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]
> On Jan 28, 12:16 pm, "Jeff R." <contact...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Jeff R." <contact...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:479d2ee7$0$26204$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> (update and correction to self:)
>>
>>
>>
>> > I confirmed this by merging the two frames (freeform stereo viewing) 
>> > and
>> > could not discern any stereo effect whatsoever.
>>
>> I hadn't convinced myself thoroughly, as it wasn't easy merging the two
>> frames differently framed shots freeform, so...
>>
>> I made a stereo pair of the two 
>> frames:http://faxmentis.org/html/jpg/walking-pano-stereo.jpg
>> The pair is presented here cross-eyed. Any stereo enthusiast will know 
>> how
>> to view it.
>>
>> (Copyright vested in Doug, fair dealing for academic use, interest &
>> criticism, blah blah)
>>
>> What did I do to your frames?
>>
>> * I laid the two frames over each other;
>> * Adjusted the distortion differences
>>   (since they were taken at different extremes of the lens;
>>   i.e. centre and edge, and therefore exhibited different
>>   symptoms of barrel distortion;
>> * Cropped out the non-common sections; then
>> * Laid them side-by-side for easy stereo viewing.
>>
>> ...and voila!
>>
>> There is indeed some stereo separation, and a stereo effect is 
>> discernable
>> in the pair.
>>
>> - but only *just* -
>>
>> If I had taken a stereo shot with my setup (interocular around 75mm,
>> remember) then the stereo effect would have been considerably more
>> pronounced.
>>
>> So, I put it to you, Doug, that the two frames you posted were taken
from
>> viewpoints roughly 25mm apart.  That's *one* inch.  Small steps indeed.
>>
>> Dammit, Doug - line up the tree in the middle ground with the clouds. 
>> Same
>> viewpoint!
>>
>> I am happy to concede, Doug, that you have made an honest mistake here
-
>> that of the 10 or so shots you took these two happen to have been taken

>> from
>> the same spot, and you simply failed to notice this fact when you got 
>> back
>> to the computer.  No doubt others were indeed separated by some
distance.
>> (But did not make for an easy demonstration of the effect, yes?)
>>
>> I would be much more impressed if you posted two frames which were
>> demonstrably separated by a larger baseline, (say, 10m or more), 
>> contained
>> foreground, midground and background information, and *then* you showed

>> us
>> all the resultant merged partial "panorama", sans distortion or 
>> perspective
>> effects.
>>
>> Can you show us that, Doug?
>>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
>
> 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.
>
> The keys to comprehension are: "Dozens of images" and "Software to fix
> them". It's not my problem if you can't figure out the rest. I take
> larger steps than 1" at a time. I'm not about to divulge any
> information on my technique, 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. Already you made a wrong
> presumption that because an image has a straight line boarder, I
> joined them in a straight line. Trying to make a stereo out of them is
> another mistake.



> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they
have
> a digicam they have a clue!
>
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid
> the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to
> live in the sewer?
>
> Douglas

and yet Douggie, here you are.............
-- 
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?