Re: Stepping out a panorama (the method that can't be done!)

".." <non@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:0R9nj.7681$421.6410@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Here we go:
> Atheist puts his foot in his mouth: 
> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm


Douglas, in the two frames you presented, if you look at the pole next to 
the footpath (just beyond and to the right of the dark-reddish hatch)
you'l 
notice that it lines up (*almost* exactly) with the base of the mast on
the 
yacht in the first row of moorings.

In *both* frames.

Now there is considerable distance (range from the camera, that is)
between 
these two objects, yet they line up identically in both frames.

This is a very simple indicator that both frames were taken from the same 
viewpoint. Almost exactly.

I take stereo pairs (as an indulgence) and the two cameras I use are 
separated by (roughly) my interocular distance of about 75mm (3" in 
old-speak).  When I take a similar shot(s) to the one(s) you have
presented, 
objects that are separated by so much depth are noticeably out of register

with each other in the stereo pair.

This is what creates the stereo effect, as I'm sure you know very well.

There is no such change in register in the two frames you presented.

Ergo: they were taken from *exactly* the same viewpoint. To an accuracy of

better than 75mm.  You must take *very* small steps when you go for a
walk.

I confirmed this by merging the two frames (freeform stereo viewing) and 
could not discern any stereo effect whatsoever.

Doug, these two shots were taken from the same place. Precisely.  This 
somewhat invalidates your arguments regarding the "shots-taken-on-a-walk" 
claim.

Would you like some tomato sauce with that boot leather?

Happy Australia Day (holiday), BTW.

--
Jeff R.
(not flaming, just observing)