Panorama software (Which do you use)

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Father McKenzie, Jan 3, 2008.

  1. Father McKenzie

    Rob. Guest


    So thats a 6x9 camera then???
     
    Rob., Jan 4, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Father McKenzie

    Scott W Guest

    It is in fact one of the best stitching programs out there, but D-Mac
    is very unlikely to have every really used all its features, D-Mac
    lives life pretty much clueless.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 4, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Father McKenzie

    Paul Furman Guest

    Robotic tripod that shoots a 360 pano, stitches then chooses a few nice
    compositions based on rule of thirds & repeating rhythms... just set it
    in a pretty location & get out of the way.
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 4, 2008
    #23
  4. Father McKenzie

    Peter Guest

    Nikon's Capture.
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2008
    #24
  5. Father McKenzie

    Peter Guest


    I have used the Arcsoft product. Haven't tried it on my Vista machine. It
    just did it's job without fuss, under WinXP. Although I had to arrange the
    shots to be stitched. they have a free 15 day trial version.

    http://www.arcsoft.com/products/panoramamaker/
     
    Peter, Jan 4, 2008
    #25
  6. Father McKenzie

    D-Mac Guest

    Snipped...
    From my understanding of the word "Photograph", no image taken with a
    digital camera qualifies as one. The general consensus seems to be that
    anything which starts out as a camera image is a "photo". This includes
    panoramas which are created from many (several?) images.

    I have for many years created "wall art". I have always promoted it as such.
    They are derived from images originating from digital cameras. Whenever I
    sell a Panorama photographs originating from my GWS 617, I promote it as a
    photograph.

    The separation between artwork and photograph is becoming more blurred every
    day. If you use Photoshop to alter blend or join images from digital cameras
    is the final result a photograph or artwork?

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 4, 2008
    #26
  7. Father McKenzie

    D-Mac Guest

    Based on those examples.... I'm convinced!! lol

    There's no pleasing some people! First I get a flame for posting links to my
    pictures with ads on the pages. Now you crack up because I didn't post a
    link! LOL!

    Here it is: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/stitched-panos.htm

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 4, 2008
    #27
  8. Father McKenzie

    D-Mac Guest

    rubbish snipped
    Hi Colin.

    It was indeed a 20D image and the one I sent you was most definitely
    'cropped' from the panorama. I've been selling people sections of that
    picture, based on their boat or unit being in it, for several years. The NZ
    owners of the management rights to those units have parts of the picture on
    display in their office and on their business stationary. They frequently
    sell "suitcase" * varieties to visitors.

    It matters not to me if it is correctly described as a picture, artwork, a
    photograph, a montage or a 'piece'. For me it has been one of my most
    profitable images ever. Well and truly paying many times over the cost of
    the camera, lens and manfrotto 'pano head' I bought to take the picture in
    the first place.

    The print I sent you came off my old Sherpa I believe... A printer not known
    for it's sharpness but capable of true photographic output. Sometimes when I
    shell out for Epson inks, I wish I still had it!

    Quick and dirty 3:2 aspect ratio cropping instructions for Photoshop in 3
    easy steps:

    1. Select crop tool.
    2. In the dimension boxes that appear when you do ...define any dimension of
    the aspect ratio you seek. I.E. 6" x 4" or 24" x 36" and the resolution you
    want the print to be.
    3. Drag the crop tool over the area you want to crop and click "OK".
    Like magic, you get a perfect aspect ratio crop!

    * Suitcase variety refers to a stretched canvas print able to be put in the
    bottom of most suit cases.

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 4, 2008
    #28
  9. Father McKenzie

    D-Mac Guest

    GWS 617 Rob.
     
    D-Mac, Jan 4, 2008
    #29
  10. Father McKenzie

    D-Mac Guest

    It is in fact one of the best stitching programs out there, but D-Mac
    is very unlikely to have every really used all its features, D-Mac
    lives life pretty much clueless.

    Scott
    ---------------

    More hate mail from yet another jealous idiot.
    Shit... I'm collecting fans quicker than football cheer squad!

    Come on Scott... Show us a stitch of a wave set done with it. Amateur
    photographer's find PTGUI a compelling program because it automatically
    does what previously needed skilled artists to do... With static scenes.

    When you make panoramas for a living, 40% of the time, programs like this
    still can't produce an image as good as a skilled operator does by hand.
    Being a successful panorama photographer is not about automation. It's about
    creation and automatic programs simply don't cut the mustard when you need
    them most.

    If you actually sold your work, you'd know this but I guess dreaming is
    still your best bet for success, eh Scott.

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 4, 2008
    #30
  11. Father McKenzie

    Scott W Guest

    Whereas I am a big fan of stitched photos get cheaply get extra
    resolution in this case sending Colin a print that was made from more
    then one image stitched together as an example of your interpolation
    programs seems at best misleading.

    Clearly evenone was under the assumtion that the photo you send Colin
    was from one image from a 20D.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 4, 2008
    #31
  12. Father McKenzie

    Colin_D Guest

    Douglas, I hate to have to say this, but I have to revise my opinion of
    that print you sent over.

    You said at the time, and repeated it above, that 'It was indeed a 20D
    image'. i.e. an 8 MP single image from a 20D.

    Now I find that it was half of a 24 x 72 inch print STITCHED FROM 20
    IMAGES! So the half I got was a stitch of more or less 10 images, just
    a tad misleading, don't you think?

    Let's say nine images in a 3x3 matrix (to preserve the 3:2 ratio), so,
    three images high by three images wide makes each image measure, lessee,
    8x12!

    Now, an 8x12 image from a 20D should be absolutely pin-sharp at almost
    300 ppi. By that standard, the print you sent was not very sharp at
    all, in fact it was definitely blurry - as an image from a single frame
    it would have been ok, but as a stitch it was not very good at all.

    I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness
    and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to
    your magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I
    guess you could say that you stitched me up as well.

    To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely
    pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a
    misrepresented print.

    If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.

    In utter disgust,

    Colin D.
     
    Colin_D, Jan 5, 2008
    #32
  13. Father McKenzie

    Pete D Guest

    WOW, are his pants ever on fire, along with the whole chest of drawers by
    the look!!
     
    Pete D, Jan 5, 2008
    #33
  14. Father McKenzie

    D-Mac Guest

    Whereas I am a big fan of stitched photos get cheaply get extra
    resolution in this case sending Colin a print that was made from more
    then one image stitched together as an example of your interpolation
    programs seems at best misleading.

    Clearly evenone was under the assumtion that the photo you send Colin
    was from one image from a 20D.

    Scott
    --------------------
    What a load of cods wallop! Colin is a (retired) professional photographer.
    Give him at least the respect that he isn't an idiot when it comes to
    photography... Particularly seeing as I sent him a RAW file of the original
    image as well. I have no doubt he went over it with a loupe before making
    any comments about it.

    Who died and appointed you to the throne as spokesperson for the world
    anyway?

    You have a shocking history almost as bad as Bret's Douglas' of inventing
    what isn't written out of my posts to suit your attacks on me. And why?
    Because I caught you out cheating with your JPEG Vs RAW forgeries. What's
    the problem? Sore loser or just a nasty bastard?

    Avery got 24 x 36 picture of a pelican which could hardly have been
    stitched. Alan Browne got one (from a 10D) of a vintage car engine. Hardly
    stitching material either. Gordon Moate got an identical print - to prevent
    Alan from posting lies about it. The only qualifier I made was you had to be
    a working Pro and give me a street address.

    You could have had one too but you prefer to stay anonymous and fire barbs
    from under your rock, don't you? In fact in 2004, 2005 and 2006 I offered
    similar size example prints along with the camera original files as
    demonstration of my enlargement routine ...to any working photographer in
    the world who was interested.

    Stupidly I though this would silence the idiots who keep trying to discredit
    me over it, without ever having seen an example themselves... A couple of
    replies up the most vocal and frequently proven wrong village idiot still
    thought he had mileage to gain. Don't become one of the wankers Scott. You
    have too much potential to join a rabid pack of fools in a wasted exercise.

    Images joined together and then enlarged (as this pano was) then a crop
    roughly equalling one frame taken from it, do not constitute a stitched
    image print... As you are insinuating. Even though the panorama was
    stitched, the crop I took from it was as close to exactly one frame as I
    bothered to guesstimate. Sending a camera original file as proof would have
    been a little stupid, don't you think? ASK, ASK, ASK Scott, before shooting
    off your mouth and making an idiot out of yourself.

    Do your sums child. Get a calculator if you run out of fingers. The paper
    which the bottom picture was printed on was 24" wide but the image a mere
    18" high. The page is 6 feet long. Go figure the join points yourself
    instead of behaving like a spoilt brat looking for a bit of revenge.

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 5, 2008
    #34
  15. Father McKenzie

    Paul Guest

    Hugin/Enblend works well for me. For low res VR versions see:
    www.bech.id.au/photos/pano
    (devalvr plugin required, windows only. I will place a link to the
    actual panos in the next day or so.)
     
    Paul, Jan 5, 2008
    #35
  16. Father McKenzie

    Colin_D Guest

    Declaration to all readers of this thread:

    At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the print
    he sent me.

    By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty stitched
    images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he sent me, the
    right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames
    used in the other half?

    Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to be
    trusted.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin_D, Jan 5, 2008
    #36
  17. Father McKenzie

    Scott W Guest

    True, but then we all pretty much knew this when he started making up
    people to support him, like Julian Abbot.

    As seen in this link
    <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/
    thread/4aa0ff0daf3fc9a0>

    And recently we have him posing as women.

    D-Mac does not lie well, but he sure protests well.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 5, 2008
    #37
  18. Father McKenzie

    Annika1980 Guest

    Did you see at the bottom of his linked page where he now claims to
    have a 22MP Mamiya? Can't wait to see some pics from that one! Even
    the kite surfers in the background should be sharp as a tack.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 5, 2008
    #38
  19. Father McKenzie

    Annika1980 Guest

    We can always count on D-Mac for even more creative use of the
    apostrophe. LOL!
    Scott Wilson is hardly anonymous. Or did you get confused again and
    think you were attacking Mark Thomas in this post?
    Can you repost that offer from Google? I don't recall the part about
    the working photographer, but I could be wrong. I'm due.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 5, 2008
    #39
  20. Father McKenzie

    Annika1980 Guest

    And if you actually ever used PTGui you'd know that you can save the
    file as a PSD with the original layers intact so you can work on them
    manually if desired.

    You're such a poser, D-Mac! It is hard to say who is the bigger
    poser, you or Rita. Rita claims to have all this expensive gear, but
    can't post pics of anything other than propane tanks or floating
    shoes, while you claim to be a Master of Photography, Printing, Web
    Design, Linux, Sailing, International Law, and security software (I
    might have missed a few) and you have posted some of the most
    laughably horrible wedding pics the web has ever seen. I guess you
    can now adding Master of Stitching Software to your fantasy resume.

    What I really enjoy is how you always argue for some crappy program or
    piece of equipment. You'll tout an old program like Corel Paint over
    what is commonly considered the best stitching program out there,
    PTGui. Or you'll favor some obscure program or Photoshop plugin and
    claim it can do wonders. And I always get a hearty chuckle when you
    claim that your Crapasonic P&S outperforms a Canon DSLR. Or was it
    the Olympus, or the Fuji this week? Keep shooting with those Sigma
    lenses, dude. You can be WalMart while Rita pretends to be Neiman
    Marcus.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 5, 2008
    #40
    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.