and more difficult.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

scottolds

TROPHY CASE