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

"Cryptopix" <cryptopix@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:4206aa5f-998a-4c09-9575-e8a818472777@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 8, 6:52 pm, "Jeff R." <contact...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Doug:
>>
>> (1) Why did you take down your 
>> pagehttp://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm
?
>>
>> (2) Were the two photos you presented on that page taken from the same
>> position?
>>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
>
> What I do with the web sites I develop, own or sell lease out is
> entirely my business, Jeff. Douglasjames.com.au was never going to be
> used for what a free site on flickr would do just as easily without
> wasting my resources. I posted some pictures to it so I could tickle
> up Google and the other search engines when I went live with it.

Of course, Doug.
I would never dispute your right to put up and/or take down pages
-but-
on the page in question you made a particular assertion about two images. 
Does that assertion still stand? (more below)


> I have never concealed the fact I use these groups to increase a
> site's ratings or prime the search engines in advance. It quite a
> legitimate way to get ranking up. The3 more people who link to it, the
> higher it's ranking goes.

OK.
I don't care about search engine rankings, but I would have thought it
would 
be counterproductive to pull the pages down so quickly...

>
> The answer to your 2nd question is NO. I would have thought providing
> full frame replicas of the originals was enough... Not for flock here
> it seems.

Well, no, Doug.

If you look carefully at the images you will see that items in the 
foreground line up with items in the background in *exactly* the same
manner 
and to the same degree in BOTH images. Now this is only possible if they 
were taken from the same location - to within a few inches deviation at 
most.

I did explain all this before, quite clearly I thought.

This is simply an observation made of the two images as posted.  I presume

that as posted they were unaltered by your "merging" software.


> If you'd followed my history in these groups... <snip>

With respect, I'm not really interested in historical feuds.
I'm just concerned with the two images you posted, and the assertion made
on 
the now-gone page.

>
> The thing about this whole load issue Jeff, is that I suggested to
> someone a method I use (and have for a long time) to produce really
> unique, flat field panoramas

BTW, Doug, I have no problem at all with flat-field panoramas (as you call

them).  I can see a number of cir***stances in which they'd work very
well. 
I've already said as such.

I have, however, done a lot of work with single-viewpoint panoramas, often

over twenty exposures each, and sometimes up to 360 deg coverage. I have 
also taken many, many stereo pairs, and have presented them as parallel, 
cross-eyed, anaglyphic and cross-polarised images.  I am quite familiar
with 
the effect of viewpoint on images, and all my experience tells me that the

two images you posted were taken from the same spot.

Is it possible that, when you took the string of "walking-pano" shots,
that 
these two were actually from the same spot, and you didn't notice it? 
Lost 
track of them, so to speak?


> Definitely some of my techniques are radical in the sense they are not
> common knowledge, at the time the sheep discover them.

If you mean stitching panoramas from a changing viewpoint, and with 
considerable depth to the images, then I'd *love* to see a result.

>
> I use less than 15% of each image to create a stepped out panorama.

OK. Fair enough.  I often overlap mine a lot, too.  It gives me much more 
latitude in choosing where to make the seam.  I understand all that.

> Shooting with a 150mm lens doesn't help the similarity in the images
> for those who don't get to see the whole picture.

??  I don't understand that, but please proceed...

> I never said it was
> simple to create a flat field panorama by moving the camera linear
> instead of rotating it.

Nor did I.
I understand the trials and tribulations of stitching panoramas.
It must be a real bugger getting the different perspectives to match -
fancy 
software notwithstanding.

> The joke is... Marles decided to take his toysRus camera out to play
> and "prove" he couldn't do it

No, I believe he was simply demonstrating (from the same spot you had 
chosen) the effect of moving one's location (even slightly) when taking 
adjacent shots.

Doug - I just had another look at your two demo shots.  Look at the RHS of

the red parked car.  You can see *exactly* the same depth and perspective
of 
that flat panel in both shots.  If the viewpoints were indeed different,
by 
as little as a few feet, then that panel would look completely different 
from shot to shot.


> ...ROTFL. Stay tuned for the final chapter.
> Skip all the one s in between because the end result always justifies
> the means!

You bet.
I await with genuine interest and anticipation the op****tunity to see the 
final "walking pano" which uses the two images which you earlier posted.

Please - let's see it!

--
Jeff R.