# Is this rather high resolution possible to achieve?

I'm looking to make a sticker with wood texture printed on it for a cable concealer of 1 meter. From my calculations, this requires a digital image with a DPI of 300 and a resolution of (1300x11810)px.

Obviously this file would be rather large, and I haven't been able to find any such images available online. This is why I'm thinking to make my own.

I have a friend with a high end camera at his disposal, and a table from hardwood that I would like as a motif. My question is whether or not what I'm trying to do would be probable, or even possible?

• Sure you could stitch multiple images together or you could scale the images to the higher resolution(at a quality loss) - but do you really need that high of resolution? Is the sticker going to be photo quality or will it be viewed at an extremely close distance? – dpollitt Jan 20 '14 at 21:21
• The sticker has to be realistic, so I was thinking that I should be aiming for photo quality, no? Scaling is out of the question, but stitching multiple images together would be okay I guess, although I would prefer to have the wood grain continuous throughout the image (no visible dividing line) – Kensing Jan 20 '14 at 21:47
• @Kensing - What dividing lines? Panorama softwares namely do stitching so as to eliminate the dividing lines. Check this photo: i.stack.imgur.com/wG7qL.jpg which I made with Microsoft ICE from 38 separate images. I don't say the panorama is perfect, but can you see visible dividing lines? (Original was about 15000px wide.) – Esa Paulasto Jan 21 '14 at 4:47
• It is very unlikely that you need 300 dpi resolution. A Nikon D800 with 36 Mp sensor has a resolution of 7360 x 4912. That would give 187 dpi at 1 metre without interpolation. A 24 Mp Sony A77 with 24 Mp and 6000 x 4000 resolution = 152 dpi or half what you ask for. On something like wood grain with (relatively) "smooth' major trends in the patterns, plus lots of fine detail, it would be worth trying interpolating a smaller resolution image to see what the result looked like. | Interest only: An interesting example playfulstitching.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/dscn3056.jpg – Russell McMahon Jan 21 '14 at 7:58
• @EsaPaulasto your image seems flawless to me, I might look into MS ICE. – Kensing Jan 21 '14 at 9:56

Another possibility is to create a texture, for example with GIMP.

The option is Filter -> Render -> Texture. Start with a rectangular or square image of your wood and select it; ratio should be at least 2 (higher is sometime better), and select "seamless tiling" if you want then stitch together copies of the image. Results are normally better without the seamless tiling option activated).

After a (quite long) time you have your result:

With a more regular pattern than my old redwood patch you can have better results.

• I would very much like to try this out, but I'm having great problems with the plugin.. Any chance you could bundle up your files for me? – Kensing Jan 21 '14 at 14:09
• @Kensig --- if you tell me how, I'll do it :-). The shots are from my Linux Gimp installation, and effectively I do not have this plugin in my Windows GIMP... – Rmano Jan 21 '14 at 15:23
• Thanks, but I went ahead and installed it on a VM instead :) Would upvote if I could. – Kensing Jan 21 '14 at 18:08

You can use MS ICE for stitching together 3 photos, or use a 12k px linescan camera, panning over some wood, or go the computer graphics way. Wood textures are pretty common in 3D modelling software.

• Modelling the texture myself sounds like the next best solution after having my own table as the motif. Can you recommend some software that suits my purposes? – Kensing Jan 20 '14 at 21:50

The easiest way to achieve your goal would be to shoot a panorama and stitch the images.

Any stitching program should have no difficulty assembling the images as there should be plenty of features to use for matching.

For best results I would drag the table outside on a cloudy day and shoot it from an upstairs window with a telephoto lens.

If you have to shoot it indoors be careful of your depth of field, as any variation will ruin the result.