My "Stepped-out" Panorama

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Annika1980, Jul 14, 2008.

  1. Go on Douggie, post it for me then...............
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Oct 2, 2008
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Jeff R. Guest

    You mean this?
    http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html

    Do your worst, you bloviating windbag liar.

    Oh, and as to wanting to "steal" your non-existent imaginary stepped-out
    pano - why not just plaster a few copyright messages across it? If you ask
    nicely, I'll explain how to do that.
     
    Jeff R., Oct 2, 2008
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest

    (O: It's funny - you went to the trouble of posting an (aborted)
    attempt on a whole new page, but you *won't* post the Manly one...

    Given that there are obviously many folk waiting for a glimpse of the
    final Manly image - Douglas, why would you deprive them of the wisdom
    and knowledge you will impart? Why do you let Jeff get so far up your
    nose? It *looks* like an excuse to get out of your homework.

    Prove us all wrong. Go on, you reckon you did with the Tangalooma one*,
    now finish it off... Post three or more truly 'stepped-out' images from
    that Manly image, and the stitched result. Large enough to show how
    well you dealt with the yachts. And by all means, plaster it with a
    huge copyright message and save as a low-res jpeg - otherwise of course
    we might reverse engineer it and learn your secrets...


    * ..actually, on reading this thread:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/935da59cde7a455
    it looks like you *didn't* convince all that many folk. It seems you
    can't even fool idiots. In fact, you didn't mange to get a *single*
    person to compliment you on your 'linear'-panorama-that-wasn't. Not one.
    Re-read that thread, Doug, and feel free to point out all your
    supporters. It's good for the soul to acknowledge you have much to learn...
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 2, 2008
    #83
  4. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    I'm surprised you are still breathing free air, Jeff.
    Why hasn't Douggie's crack(head) legal team descended upon you by now?
     
    Annika1980, Oct 2, 2008
    #84
  5. Annika1980

    Jeff R. Guest

    Ohhh... they give me 30 mins a week on teh interweb in lieu of cigarettes -
    conditional on good behaviour, of course.

    (Actually I have been preoccupied for the past few weeks - its good to see
    Douggie's still barking mad.)
     
    Jeff R., Oct 2, 2008
    #85
  6. Annika1980

    Guest Guest

    |>
    |> I one saw a guy do the stepped out panorama. HE shot professionally
    |> for an architect. He used a chalk line set parallel to the building.
    |> He took his shots with the 35mm camera with a 24mm lens, rotated to
    |> portrait. He did a lot of cropping ?and only used the middle 1/3 of
    |> the vertical and the middle 2/3 horizonal (or less)of the images to
    |> stitch together. IIRC, he took his shots every 10 feet. I recall
    |> seeing prints in a show. All his lines were straight and square.
    |
    | I'd like to know how he aligned the lines when he did his stitching.
    | I still can't figure out how to do one like I tried and get the
    | shingles on the roof to look right.

    Try this software product (99 Euro): http://www.autopano.net/
    Available for Windows, Mac, and Linux
     
    Guest, Oct 3, 2008
    #86
  7. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest


    I very much doubt that would help.

    Phil, if you take a look at the partially stitched image here:
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
    (hope you don't mind, Bret!) you'll see the shingle problem that Bret
    has - and it is inevitable I think, given the nature of linear pano's
    and the fact that it is a sloping roof and therefore perspective comes
    into operation.

    As soon as the scene has elements that are a different distance from the
    camera, things get awkward *if not impossible* due to
    perspective/parallax effects. And unless the problem is 'simple', the
    solution may be a lot of hard work in post-proc - or there may be no
    viable solution at all. Bret's problem looks simple.. but isn't.

    As we have pointed out many times to the originator (D-Mac) of the
    insane idea of using 'stepped out' (linear) panoramas for every day
    scenes...
    *******
    Linear panoramas are really only suited to flat, 2D scenes, like
    graffiti murals or the flat frontages of city facades/beachhouses.
    *******
    Bret's scene *nearly* meets the requirements. /O:

    D-Mac himself posted a perfect example of the type of scene that is
    completely UNsuitable as a linear panorama, but he rapidly pulled the
    page from view after it was noted that his alleged 'source' images were
    *not* taken from different points (and he was also abusing someone
    mistakenly). He has also been unable to show the 'completed' image...
    The original page is reposted with comments here (much to Doug's annoyance):
    http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html

    Getting back to Bret's case, the changing angle of the shingles is not
    going to be solvable by any automatic software I am aware of - but his
    PS work doesn't look *too* bad so far... (O: By carefully using
    transforms you could probably overcome the effect but only at a huge
    cost in time, I'm guessing.

    Bret - have you gone any further with this image? Would you be willing
    to post two of the source images (quarter size would probably be
    plenty..) to play with?
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 3, 2008
    #87
  8. Annika1980

    Alien Jones Guest

    The part you don't understand fool is that unlike you, I don't need
    "supporters". Anyway, the hard time you give anyone who posts a positive
    comment about my work is why they don't publicly show it.

    How's it fell to know your pathetic attacks on me have resulted in a few
    dozen (most of aus.photo) readers going to moderated groups? Talk about
    destroying what you should be enjoying.

    Last time I posted photos of mine that are still selling, you stole them
    and went about making a total idiot out of yourself with an "in depth"
    (ROTFL) discussion with Tony Polson about how out of focus one ofthe
    shots was.

    What a total loser you proved yourself to be when I posted a crop of the
    original demonstrating it was as sharp as you could get.

    The likelyhood a fuching idiot like you or that usless ferel Jeff Rolph
    (ROTFL) is ever going to get a look at a commercial image of mine
    without paying the $380 I get for them is non-existant.

    Keep living in your dream world where you were once a great wedding
    photographer (serious, are you?) and (wrongly) believe you are so smart
    that if you can't do it, nobody can... In your mental state it would be
    kinder to pity you instead of scorn you. What a pathetic idiot you
    really are.
     
    Alien Jones, Oct 3, 2008
    #88
  9. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I'll translate for Douglas "St James" MacDonald:

    1. I, Douglas "St James" MacDonald (aka Alien Jones and D-Mac amongst
    many others), posted a page about linear panoramas that was full of
    uneducated bullshit, outright lies and attacks on an innocent person.

    2. I, D-Mac, pulled it (being a snivelling lowlife coward) when the
    falsehoods and bad advice was pointed out. I'm really annoyed that Jeff
    R has reposted it here:
    http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
    because I now am trapped by my own words.

    3. I can't post the result, because I have subsequently realised that
    you cannot use linear panorama methodology on such a scene, and all
    those who told me this, inc. Mark Thomas, Jeff R and many others were right.

    4. My posts (note the spelling and grammatical errors) indicate my
    mental state is rapidly deteriorating and everyone should feel sorry for me.

    Just as well, really.

    That's quite funny. You keep believing that, and we'll keep laughing.

    So, when are you going to post the Manly panorama and prove everyone wrong?
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 3, 2008
    #89
  10. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest

    For the record, here's what Douglas wrote on his now pulled page
    (reposted here:
    http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
    Douglas continually attacks 'Atheist' (Atheist Chaplain, a poster on
    aus.photo), yet AC had said absolutely nothing about panoramas. Douglas
    has refused to acknowledge his error and apologise (like a *man* would).
    Firstly, the two shots he displayed were very obviously taken from the
    same point, so they were in no way part of any 'stepped out' series of
    shots. LIE.
    You'll note he says dozens of images. This changed later.
    'those poking fun at him' pointed out, correctly, that such a scene was
    completely unsuitable for a 'stepped out' (linear) panorama and that
    parallax and perspective problems would make it impossible to stitch.
    Linear panoramas are not suitable for 'normal' panoramas of 3D scenes
    (ie anything with depth). BAD ADVICE.
    But the example *doesn't* show stepped out images, and doesn't show any
    sort of linear panorama result. LIE.
    So here he says it is 10 or 11 images.
    ??? But suddenly it is 5 or 6. Your words, Douglas.
    The path does have a rise in it.. but Douglas didn't move, so this is a
    pile of steaming horseshit. The two pictures were demonstrably taken
    from exactly the same point - note the alignment of foreground versus
    background objects. He just tilted and re-angled the camera!!! LIE.
    PTGUI is a very powerful panorama system and can apply extensive
    distortion and perspective corrections. But it can't be used to make a
    useful linear panorama from *truly* stepped out images of this scene
    (such images are available on request), nor can any program I am aware of.
    50mm on a FZ50 equates to over 200mm in 35mm terms. If Doug means 50mm
    equivalent, then his wording here makes no sense whatsoever. WRONG.
    Again, this makes no sense. He's saying he stepped out the panorama
    horizontally, yet the image isn't going to be wide??? NONSENSE.
    Stitching two images taken from the same point? More NONSENSE.
    As above. And if Doug claims he can truly stitch several 'stepped out'
    images of this scene, why didn't he:
    a. post *truly* stepped out images.
    b. post the result.
    I imagine it would. My puny PC has just 2Gb - 400x more than Doug's,
    and it just gets by. OOOPS.
    Hmm. The statements above all seem to clearly show who has what skill
    level.
    Douglas has been given many months to show those who criticised this
    page how they were wrong, and he has failed to do so in any way. It
    would of course be easy for him to post the resulting image.. if it
    existed. But it doesn't because he can't do it, and that is very
    embarrassing for him - he must stick to his mantra that we don't deserve
    to see it, or must pay the money.

    Waiting.... Perhaps you should get your happy client to post here, Douglas?
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 3, 2008
    #90
  11. Annika1980

    Jeff R. Guest


    Nice summary, Mark.

    I'm not sure if Doug is so delusional that he actually *believes* what he
    writes, or if he is wilfully propagating lies.

    The foolish assertions he has made ("50mm = wide angle"; "5Mb RAM = powerful
    PC" etc. etc) seem to suggest that he is just delusional - or *incredibly*
    stupid - and it is tricky to pick which is the case.

    But - as you and I have said repeatedly - this whole issue could be put to
    bed forever if Doug were simply to post (reduced in size and covered in
    watermarks) the oft-mentioned impossible Manly panorama.

    If Doug is just trolling, then it's not working very well either. A good
    troll never returns to defend the indefensible. Doug tries, but fails
    abysmally.

    Go on Doug.

    Do the Manly thing.

    Prove us wrong in one fell swoop.

    ....but you *can't*, can you.
     
    Jeff R., Oct 3, 2008
    #91
  12. Annika1980

    Guest Guest

    | Phil, if you take a look at the partially stitched image here:
    | http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
    | (hope you don't mind, Bret!) you'll see the shingle problem that Bret
    | has - and it is inevitable I think, given the nature of linear pano's
    | and the fact that it is a sloping roof and therefore perspective comes
    | into operation.

    That's why you have to take a LOT more shots, starting at the edge of the
    building, not beyond it where you can see the side. A step pano is the
    equivalent of a very distant extreme telephoto (theoretically infinite).


    | As soon as the scene has elements that are a different distance from the
    | camera, things get awkward *if not impossible* due to
    | perspective/parallax effects. And unless the problem is 'simple', the
    | solution may be a lot of hard work in post-proc - or there may be no
    | viable solution at all. Bret's problem looks simple.. but isn't.

    You have to start by correcting that perspective to convert it to extreme
    telephoto perspective.


    | As we have pointed out many times to the originator (D-Mac) of the
    | insane idea of using 'stepped out' (linear) panoramas for every day
    | scenes...
    | *******
    | Linear panoramas are really only suited to flat, 2D scenes, like
    | graffiti murals or the flat frontages of city facades/beachhouses.
    | *******
    | Bret's scene *nearly* meets the requirements. /O:

    You have to convert your scene to flat. If you didn't have a roofline, you
    would just be stitching it together (except for the pillars over on the right
    side which would actually be harder to do than the roof).

    If you had telephotos, you could step BACK and make some template shots to
    see where everything needs to be moved to.

    FYI, step panos are easier to work with the further back they are taken.
    I have done a couple of these using prints from negative film, which means
    I had no opportunity to correct distortions or adjust light levels. It was
    just a mechanical (and obvious) stitching of prints.


    | D-Mac himself posted a perfect example of the type of scene that is
    | completely UNsuitable as a linear panorama, but he rapidly pulled the
    | page from view after it was noted that his alleged 'source' images were
    | *not* taken from different points (and he was also abusing someone
    | mistakenly). He has also been unable to show the 'completed' image...
    | The original page is reposted with comments here (much to Doug's annoyance):
    | http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
    |
    | Getting back to Bret's case, the changing angle of the shingles is not
    | going to be solvable by any automatic software I am aware of - but his
    | PS work doesn't look *too* bad so far... (O: By carefully using
    | transforms you could probably overcome the effect but only at a huge
    | cost in time, I'm guessing.

    No, it won't be very automatic, unless software gets smart enough to know
    those roof lines do go back. Under the assumption the lines _are_ straight,
    they can be straightened out in the form of a tele view. I think Autopano
    has the means to do that manually in geometric editing. I have not obtained
    that software, yet, so I haven't tested it out. I did look at the manual and
    it looks good enough for me so I do plan to get it.

    Here's another bad one that is harder to do:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Brygge_Norway_2005-08-18.jpg

    I'm looking to take trip over there, maybe next summer. Then I will try to
    set up a better shoot of this scene with accurately aligned shots with 1 meter
    or shorter steps (which means on the order of 150 shots or more ... and double
    or quadruple that to be sure you have enough to take all the pedestrians out of
    the scene).

    You can see the scene from the sky:

    http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=60.397151,5.322908&spn=0.001995,0.004206&t=k&z=18
     
    Guest, Oct 4, 2008
    #92
  13. Annika1980

    LLLawton Guest

    In instances such as this you don't want to apply perspective correction to the
    whole image. Just those parts where the receding and advancing lines are
    con/divergent. (Roof lines, sidewalk region, etc., those horizontal bands above
    and below the wall.) If you have a flat face-on wall as part of the image just
    mask that out and only apply perspective correction to the 3D-ish elements and
    regions of the photo. Afterward stitching them all together is a simple matter
    using any conventional pano software. Yes, each individual image is going to
    look strangely distorted during this pre-process, but that is not your goal,
    they are going to become parts of the whole. As you say, the overall image is
    going to have to be made up of parts as if taken from a long-long distance away,
    where all minor localized perspective is squashed flat.

    I don't know why the OP and previous responders are trying to make this so
    difficult. Perhaps they are enjoying the inane banter for months. Whereas I just
    see them revealing their stupidity. But as you have seen, the majority in this
    newsgroup aren't too bright. Most of them, I doubt, have even held a camera.
    They're just here for the amusement and seeing if they can pull-off sounding
    like a photographer. Or are just learning how to use their editing software.


    Speaking of perspective correction issues ... here's something that I don't
    understand and will never understand nor accept. Those that apply 100%
    perspective correction to a tall building to the extent that they make the sides
    perfectly parallel to the top, squashing the building's stories the higher it
    goes, wholly unnaturally distorting the subject in the other direction. This is
    one of those cases of: just because you can do it and all others have always
    done it that way doesn't mean that you should do it. Your eye's lens doesn't
    shift in your eye-ball to similarly distort the perspective when you view a tall
    building in real-life. No, there will always be some NATURAL perspective (NOT
    distortion, nothing to correct) in your real view. I always find those images
    where they parallel the building's sides to look just as unnaturally distorted
    as the original keystoned and barreled image taken with the WA lens. Some of the
    original perspective should be left in those buildings. Then they look right,
    they look natural, they look the way the eye and mind's-eye has seen them, the
    way that others will see them in real-life. People just do what they've seen all
    others do before them. Never for once thinking that all that they are really
    doing is perpetuating someone else's original error from a century ago. People
    have such a difficult time thinking for themselves. "There are none so lost as
    those who follow." (think about it :) )
     
    LLLawton, Oct 4, 2008
    #93
  14. Annika1980

    LLLawton Guest

    To clarify and simply for the OP and all other's who just don't get it and may
    never get it ...

    You are going to have to treat the horizontal regions above and below the flat
    wall separately using a unique perspective correction on each band. The
    sidewalk/street is flat to the ground and the roof is tilted toward you (not
    flat to the ground). Both having their own unique angles to deal with. First
    apply perspective correction to the sidewalk/street region below the building to
    make those divergent (advancing) lines parallel. Then similarly apply another
    less-drastic perspective correction to the roof's shingles until the shingle's
    convergent (receding) lines are parallel to themselves. (Or vice-versa.)

    Stitch and be done.

    Why are they making this all seem so difficult? I'll never know. Idiots are like
    that, yes they are.
     
    LLLawton, Oct 4, 2008
    #94
  15. Hi Douggie :)
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Oct 4, 2008
    #95
  16. Annika1980

    LLLawton Guest

    Oh look, everyone! Atheist Chaplain reveals and proves that he's just another
    resident-troll idiot!

    How very rare to find yet another one of those on these newsgroups. (can you
    spell "sarcasm" and "irony"?)
     
    LLLawton, Oct 4, 2008
    #96
  17. Annika1980

    Jeff R. Guest

    Hi Doug.
     
    Jeff R., Oct 4, 2008
    #97
  18. OH look, its the resident troll and sock puppeteer, trying in vain to divert
    attention away from the simple and topically ironic fact that he has again
    had to delve into the fresh sock draw so he can ridicule and abuse people
    again on Usenet :)
    Can someone come over here and help please, I have a huge steaming pile of
    scrap irony that just landed in my front yard!!
    (can you comprehend "Sarcasm" and "Irony" ??)
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Oct 4, 2008
    #98
  19. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    The human eye has a dish shaped sensor and the brain rarely lets you
    notice 'perspective distortion'.

    Photoshop's free transform corrects the spacing when faking keystone but
    then it's squashed looking and technically wrong... which is not always
    a problem, but yeah you can't take it too far.
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 4, 2008
    #99
  20. Annika1980

    jimkramer Guest

    The part of the eye that is responsible for most of what you perceive as
    color vision is fairly flat. The brain is continually integrating the
    inputs from the eye and generating a mosaic. Your brain makes some very
    basic assumptions based on instinct and learning about how to interpret that
    mosaic; fitting the pieces together and inserting any "missing' pieces.
    Welcome to the lie that is the world we see.

    -Jim
     
    jimkramer, Oct 4, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.