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

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

  1. and yet Douggie, here you are.............
    Atheist Chaplain, Jan 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. and yet Douggie, here you are.............
    Atheist Chaplain, Jan 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Off Topic.

    As Douglas is likely going to disappear for a week or two to let this
    embarrassment pass... I'll just take the opportunity to correct his
    lies for the umpteenth time, just in case a newbie stumbles over

    Yes, "interesting" indeed. That sentence was posted by Douglas "St
    James" MacDonald, who has also posted as (deep breath..):
    ryadia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug,
    douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald, an interested
    bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan jones,
    alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix on
    canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham hunt,
    healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey fong,
    wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC, deciple
    of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple, notsimple,
    not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, wraped in canvas, Julian
    Abbot, Cryptopix, Aussie Aussie Aussie, Parallel Dreaming, Sarina
    Sarin, Susana Jones, Prisilla...

    Not to mention variations (D_Mac, D...Mac, etc) and punctuation
    marks... He has used well over one hundred different names and many of
    them have been used to deceive or pretend he has supporters.
    Have you ever noticed how true 'working professionals' *never* refer
    to themselves like that?
    Douglas has never successfully quoted a single lie, and it's only
    defamation when not true...
    Here's what Douglas actually said:
    Note the comma, which suggests he is talking about the EPA and the
    "Forests and Wildlife service" (which doesn't exist) as two separate
    things. The EPA issues permits through their "Qld Parks and Wildlife"
    department. Those permits are not any sort of badge of honour, which
    is what I objected to - you simply *have* to buy one to be allowed to
    take images in national parks for later commercial use. It's a
    meaningless revenue raiser.

    Similar to a being a "Member of the World Institute of Photographic
    masters" (sic), and a "finalist in the Queensland 2007 Business
    achiever's awards" (sic). (O:
    ATSIC had been disbanded for about a year when he posted this claim,
    and then he said:
    There's the LIE. ATSIC would not issue such a permit, as each
    community/region has different rules and ATSIC would not presume to
    speak for all of them. He might have got a permit for/from a single
    community, but usually such things are dealt with verbally. Needless
    to say, he never posted a copy of *that* permit from ATSIC.

    Back to the current post..
    Which he had.
    No, I corrected the name and, more importantly, the *intent*.
    Yes. Douglas MacDonald was/is a liar.
    The liar is the one who can't quote evidence. This thread contains
    numerous *quoted* examples of lies. All the lies are from Douglas
    Yes. Douglas MacDonald.
    Actually, it proved Douglas was a liar again. Several folk had asked
    about his current shopfront (given he claims several businesses,
    shouldn't be difficult to show just one..) But Douglas posted an image
    of a small office door, with temporary looking posters adorning the
    glass, and a some obvious photoshopping. I'm happy to post the
    evidence - I even have the *original picture* to show the doctoring he
    did. Interestingly, I'm told that 'shopfront' has not been occupied
    by Doug for some *years*.

    Some folk have expressed interest in testing Douglas MacDonald's
    claims, but Douglas always refuses to give an address of any of his
    alleged 'franchises'. What does that tell you?

    So that, folks, is the best Douglas can come up with regarding my
    'lies', and both 'examples' prove the exact reverse.
    Nah, indeed. I shall continue outing liars and fools.
    And yet he immediately posts more. Another LIE.

    See you soon under your new alias, Doug.
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 28, 2008
  4. AC, I have perused the usenet archives at reasonable length, and I can
    also find nothing that suggests you made any posts on this topic.

    It would appear Douglas has you confused with someone else. And of
    course, like the miserable sewer rat he is, no apology seems to be
    forthcoming, as, of course, he would have to explain WHY he made this
    error. This is not the first or last time Douglas has completely
    confused the *many* people who rightly take him to task over his
    incompetence, false claims, and outright lies.

    I've kept an archive copy of the defamatory web-page - added to a
    large collection that will come back to give Douglas a valuable lesson
    one day..
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 29, 2008
  5. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    I recall the "debate", as it is a subject which interests me, but I can say
    with my hand on my heart "it weren't me what had a go at him!" (I did
    *think* it, 'though.) I'd offer to do a Google search, but that's against
    my religion.

    I wish Doug wouldn't go off on a sulk.

    I really want to hear his explanation. (I mean: "See his genuine samples".)
    As a matter of fact, I do believe that panos can be made successfully in the
    manner he has proposed - for long, linear subjects, pref with not much
    variation in depth. Think of a long block of flats, f'r'instance. There
    could be hell to pay on the joins, however, if one is not careful about
    where the overlaps are.

    All my panos (to date) have been taken from one spot. Now I'm motivated to
    go and take some "strollin' in the park" shots. I might even resurrect my
    Panasonic FZ30 (with the Leica lens) to take them in RAW mode... but then
    I'll need to get something else heavy to stop my boat from drifting away.
    Jeff R., Jan 29, 2008
  6. The problem is, I really don't think Doug *has* an explanation or
    samples. This demonstration is so fatally flawed, and obviously so,
    it must be a troll, or someone who hasn't a clue. I know which one I
    think it is.
    Yes, of course they could - but by restricting it to not much depth..
    you are trying to exclude those parallax problems, n'est ce pas? (And
    isn't this a 'mural' rather than a pano? (O:)
    I'll happily concede, as I have all along, that you *can* use various
    methods to cope with parallax issues (I mean, hey, I use SmartBlend
    now with my PTgui!)... but there needs to be a *point*! Doug's
    'example' not only completely fails to demonstrate the concept, but
    also the composition seems to indicate he is heading for an absolute
    disaster of an image, assuming he really is going to add 8-9 images
    taken from *different* points along that road.. Apart from any nearby
    objects, what do you think will happen to all those masts - do you
    think he will be able to avoid repeats, halved horizontals/diagonals?
    Oh, wait, Douglas often demands that we stand back far enough to see
    the whole image without moving our heads. So in this case, the
    messups in the masts would be less noticeable. (O;

    I challenge Doug to post the completed image, made up of images taken
    from the vantage points along that road (Royal Esplanade, Manly, I
    believe it is, for anyone interested) and thereby demonstrate the
    success of his technique. Any time, Doug. No hurry - we can see it
    needs a LOT of work. And don't forget, hopefully at least *one* of
    the images should be taken from a different spot.. I also challenge
    him to apologise to AC and withdraw the vitriolic and insulting
    remarks made here and on his website, apparently in error/stupidity.
    Or he should post links showing where AC made those comments.

    It's also interesting to note that here:
    Douglas MacDonald refers to the use of surveying tools:
    I'm most interested in the logic behind this. Presumably this would
    help avoid the er, 'slight alignment problems' in *his* two examples,
    and the ridiculously bent horizon in the result.. (O:

    Clearly he has a marvellous technique that we should all be highly
    jealous of!
    But, like his enlargement algorithm (which he still claims to own,
    even though he sold it to Samsung..), and his chains of printing and
    processing stores, and for that matter any current shopfront... we
    shall never see any proof of existence, I'm betting.

    And I think I know what that means. (O;
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 29, 2008
  7. T'was almost on my way home and there was a brief break in the
    rainstorms, so why not...

    Some things to note:

    - look at the *instantly* obvious difference in perspective - the
    angle of the car, the position of the signs and poles relative to the
    tree/themselves/boats, the boats (some are now much more/less side on,
    some are behind the tree etc), the change in locations of the huge
    tangle of masts. Look carefully and *imagine trying to put all that
    together seamlessly into a panorama*... Hey Scott W - there's a
    challenge for you!
    Now look again at Doug's two images - they are obviously taken from an
    *identical location*, just at a slightly different zoom, and with the
    camera more angled and pointed up. Anyone with even a glimmer of a
    sense of perspective can see that Doug's images, in complete
    contradiction to his claims, are taken from the same spot.

    - if Doug seriously intended to take 8-10 face-on shots to try to
    capture this string of boats, the distance between his shots would
    have to be even greater than the examples I took. That was only about
    15 feet. I took quite a few images, but decided to just show a couple
    of quick crops to roughly match the area that Doug cheated on, and to
    show the problems that parallax will cause in this sort of scene.

    - I've deliberately blown the highlights slightly to make Doug feel at
    home. (If anyone else asks, I'll happily provide a more sensible
    rendition from the raw files. Forgive my sense of the ridiculous...)

    So could you make a panorama out of images like this? No.
    I knew I was wasting my time, but just out of curiosity, I threw three
    of my images at PTGUI, including those two shown above and one shot
    from further to the right. It calmly reported that it couldn't work
    out a meaningful set of control points, and invited me to help. I
    defined a few basic points, but it then (quite correctly) reported
    that my control points made little sense and required an impossible
    amount of warping. In other words, if I was wanting a pano out of
    this, I-could-do-it-my-bloody-self...! (To be fair, ptgui did
    actually have a go, but I won't embarrass the program by posting the
    result! (O:)

    Now I'll happily admit that I *can't* make a pano out of those images
    manually, and I don't believe anyone could.. Like I said, if anyone
    else wants to try, I'll send you the images or post them for
    uploading. In the meantime, I await Doug to show *his* finished pano,
    along with evidence of the images (*REALLY taken from different
    locations*) that he used.

    What's your next self-demolition going to be, Doug? Can't wait.
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 30, 2008
  8. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    Comprehensively pwned.

    You rat, Mark!
    You beat me to it.

    Anyway, it doesn't count, 'cause the car isn't red and the horizons are
    level. And, ummm, the clouds are different.

    Besides, don't you know you have to use special software to stitch the shots

    Silly business aside, I'm sure such a pano could be done with a subject such
    as I earlier suggested - one with very little depth. Picture (as an extreme
    example) a long wall in an art gallery, with dozens of paintings. Nah,
    that's too contrived...

    Here's a real-life idea, the Royal Crescent at Bath:
    You could do a good mural of the faces of those buildings by constructing a
    "walking pano".

    Dunno why you would, but you could.


    C'mon Doug.

    Come clean and do the right thing.
    Admit you stuffed up with a bad example, and show us a good one instead.
    Jeff R., Jan 30, 2008
  9. Very, very true. I guess I'm just not up there with the likes of the
    OP. But imagine - I walked the same steps as the master... 'twas
    almost a religious experience.
    Yes, conceded. Although I believe the *only* software capable of
    this may have been sold to Samsung, so Doug will now be unable to
    demonstrate it.
    That should be spelt armatures, for Doug.
    And there's the rub. I just can't for the life of me think of a good
    example of a 'flat' scene that would be interesting when shot like
    this. Wait...maybe those beach change huts in Melbourne..? beach huts, melbourne.jpg

    Beyond that, I guess we have to wait on Douglas for examples and
    inspiration... (O:

    Don't hold your breath, Jeff. (O:
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 30, 2008
  10. ..

    Rob. Guest


    I was taking images so panoramics could be compiled (2002/3). they were
    streetscapes, where I was walking along the street and stepped out so
    many steps, I think, 10 paces, these were stitched. Not sure which
    stitching program was used by the company who were making the final
    product. Shot verticals with a 28mm lens on film.

    So there are situations where it is used. But don't tell the other
    bloke. But picking up the name on the catamaran at the end I think its
    "Ryadia" :)

    Rob., Jan 31, 2008
  11. Thanks, Rob - can you post an example? I agree that it can be done,
    as long as there aren't lots of components in the fore-mid-
    background. "Ryadia's" samples show just about the worst example of
    where you *wouldn't* try it. (Not only that, judging by the source
    images he showed - he *didn't* and *can't*... :eek:)

    Anyway, it set off a useful discussion - thanks to Doug for
    embarrassing himself in this way!

    We all learned what not to do, and are now onto what *is* possible...
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 31, 2008
  12. ..

    Rob. Guest

    It went into making a 3D model, which has been sold off to the council
    now - they were using it for developments and how new building
    applications would fit into the landscape. Virtually they mapped the
    inner city streets (what a bugger of a job) about 5x5 kms. The person
    who they had working on the model has now left and I not sure who to
    contact plus the firm amalgamated into a engineering group. Ill try
    again tomorrow, to make contact and see if anyone knows. Couldn't find
    out through my contacts in council.

    At the time I was surprised and stitching was in its infancy as I only
    had arcsoft, which came bundled with someone's, canon or ricoh, camera.

    You have me intrigued as to what program, I remember downloading some
    free software which was basic and horrible to use. But they did buy a
    package to use.

    Rob., Jan 31, 2008
  13. ..

    Rob. Guest

    Rob., Jan 31, 2008
  14. ..

    PixelPix Guest

    Was looking at that this morn. A pretty cool pano with the total
    sphere covered.

    What struck me most with this image though, was how even with all the
    new displays used, the cockpit still looked old in design, or even a
    little "Russian". I know it's the business end and perhaps it's just
    me, but I expected to see something a little more stylish for the
    latest & greatest.
    PixelPix, Jan 31, 2008
  15. ..

    Annika1980 Guest

    Can you send me the pics he posted? His link seems to be dead, much
    like his arguments.
    Annika1980, Feb 2, 2008
  16. ..

    Annika1980 Guest

    You forgot his most famous one ....George Preddy.
    Annika1980, Feb 2, 2008
  17. Off topic.

    I'm not convinced of the GP identity.. I know there are significant
    coincident factors, and it is almost impossible to conceive of two
    people buying a Sigma SLR and having similar er.. 'conditions'..! But
    there is a certain different style to Preddy's posts that I'm not sure
    D-Mac is capable of. And given that just about every other sockpuppet
    of D-Mac's has been outed by his own stupid errors (signing off as
    Douglas, forgetting which IP he posted from, talking in the first
    person, etc), I find it hard to believe he could have carried out the
    Preddy thing for so long without blowing his cover.

    I'll leave it to others to do further research. (O;

    As for Douglas.. What sort of coward pulls pages, rather than be a
    man and apologise to Atheist Chaplain and admit to his errors?
    Although.. perhaps he has received some complaints and was told to
    remove the pages...?

    Anyone who wants a copy of the offending pages, just let me know.
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 3, 2008
  18. Not surprisingly, this page has been removed. A wild guess would
    suggest that it was removed because:
    1. It contained a number of lies about Atheist Chaplain.
    2. It was a complete falsification of the 'technique' Douglas is
    referring to, as was proven by Jeff R and others.

    As Douglas (Cryptopix) has returned to post elsewhere, perhaps he
    should return to this thread to defend his honour. After all, I and
    others have accused him of lying. Why does he not come back and
    explain why he falsely accused AC of those comments, and why his
    images were clearly NOT taken from a different location?

    The first step in that would be to repost the page. That being rather
    unlikely, if anyone would like a copy of the offending pages, please
    email me. That includes Douglas' legal representatives.
    It took Douglas barely two weeks to prove himself a liar on this front
    as well..
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 7, 2008
  19. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    As Mark has pointed out, Doug, don't you think you should either:
    (1) defend your stance, or
    (2) apologise to those you insulted?

    Really - common decency demands an answer here. Your web page was pretty
    (...and yes, I've got it saved, too.)
    Jeff R., Feb 7, 2008
  20. Why? What does he have to gain?
    Why? You really can't insult people that have no self-respect and are an
    insult to themselves.
    God! You guys are pathetic! You really must have missed Doug? I know
    Mark's life is now complete.

    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 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.