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

"Cryptopix" <cryptopix@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:90d1e314-8cec-4f1a-ae77-08aadd72c0cf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Don't concede anything Jeff.
> Just consider that I altered each image individually I made no
> mistakes in the ones I chose. I paced my shots as I alway do. I
> provided two images shot at different locations which I altered the
> perspective of using Flo's tools. There are many perspective
> correcting filter around. I could have used any one of them.

Rubbish.
Such filters take the overall pro****tions of an image and simply allow you

to tweak them left and right or up and down independently.  They don't
allow 
you to "slide" different depth layers relative to each others - which you 
would have had to have done in this case.

Are the images you posted unaltered (the two images, not the single
combined 
one)?
If not, why bother posting them?
The demonstration is an exercise in futility.

>
> The keys to comprehension are: "Dozens of images"

No - we're discussing just two images here.
The others are irrelevant.


>...and "Software to fix
> them". It's not my problem if you can't figure out the rest.

Why can't you figure out what I'm telling you?
Look at the pole on the path - look at the mast on the yacht the pole
lines 
up with.
Those two shots were taken from the same spot.


> I take
> larger steps than 1" at a time.

Of course you do.
Its just that in this case you took two shots at one location.  Between 
steps, if you like.


> I'm not about to divulge any
> information on my technique,

Doug, Doug.
There's nothing secret or mysterious about lining up a series of shots so 
they match.
Really!


> only evidence that what I said about
> taking paced out shots to make a panorama is possible and I produced
> the evidence to substantiate my claim.

No you didn't.
You produced two shots taken from the same spot - just as everyone does
with 
panoramas.

Show us two shots taken on a wide baseline and I'll be impressed.
(So long as you successfully merge them, that is)


> Already you made a wrong
> presumption that because an image has a straight line boarder, I
> joined them in a straight line.

What?
I did what?

What has the border - straight line or not - got to do with anything I've 
said?


>  Trying to make a stereo out of them is
> another mistake.

Quite the contrary.
The stereo pair worked *very* well, and demonstrates conclusively that the

two shots were taken on a very narrow baseline.  Interocular distances, or

less (since the illusion of depth is quite shallow.)

How can it be a mistake?
The stereo pair works!
Surely you can see that!

OK.
Your turn.

--
Jeff R.