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

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

  1. ..

    Cryptopix Guest

    What I do with the web sites I develop, own or sell lease out is
    entirely my business, Jeff. was never going to be
    used for what a free site on flickr would do just as easily without
    wasting my resources. I posted some pictures to it so I could tickle
    up Google and the other search engines when I went live with it.

    I have never concealed the fact I use these groups to increase a
    site's ratings or prime the search engines in advance. It quite a
    legitimate way to get ranking up. The3 more people who link to it, the
    higher it's ranking goes.

    The answer to your 2nd question is NO. I would have thought providing
    full frame replicas of the originals was enough... Not for flock here
    it seems.

    If you'd followed my history in these groups you'd have to come to the
    conclusion that those who think they are taking the mickey out of me
    are basically clueless. My unfavorite troll Marles (half Charles half
    Mark - I'm only ever for the researchers) started out
    when he didn't like the "plain English warranty" I published when I
    owned a couple of computer stores.

    Then Marles decided my "Techno Aussie" digital enlargement algorithm
    was all bullshit too. Just because he couldn't understand the concept,
    much less the execution of it he figured I couldn't possibly be
    smarter than him so I must be full of bullshit. He even went as far as
    to turn up at my wife's market stall where she sold my canvas rejects
    and damaged stock... After waiting for her to leave the display for a
    pee! All on security camera from my office above the street!

    Then he got the idea my Government permits for taking photographic
    expeditions and tours into National Parks and sell the resulting
    photos was bullshit too. So misinformed was he, he wrote that the EPA
    (who issued the permits) were not the authority who did and I was
    bullshitting yet again. Even when I posted scans of the permits, it
    didn't cause him to break stride as he marched forth to do battle with
    yet another windmill.

    The thing about this whole load issue Jeff, is that I suggested to
    someone a method I use (and have for a long time) to produce really
    unique, flat field panoramas and the sheep (including Marles) might
    just as well have rerun the 2005 scenario when I sent example of my
    enlargements to *QUALIFIED* professionals around the world who passed
    judgment on them. It is only my peers I take seriously. The garbage
    mouths like Mark and the Athiest are about as significant in my life
    as the mozzie I just swatted.

    Definitely some of my techniques are radical in the sense they are not
    common knowledge, at the time the sheep discover them. That's how I
    got to be as successful as I am. Thousands of people each year by my
    photos. Dozens sign up for me as their wedding photographer and a few
    even pay obscene amounts for my fine art photos at galleries and
    auctions. It is innovators, not imitators who succeed in this world.

    It is the wannabe imitators who think cutting tall poppies down to
    size is a national sport in Australia. That's why the Asian and
    American business operators see us as easy prey... The dickheads like
    Mark Thomas and his puppets.

    I use less than 15% of each image to create a stepped out panorama.
    Shooting with a 150mm lens doesn't help the similarity in the images
    for those who don't get to see the whole picture. I never said it was
    simple to create a flat field panorama by moving the camera linear
    instead of rotating it. In fact, I don't ever recall offering any
    information about how to do it, just a suggestion that it produces
    uniquely different images.

    The joke is... Marles decided to take his toysRus camera out to play
    and "prove" he couldn't do it and then bleat back at the heard that
    just because he couldn't do it with his toysRus Sony, I must be (once
    again) full of bullshit... ROTFL. Stay tuned for the final chapter.
    Skip all the one s in between because the end result always justifies
    the means!
    Cryptopix, Feb 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. ..

    Cryptopix Guest

    I think he loves you Rita!
    Cryptopix, Feb 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. So why mention them in every post?
    And here I was thinking with the birth of CD and the death of vinyl we
    wouldn't have to listen to scratched records anymore.
    Harold Hughes - Higglytown Hero, Feb 9, 2008
  4. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    Of course, Doug.
    I would never dispute your right to put up and/or take down pages
    on the page in question you made a particular assertion about two images.
    Does that assertion still stand? (more below)

    I don't care about search engine rankings, but I would have thought it would
    be counterproductive to pull the pages down so quickly...
    Well, no, Doug.

    If you look carefully at the images you will see that items in the
    foreground line up with items in the background in *exactly* the same manner
    and to the same degree in BOTH images. Now this is only possible if they
    were taken from the same location - to within a few inches deviation at

    I did explain all this before, quite clearly I thought.

    This is simply an observation made of the two images as posted. I presume
    that as posted they were unaltered by your "merging" software.

    With respect, I'm not really interested in historical feuds.
    I'm just concerned with the two images you posted, and the assertion made on
    the now-gone page.
    BTW, Doug, I have no problem at all with flat-field panoramas (as you call
    them). I can see a number of circumstances in which they'd work very well.
    I've already said as such.

    I have, however, done a lot of work with single-viewpoint panoramas, often
    over twenty exposures each, and sometimes up to 360 deg coverage. I have
    also taken many, many stereo pairs, and have presented them as parallel,
    cross-eyed, anaglyphic and cross-polarised images. I am quite familiar with
    the effect of viewpoint on images, and all my experience tells me that the
    two images you posted were taken from the same spot.

    Is it possible that, when you took the string of "walking-pano" shots, that
    these two were actually from the same spot, and you didn't notice it? Lost
    track of them, so to speak?

    If you mean stitching panoramas from a changing viewpoint, and with
    considerable depth to the images, then I'd *love* to see a result.
    OK. Fair enough. I often overlap mine a lot, too. It gives me much more
    latitude in choosing where to make the seam. I understand all that.
    ?? I don't understand that, but please proceed...
    Nor did I.
    I understand the trials and tribulations of stitching panoramas.
    It must be a real bugger getting the different perspectives to match - fancy
    software notwithstanding.
    No, I believe he was simply demonstrating (from the same spot you had
    chosen) the effect of moving one's location (even slightly) when taking
    adjacent shots.

    Doug - I just had another look at your two demo shots. Look at the RHS of
    the red parked car. You can see *exactly* the same depth and perspective of
    that flat panel in both shots. If the viewpoints were indeed different, by
    as little as a few feet, then that panel would look completely different
    from shot to shot.

    You bet.
    I await with genuine interest and anticipation the opportunity to see the
    final "walking pano" which uses the two images which you earlier posted.

    Please - let's see it!
    Jeff R., Feb 9, 2008
  5. Only a little off topic.

    To Doug - Freudian slip? 3 more people would probably have more than
    tripled his normal monthly viewing figures...
    To Doug - do you mean liars and pretenders? That'd be why Rita and
    you get on famously. Is there anyone else here you call a peer? If
    not, why do you post here?
    A very good question, HHHH.

    The matters raised by Doug have been demolished on numerous occasions,
    but he keeps repeating them in a sad attempt to convince someone
    (anyone?).. If anyone *is* actually interested, refer to my post of
    Jul 30 2007, 8:39 pm in this thread begun by 'Julian', the infamously
    exposed Douglas sockpuppet:
    Strangely, Doug doesn't like to talk about Julian much anymore...

    By the way, did anyone ever manage to find a Douglas MacDonald
    calendar? In all my wanderings I have only ever found one dusty old
    postcard in a Tourism Info centre - they gave it to me free because it
    was so old. Sorry, Doug, no royalties on that one..
    Bit wasteful... Interesting approach, especially when Doug next
    Hmm. A 150mm lens, eh..? Let's give Douglas the benefit of the doubt
    and assume he is talking 35mm full-frame (hehe). I know the location
    where he took those shots, and it is ridiculous to suggest that they
    were taken with such a lens. You can only go backwards about 20
    metres before you run into houses and a hill. I invite anyone
    following this ridiculous charade to visit that location and look for
    themselves. My examples, which roughly match Doug's, were shot at
    about 30mm equiv. Was Doug shooting with 4x5 perhaps?
    To Doug - indeed you haven't. You have lied about the original
    images, and not shown any result. We wait for the proof.

    To Doug - So prove you can. By the way, Your alzheimers is showing.
    It's a Fuji. You'll note my images were sharper than yours, by the
    I'm sure it will, if it ever comes. Can't wait, I've got my apology
    already typed and ready to go...
    HHHH, I apologise for repositioning the stylus before the scratch

    mark.thomas.7, Feb 9, 2008
  6. That's the way we say it in Tennessee.
    It was migrated a while back to one of the 2006, 2007, or 2008 sites and
    reposted to the Usenet groups. Just keep digging and you will find it.
    Not at all. You seem to be overestimating your value and self importance
    again. Again, I'll give you a hint, I don't take you or anything else on
    the net seriously so I don't get embarrassed. The groups are here to have
    fun with, and I'm enjoying myself. How about you?

    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 9, 2008
  7. I guess that is a good thing? He's been a blast to play with, but I hope
    he's not taking any of this seriously since I don't want to see him come
    down hard when he finally figures out that he's nothing more than my

    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 9, 2008
  8. ..

    Annika1980 Guest

    Exactly. Thanks to Mark Thomas for e-mailing me the saved page so
    that I could view them. There is no software trick in the world that
    would account for what Douggie claims. The signposts in the
    foreground line up exactly with the same part of the boats in the
    More proof that D-Mac is the biggest liar on usenet, and no surprise
    that he quickly removed the page. Not fast enough, though, Douggie!
    Annika1980, Feb 10, 2008
  9. ..

    Jeff R. Guest


    Thank you Max (?).

    The panoramas you linked to show exactly the type of scenario that Mark and
    I referred to; i.e. lacking in "depth", and only having one plane of
    interest. The expression "orthographic" in this context (as used by the
    author of the panos) means that they are "front views" and that they
    deliberately contain no "perspective" information. No lines receding to
    vanishing points. All items at the same (or close enough) distance from the
    camera. A perfect subject for a "walking pano."

    Notice you cannot see the side of any of the buildings - only the front.

    This makes a good comparison to the two images posted earlier, allegedly to
    be used in a similar style orthographic panorama. In those two images, much
    depth is visible, and the sides of many objects are clear and rendered in
    perspective. Plenty of vanishing points.

    Just for fun, try to locate the vanishing points in the panos linked to by
    Max. No can do.

    This is a rather sweet demonstration
    of the difference bewteen the two types.

    I await further developments.
    Jeff R., Feb 10, 2008
  10. "Re: I reserve the right to watch a fool fall on his face!"
    You're certainly in the right place. Maybe you have the wrong fool...

    No thanks. Your image. You said you always left them up. I'm
    pointing out that this isn't the case, and you have now shown you
    won't retrieve them. So, readers will now know *not* to bother
    clicking on your old links.

    Are they? Oh. I thought that they might be to foster community
    spirit and help folk learn.
    Yep, I'm fine. But as you seem to have nothing ontopic to add here
    about panoramas... Bye.
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 10, 2008
  11. ..

    Rob. Guest

    This is the type of image I was making when I mentioned a walking pan.
    Walking up the street and taking an image etc.

    Good to see an example. Pretty boring isn't it!

    Rob., Feb 10, 2008
  12. I note that since Rita decided to change the followups (thanks, very
    clever..), this thread has become somewhat unhinged. (O;

    For the record, I will (re)post this response (from the sub-thread in as it is missing here, and is ontopic...

    Yes, thanks Max - a good example of the sort of flat, two dimensional
    scene that we have discussed above.

    If you are interested, the scene that *Douglas* is claiming he used
    this approach on, is shown here:

    Douglas claims that he has taken several similar shots at various
    points along that path, and that he would stitch those images into a
    long panorama. He also recommends this approach to newcomers to
    panos... Unfortunately, the two images *he* posted as examples were
    not 'stepped out', but were obviously taken from *exactly* the same
    location - he has now pulled them from view. This is not the first
    time Douglas had performed similar 'bait and switch' routines.

    We pointed out the immense difficulty of stitching shots with so much
    depth, ie fore-, mid-, and back-ground objects/complexity. In
    particular, the fact that the (hundreds of) masts will shift between
    shots, as will the angle of the boat hulls... Trying to stitch such
    images together would be a nightmare, but Doug claims he can do it.
    Not sure if anyone is holding their breath... but I'm sure he will
    come back with a result that will amaze and astound.

    Good Luck, Doug!
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 10, 2008
  13. Not all of my fans are as overly obsessed as you that they would be looking
    for old links. Again, since you are always looking for a hair to split, it
    was migrated to one of my other sites for space reasons. The *new* link was
    reposted here for all to see. So, no, I don't remove pictures.
    Yep! And you foster neither with your constant attempts to antagonize
    If only... I got a good laugh when "Helen" fell and I'll get a good laugh
    when you fall. It's just a matter of time.

    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 10, 2008
  14. Off topic. Just reposting - Rita wants the post to expire so she
    won't be embarrassed later... Sorry, Rita.
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 11, 2008
  15. Stay tuned for the final chapter.

    Gosh. The suspense is killing me. Like I said, I can't wait to
    apologise when Douglas posts the resulting pano and a couple of source
    images to prove that it *really can be done*, in exactly the way he
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 16, 2008
  16. then do it :)
    just stop blowing hot air Douggie, you hate Mark with a vengeance so here is
    your shot to shut him up forever!
    Atheist Chaplain, Feb 17, 2008
  17. ..

    Jeff R. Guest

    Yes, I'll say.
    You could shut me up, too.

    All you've got to do is post a decent (watermarked if you like) pano
    constructed from a "walking" set. Just one will do fine.
    With a few constituent photos for proof of concept. Like the set you posted
    along with so much vitriolic personal abuse a short while ago. Only this
    time, with the constituent shots taken from *different* locations.

    We're waiting.
    Jeff R., Feb 18, 2008
  18. That night shot, a conventional panorama I'm working on, is here: (1Mb
    jpg, 5000 pixels wide!)

    I don't pull my pages like Douglas (see below). Anyone care to guess
    why? (O:

    I'll be posting a new version of that draft image in a few days, when
    I have a few minutes to correct the minor stitching errors, eg along
    the roofline. Constructive comments are very welcome. Doug doesn't
    seem to like it, but hasn't been very specific. He never is.

    Anyone care to try that scene as a 'linear' pano? In other words, by
    shooting several shots at different positions along that walkway? In
    his first post here, Doug suggested that "poster(s) about to launch
    into "panoramas".. may be better off walking and snapping shots to
    stich (sic)".

    That's right - he recommended 'linear' panoramas to beginners, with
    nary a comment about the immense parallax problems you are likely to
    encounter in anything but 'flat' mural-like situations..

    Sage wisdom indeed... (O;

    And the example scene he offered was almost the *worst possible* type
    of scene, with bucketloads of detail in the fore-, mid- and back-
    ground. Here's the scene - these two images were taken according to
    Doug's specifications, in *exactly* the location he gave as an example
    - the yacht Marina near Manly:

    (Unfortunately you can't see the images *Douglas* posted, because he
    pulled the pages down. I just can't imagine why he did that, maybe
    something to do with the fact that he hadn't actually 'stepped out' as
    he claimed.. (O:)

    So, can *anyone* stitch those two shots together? Douglas says he
    can, and he will post the proof *real soon now*. I'll just bump this
    thread up every now and then to remind him. I think he can't do it
    right at this moment, because he seems a little too busy with personal
    insults and accusing macro shooters of being cretins...

    If it takes too long, I just might have to do it myself, and post the
    result. Could be fun...
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 18, 2008
  19. Another week goes by.

    In summary:
    Douglas posted images claiming they were 'stepped out'. They
    weren't. Douglas lied.
    Douglas claimed AC had made statements about his methods. He hadn't.
    Douglas lied.
    Douglas made several insulting remarks towards AC, and refused to
    apologise even when it was proven that he was incorrect. Douglas
    refuses to be answerable for his words, and refuses to admit when he
    is in error.

    Finally, Douglas says he will prove that he really can make a panorama
    of this scene out of stepped out images - which is, after all, what
    the thread was about. We may have to wait for a long time, because,
    apparently Douglas can't seem to find the time.

    Going off-topic...

    I have promised to apologise if he can do it - all he has to do is
    show at least two truly 'stepped-out' images of this scene, along with
    a finished panorama image. You would think that would be enough
    motivation... (o:

    And for the search engines, and anyone wishing to look at their chosen
    photographer's history... that's Douglas "St James" MacDonald, at:

    Hmmm. It's interesting to note that for some reason, Douglas
    MacDonald doesn't mention his full name on his Home (or Contacts) page
    anymore - on the latter I see his images are now "Copyright Douglas
    James" (or .."Douglas St James", depending on which page..)? And if
    you click on the copyright page link, you get a 404... (Same with the
    Home and Wildlife links on the Portfolio page, and many others - do
    you run your pages thru a checker by any chance, Dougie?)

    Just trying to help, Doug. Maybe you might want to sort your web-
    presence out a little better.

    And have you now changed your name to Douglas St James? I would have
    thought the goodwill on your real name was priceless..

    Let us know when the pano is ready. (O:
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 26, 2008
  20. Douglas?


    Is this thing on? (O:

    We are waiting for you to post the resulting panorama. And the
    'truly' stepped out images. In case you have sorta accidentally lost
    them, you can use these, if you like..
    I hereby place those images in the public domain - full res versions
    available on request, but let's face it, you won't be able to do it on
    the small ones, and the bigun's will be much more difficult....

    And anyone else who wants to try, feel free - see if you can join
    those 'stepped out' images into a panorama, like Doug recommends.

    Here's Doug's original page, kindly reposted for fair educational use:

    Also, Atheist Chaplain is still waiting for his apology. Is Douglas
    not enough of a man to give it?
    mark.thomas.7, Mar 3, 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.