Stepped out pano

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Dudley Hanks, Jan 5, 2009.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    I understand the issue between Douglas and a few other posters is whether or
    not a certain pano image was (or can be) produced by progressively moving
    along a route and taking handheld shots of a subject which are later
    stitched together.

    Not having done any pano's myself, I am wondering if this is because the
    linear, handheld process is considered entirely impossible, or whether the
    debate is limited simply to this one image.

    Since pano's are something I'm interested in tackling, and I've thought
    about trying both approaches, I'm wondering if the linear progression is
    difficult but possible, or entirely a waste of time. I take it there isn't
    much debate around doing a pano from images taken from one spot where the
    camera is just rotated around a central pivot point.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 5, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    A stepped-out pano could work if all the subjects lie only on one plane
    (a bit like scanning a map in different sections on a flat-bed scanner).

    The problems start when different planes are involved: Then the relative
    perspectives between them change and you end up getting the notorious
    trees in the middle of the walkway...
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Jan 5, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Jeff R. Guest

    The latter.
    As Rol Lei Nut correctly observed, a linear ('stepped-out") panorama is
    perfectly feasible (ideal, actually) if the subject matter occupies one
    vertical plane; such as a wall of paintings in an art gallery, or the fascia
    of a long row of terrace houses (and so on) which remains at a constant
    distance from the camera.

    The complications arise if your subject contains its own internal
    perspective; that is objects at varying distances to the camera, and an
    identifiable vanishing point (or two). It's easy to see how only one plane
    could be made to line up, and the others would have to be distorted beyond
    recognition to match up. Also, there would be "wedges" of subject matter
    (close to the camera) which would not be captured and would need to be
    "inferred" (aka "made up").

    The debate with Doug centres around his insistence that he can indeed
    produce a linear pano from the images he posted of a waterfront scene (which
    shows considerable depth). He posted two "constituent" images, which he
    said were stepped out, and a frame showing those images merged into a very
    simple partial pano. He then claimed that he could produce a nine(?) panel
    linear pano of the whole scene.

    Catch is:

    1) He can't.
    and
    2) The images weren't stepped-out anyway. They were taken from the same
    spot. (Easy to show)

    My argument with him is simply that he lied about the images, and that he
    cannot actually produce a credible pano in the manner he suggested.

    There are many many hilarious episodes in this debate as Doug digs himself
    deeper and deeper into deception, but you can Google them.

    (Or re-read http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html )
    No no!
    If the subject matter is very long (many images) and exists only in one
    plane, which remains at a constant distance to the camera, then linear is
    the way to go.

    Certainly not. We've all done them. There is some debate about "rotation
    around the nodal point" and other fussy topics, but -heck- my Canon P&S has
    a "pano" mode which helps by superimposing the last image over the live
    scene, to make alignment and overlapping a piece of cake. If I use that,
    and then use the add-on in PS to automatically merge them, then panos are
    simply routine.

    ....and you don't even need a powerhouse 5Meg PC (joke - sorry).

    Panos are a lot of fun to produce, but present some difficulty in
    displaying. My Epson R800 does a great job of printing on roll paper, but
    the task is tedious and the result requires a custom frame.

    But, heck, they look good.
    and you
     
    Jeff R., Jan 5, 2009
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    Though a multiple-plane linear panorama would work if one could manage
    to limit the overlap zones to only one plane each.

    Could make a nice project and planning excercize... ;-)
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Jan 5, 2009
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Jeff R. Guest

    Would take a heckuva lot of images overlapping a lot - to avoid the "missing
    wedge" in the forground between images.

    Unless, of course, the planes in question were all some distance from the
    camera.
    ....and neatly delineated from the adjacent planes, so thay could be
    stretched and warped independently.

    I can't think of a real-life example that would meet these requirements...

    Maybe a set of parallel fences or walls?

    Can you think of a worthwhile subject for this?
     
    Jeff R., Jan 5, 2009
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote,on my timestamp of 5/01/2009 5:49 PM:
    Duddles, skip all this garbage discussion about stepped panos, get yourself a
    panoramic camera and spare yourself a lot of trouble.
    It never ceases to amaze me how these boofheads can continue to discuss the
    nitty-gritty details of a lengthy manual process that can be simply achieved
    with simple equipment, in one go.

    Then again if all you want is to kill some time, knock yourself out!
    ;)
     
    Noons, Jan 5, 2009
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Pete D Guest

    A nice long graffiti wall would probably be a good subject for this. And I
    know just the place, seeya.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Jan 5, 2009
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Jeff R. Guest

    Hey!
    Great idea, Noonsie-poo.
    ....and rather than struggling with the station wagon, I should buy a truck.

    Seriously though...
    Stitching multi image panos gives results no special purpose pano camera can
    match.
    ....and it's fun putting them together.

    ....and hang on... you're not suggesting we go back to using that icky
    "film" stuff are you?
    ....or does someone make a digital "Horizon"-style rotating-lens pano camera.
    (Don't bother with the Seitz. I'm not nearly fashionable enough to own one
    of them.)
    What on earth are we here for if not for that?
     
    Jeff R., Jan 5, 2009
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Jeff R. Guest

    No no...
    That's just one plane.
    RLN was suggesting more than one plane of interest.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 5, 2009
    #9
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Jeff R. Guest

    Jeff R., Jan 5, 2009
    #10
  11. Dudley Hanks

    D-Mac Guest

    I don't know if your blindness is the reason or if you follow only part of a
    thread but here is such a panorama with the images it was created from which
    I posted in another group.
    http://www.d-mac.info/examples/4theidiots.htm

    Despite what the idiot who said he'd just move the illegally altered images
    of mine to another site if I had his current one taken down ...is trying to
    tell you...
    The reason I won't post the finished picture has nothing to do with his
    gouging.

    After previous experiences between me and a regular of this group, I elected
    never to post commercially valuable or saleable images on the net again. I
    most certainly won't post the full panorama I made which included the images
    he stole from me while it is still selling at the rate of 4 or 5 a year.

    Take my word for it Dudley. The process is at least 20 years old. It is time
    consuming to construct one and like the well respected US, Fine Art
    photographer: Gordon Moat said when he saw some of my work in 2004...

    "I originally did not want to believe that Douglas MacDonald could get
    anything other than a mess with his large prints. While I agree with him
    that his lenses were a limit, his samples show the potential of digital
    prints, though only in controlled post processing and printing conditions.
    His results are not easy for just anyone to repeat. Skill, experience, and
    very good equipment allow higher limits"

    Very clearly Gordon recognized I had some skill at image manipulation (and
    digital enlargements) that few mainstream photographers in the US actually
    have. The notion that a jerk from the back blocks of dole bludger haven has
    any is stretching the limits of anyone's imagination.

    Gordon also said something relevant to the issue here:
    "realize that no individual is the last word in technology, and all
    individuals are likely to maintain some preconceived notions of limits. If
    all I do is make you investigate more, or attempt to push past what you
    thought were limits, then this article will have been a success".

    Jeff Ralph would have you believe he has the last word in panorama
    technology. You are free to believe whatever you wish Dudley. It's a pity
    you don't live in my country. I could direct you to a gallery where you
    could see several examples of my linear (stepped out) panoramas.

    As it is, trolls who have no ability themselves will always attack those who
    do. It is how they get their rocks off.

    There is an article here about trolls and what motivates them. It makes good
    reading in understanding the motives of people like Jeff Ralph:
    http://www.flayme.com/troll/

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 5, 2009
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks

    D-Mac Guest

    D-Mac, Jan 5, 2009
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Let's just re-iterate. It started when Douglas posted this page:
    http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html

    In it he:
    * abused Atheist Chaplain at length, despite that fact that AC had made
    NO COMMENTS whatsoever about this topic. Douglas still hasn't had the
    intestinal fortitude to apologise.
    * claimed the two source images were 'stepped out', when they were very
    obviously and provably taken from exactly the same location.
    * claimed he could make a linear panorama from several 'stepped out'
    images, when very obviously the scene was completely unsuitable for such
    a project.

    When the page received the derision it deserved, Douglas pulled it from
    view, so Jeff has kindly reposted it with comments (and full
    accreditation) so Douglas cannot get away with this type of behavior
    (which he does frequently).

    Douglas, naturally, has been completely unable to post the resulting
    panorama and instead he posted the '4theidiots' page, completely
    avoiding the original images and claim..

    That page was reviewed here:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/935da59cde7a455

    Douglas doesn't seem to have read the reviews, so I'll repeat them here:

    N - The evidence is clear, Doug. It can't be done by you.
    T - no where near a pano, there's bits missing
    X - Obvious to everone but D-mac. He thinks everyone is as dumb as him
    DJ - you seriously call that a decent "stepped out panorama"? ROFL.
    What happened to the front of the 2nd beach-house from the left?...
    Oops D-Mac, looks like you put your foot in it again.
    PD - not even any sort of attempt at stepping out at all, poor fake
    A - a quite poorly pieced together montage...not even close to being a
    panorama, stepped out or otherwise. It is rubbish. Another botched
    attempt for D-mac the liar.
    Mike - that.. architect built the second flat in the condo' a good 1.5
    m wider than the other flats.
    ONS - Is this (a) spot the mistakes puzzles from Take 5 magazine? The
    whole area around the 2 in 2008 is out of whack, steps missing...
    J - Why did you bother? To prove that stitching is something new to
    you?

    I've modestly omitted my comments, but I think the conclusion is pretty
    obvious.

    Jeff's original post on this thread is an excellent summary of the
    application of linear panoramas - *highly* recommended!

    If you want to have a go at doing a linear stitch of images similar to
    Douglas' original claim and thereby see how ridiculous/impossible it is
    to do a linear panorama of a scene with such depth, I can post them for
    you, but I strongly suggest you start your panorama career on 'normal'
    panoramas! Trying to match up perspective problems in a panorama can be
    a nightmare, which is why pano heads exist. For most purposes the small
    errors from using a normal tripod are not a problem.

    For stitching, you might want to try Autostitch (free, pretty good, but
    little/no control and on my system gets upset with large images),
    Autopano (more control but not free), or PTGUI (lots of control, not
    free). I like PTGUI - it seems to handle everything I can throw at it,
    although it can be bit daunting if you look at all the options..

    But none of them can do the impossible. As proven by Doug's inability
    to post his 'Manly' result.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jan 5, 2009
    #13
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Jeff R. Guest

    I don't know if your blindness is the reason or if you follow only
    part of a thread but you have been comprehensively shown how bogus your
    Tangalooma rubbish is. Many times. Your derogatory and insulting
    "4theidiots" page simply constitutes more evidence for my side.

    Anyway - we all wanted to see the fictitious Manly pano.
    Foul play!
    Derogatory language!
    Already done, Doug.
    Two mirrors that I know of.
    Could be more.
    Just say the word...
    Well, you'd have to *have* it before you could post it, Doug.
    Not just imagine it.
    What do you have to lose by posting a heavily watermarked, drastically
    reduced-in-size version of your imaginary Manly pano?

    Afraid of criticism?
    You don't honestly think anyone here would want to *sell* it, do you? Get
    real.
    It'd settle this argument once and for all - in your favour.

    If you had it.


    Uh huh.
    Assuming you mean me here, kindly indicate where I ever suggested that.
    Or are you lying again?
    Ooh yes!
    Direct him to the imaginary gallery that displays the imaginary panorama.

    What could you possibly lose by doing this?
    And so much to gain.

    Unless you're lying, of course.

    Didn't you see my Tangalooma pano?
    Much better than yours.

    LOL!
    All I'm doing is calling you out on your lies and abuse, Doug.
    That doesn't constitute trolling.

    Would you like me to explain it to you (again?)
     
    Jeff R., Jan 5, 2009
    #14
  15. Dudley Hanks

    Jeff R. Guest

    Oh dear.
    Not satisfied with simple potty-mouth and foul language, he's now resorting
    to sadomasochistic sexual threats. Showing your true colours again, huh?

    Not a pretty sight Doug.

    Sort of like your Tangalooma debacle.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 5, 2009
    #15
  16. Dudley Hanks

    Annika1980 Guest

    I started to make a go of it, but never got past the halfway mark:
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296

    As you can see, it isn't too terribly difficult to get the things in
    the same plane lined up, but stuff farther from the main plane (like
    the roofing in my shot) presents special problems.
    I suppose if I had taken 1000 shots spaced only a few inches apart I
    could have made even the roof look seamless.

    Here's a shot of the school I was photographing, which is itself a
    stitched pano shot, albeit a conventional one:
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100130059
     
    Annika1980, Jan 5, 2009
    #16
  17. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    So, if a guy wanted to take a linear, stepped out, pano of let's say a long
    building, he would need to be close enough to the building to diminish or
    completely hide anything that would draw attention to a vanishing point
    (perspective) in order to make it work. For instance, a tripod could be
    located on the sidewalk in front of the building and progressively moved
    along the length of the building as the photographer takes shots. These
    shots should stitch together fairly well, providing there are no deep
    recesses in the building itself which could draw unnecessary attention to
    the various perspectives of the individual shots?

    I know of a couple of locations where a road makes a 90 degree corner. I've
    thought of placing the camera on the outside of these corners and shooting a
    series that captures everything from the road coming up on the left side to
    it receeding down the right side. I've wondered if there would be
    sufficient difference in the perspective of each shot in a series like this
    to cause problems, even though the camera would be rotated around a central
    point. Would the ideal subject matter in a series like this be something
    where most of the prominant objects are farther off in the distance? Or,
    would a building located fairly close to the other side of the street pose
    only minimal difficulty in stitching?

    Yeah, I've only given a bit of thought to actual display. First, I want to
    get a good image; then, I'll worry about how to print the picture. My
    favourite medium is BW printed on glossy stock via laser printers. So, I'm
    anticipating some difficulty in finding roll type paper to use.


    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 5, 2009
    #17
  18. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Being a bit of a "process" freak, I try to do a bit of homework first...
    But, in the ende, you are right, Noons. There's nothing like hands on to
    work out the bugs.

    I think I'll try a pano tonight. There's a ninety degree corner not far
    from where I live, with some quaint houses and interesting trees. I've
    always thought that the interplay of the lights through the tree branches
    would make for an interesting image, especially at this time of the year
    when the snow really can lighten up a night shot.

    The end result will probably be somewhat disappointing, but it should help
    me work out the details of how to shoot the images and stitch them together.

    I'll rely on you, Noons to give me honest feedback of the end result.

    Thanks,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 5, 2009
    #18
  19. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    A bit of both, Douglas... When I check out images that are posted, I often
    cannot discern enough detail to really get a good idea of what is there.
    Only VERY high contrast images are something I can figure out on my own,
    without a verbal description. In the case of this thread, I wasn't around
    when it started, but I've read various posts, here and there, enough to get
    me interested in actually taking a pano shot myself.

    I have tried to view both your page and Jeff's, but haven't been able to
    discern sufficient detail to form my own opinion. Hence, I'll try to keep a
    low profile and learn from everyone.


    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 5, 2009
    #19
  20. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Thanks for the info, Mark. I have two pano stitching progs on my system,
    the Canon pano stitching utility which comes bundled with the EOS utilities,
    and Adobe Photoshop Elements. I also have another program I haven't tried
    yet, it's called PhotoExplosion, or something like that. I haven't used it
    yet, so I'm not sure what it does, but will check it out one of these days.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 5, 2009
    #20
    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.