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

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by .., Jan 28, 2008.

  1. ..

    .. Guest

    Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he
    may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich than the recent method
    of using a rotating head on a tripod to harvest the images to work with.
    I've owned fixed and swing lens panorama camera so the advise came from
    experience... Unlike the replies!

    Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of
    head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years
    could work!

    The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a
    name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason for
    doing so. The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working
    professional and the Pro produces evidence he is not just wrong but a
    pedantic fool as well!

    It's sort of like when that Childs puppet Charles Stevens (calling himself
    Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation about me because I
    posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial
    Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend
    to sell the photos.

    He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit. Claiming also the EPA
    didn't issue the permits, I was a liar. Yep. One of us certainly was. and it
    wasn't me!

    And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the
    "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my
    shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was... The
    scan of the permit and a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved
    him to be the liar.

    Did that stop him? Nah... Weak minded morons like him and the wanker calling
    himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart that if they can't
    understand something or can't do it themselves, it can't be done.

    Here we go:
    Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:

    Charles Stevens (Mark Thomas 7th) Did it long before him. and I have no
    doubt whatsoever, there will be idiots with hateful minds and no brains
    imitating these fools long after they have left the group.

    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?

    .., Jan 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    Douglas, in the two frames you presented, if you look at the pole next to
    the footpath (just beyond and to the right of the dark-reddish hatch) you'l
    notice that it lines up (*almost* exactly) with the base of the mast on the
    yacht in the first row of moorings.

    In *both* frames.

    Now there is considerable distance (range from the camera, that is) between
    these two objects, yet they line up identically in both frames.

    This is a very simple indicator that both frames were taken from the same
    viewpoint. Almost exactly.

    I take stereo pairs (as an indulgence) and the two cameras I use are
    separated by (roughly) my interocular distance of about 75mm (3" in
    old-speak). When I take a similar shot(s) to the one(s) you have presented,
    objects that are separated by so much depth are noticeably out of register
    with each other in the stereo pair.

    This is what creates the stereo effect, as I'm sure you know very well.

    There is no such change in register in the two frames you presented.

    Ergo: they were taken from *exactly* the same viewpoint. To an accuracy of
    better than 75mm. You must take *very* small steps when you go for a walk.

    I confirmed this by merging the two frames (freeform stereo viewing) and
    could not discern any stereo effect whatsoever.

    Doug, these two shots were taken from the same place. Precisely. This
    somewhat invalidates your arguments regarding the "shots-taken-on-a-walk"

    Would you like some tomato sauce with that boot leather?

    Happy Australia Day (holiday), BTW.
    Jeff R., Jan 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    (update and correction to self:)
    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:
    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

    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

    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

    Can you show us that, Doug?
    Jeff R., Jan 28, 2008
  4. ..

    Wilba Guest

    Congratulations, Jeff, on your observation and analysis skills.
    Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different crops from
    one wide-angle shot.
    Wilba, Jan 28, 2008
  5. I'm unable to find anything I have posted that would indicate such a thing
    Douggie, I general stay out of the technical side of the photo discussions
    and stick to commenting on the actual photo's themselves. I do this for one
    very simple reason, I dont have a deep knowlege of a lot of the things
    discussed, so instead I read and learn.
    So your reason for using the name ".." at the moment is because??
    While my online nic is in fact an oxymoron, it is no more or less
    appropriate that someone calling themselves Julian Abbot, or any other of a
    long list of aliases that you have used in the past, even to the extent of
    outright fabricating an identity to prop up one of your many lost arguments.

    The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working
    Please show me the post I made saying that this method would not work, My
    records here only go back to August 2007, but I'm sure I could find all my
    posts on this group using google if needed as I dont use the x-no archive
    and now you have attacked two posters in what is supposed to be an on topic
    photogaphy discussion, could you in future, make your on topic post more on
    topic and less a platform for your cyber bullying and "I'm so persecuted"
    Again I ask for verifiable proof that I have said anything at all about this
    method of photography, either for or against. I will accept your appology
    with the same grace that you make it :-0

    I shall archive this post for later referral when you do indeed come back
    and abuse the members. I don't know the name of the condition you obviously
    have, but I bet its hard to pronounce.
    Atheist Chaplain, Jan 28, 2008
  6. ..

    N Guest

    Highly unlikely as the road is on a different angle in the two images.
    N, Jan 28, 2008
  7. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    That's because
    (1) the camera has been tilted between the two shots, and
    (2) the difference in distortion(s) at the edge of the frame
    and the centre of the frame.

    They *are* two different shots, but from the same viewpoint.
    Jeff R., Jan 28, 2008
  8. ..

    Wilba Guest

    Oh no, It's all explained in the text - "The path has a rise in it." :-D
    Wilba, Jan 28, 2008

  9. ATTACK #1

    (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of
    ATTACK #2

    (calling himself
    I think this little gem from last week proves that

    "Incidentally, anyone who now cries fowl (foul) about me "name changing
    to escape their "kill file" needs to recognize even the most basic
    newsreader filters on E-mail addresses and mine is unchanged in nearly
    6 months."

    Yep. One of us certainly was. and it
    As one of the 'lurkers' you commented on last week I find this last
    comment interesting. You are done with the idiots but in 2 threads you
    have started in a week you have almost begged said idiots to attack you.

    First with your lurker post and now with this one.

    I am not sure if there are other photo forums you all post to but I
    haven't seen anyone mention your name is early December and the only
    time they do attack you is when you post posts like this. You mentioned
    5 in your lurkers post, maybe you can mention the other 3 over the next
    few days to get them to attack you also.

    I believe you love the attention.
    Harold Hughes - Higglytown Hero, Jan 28, 2008
  10. ..

    N Guest

    I'm not talking about the path. The area of the road that is common to both
    pictures has a different angle in each.
    N, Jan 28, 2008
  11. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    No it doesn't.
    Read my earlier posts.
    Jeff R., Jan 28, 2008
  12. ..

    Cryptopix Guest

    Did I not say Jeff that I had to "use software to fix the images"?
    The notion that they are joined in a straight line is probably what
    prompted your comment. They aren't!
    Cryptopix, Jan 28, 2008
  13. ..

    Cryptopix Guest

    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.
    Cryptopix, Jan 28, 2008
  14. ..

    Cryptopix Guest

    You really are a bugger for punishment Jeff. Someone tells you how it
    is and you argue it's not.
    Cryptopix, Jan 28, 2008
  15. ..

    Jeff R. Guest


    Doug, the two pics you posted. Are they unaltered; straight from the
    camera? (apart from sizing, of course.)

    Or have you already "used software to fix the images"?

    I suspect not.

    Those two photos are taken from the same location - to within an inch or so.

    Unless you have divided them (or one of them) into at least a dozen expertly
    selected different-depth layers, (an appallingly-difficult and usually
    unsatisfactory operation) and moved those layers horizontally in order to
    artificially match the effect of having been taken at the same location.

    ....which of course you haven't.

    Don't bother trying to explain how you need to use software to adjust the
    perspective at the edges. I understand that perfectly, and have done it
    hundreds of time on my panos. (Single location panos, I should point out.)

    Doug - look at the pole! It lines up with the distant yacht *perfectly* in
    both shots. Are you claiming that you have already altered the pics to
    achieve that effect?
    Or are the pics "as-taken"?

    They were taken from the same spot.
    Anybody with an elementary knowledge of perspective and/or stereo imaging
    can see that in an instant.

    Come clean and admit you goofed here, Doug.
    Post two shots that *are* baseline-separated, and show us how you merge

    I'd honestly like to see that.
    Jeff R., Jan 28, 2008
  16. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    Such filters take the overall proportions of an image and simply allow you
    to tweak them left and right or up and down independently. They don't allow
    you to "slide" different depth layers relative to each others - which you
    would have had to have done in this case.

    Are the images you posted unaltered (the two images, not the single combined
    If not, why bother posting them?
    The demonstration is an exercise in futility.
    No - we're discussing just two images here.
    The others are irrelevant.

    Why can't you figure out what I'm telling you?
    Look at the pole on the path - look at the mast on the yacht the pole lines
    up with.
    Those two shots were taken from the same spot.

    Of course you do.
    Its just that in this case you took two shots at one location. Between
    steps, if you like.

    Doug, Doug.
    There's nothing secret or mysterious about lining up a series of shots so
    they match.

    No you didn't.
    You produced two shots taken from the same spot - just as everyone does with

    Show us two shots taken on a wide baseline and I'll be impressed.
    (So long as you successfully merge them, that is)

    I did what?

    What has the border - straight line or not - got to do with anything I've

    Quite the contrary.
    The stereo pair worked *very* well, and demonstrates conclusively that the
    two shots were taken on a very narrow baseline. Interocular distances, or
    less (since the illusion of depth is quite shallow.)

    How can it be a mistake?
    The stereo pair works!
    Surely you can see that!

    Your turn.
    Jeff R., Jan 28, 2008
  17. ..

    Mr.T Guest

    You do realise you are arguing with Doug right? :)

    Mr.T, Jan 28, 2008
  18. (a pile of steaming ...)

    Thanks to Jeff for a comprehensive expose of Doug at his worst.
    Nuthin much more needs to be said, except for:

    1. Why do this?
    Even if Mr Magoo *had* shot the images from a different point (which
    he clearly didn't), why would an 'experienced photographer' *do* that,
    for a scene like this? Yes, there are ways to deal with parallax
    issues, and the success of that largely depends on the scene, so
    avoiding it by shooting from the same nodal point is best.

    And there probably are situations where different/staggered viewpoints
    might be useful (although I am struggling to think of one right now).
    But this isn't an example of it. If he does this regularly, as he
    claims, why doesn't he show us an example where there was a *point*?

    2. RAM upgrade recommended..
    I think Doug may need to upgrade his computer. From that page - "And
    yes! My dual CPU PC with 5 Meg of RAM labors under the strain of the
    Mmmhmm. It probably would. (O;

    But I'm sure this is all just a leg-pull, right Doug?

    Since then (and not counting Sarina, Susana, etc) Doug has posted as:
    "dreamtime" <>
    ".." <>

    And no doubt others. Who, Douglas MacDonald, is the LIAR?
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 28, 2008
  19. and still the sound of crickets :)
    Atheist Chaplain, Jan 28, 2008
  20. and yet Douggie, here you are.............
    Atheist Chaplain, Jan 28, 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.