The (not so) Impossible stepped Panorama

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by D-Mac, Jan 8, 2009.

  1. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    What do you call the garbage opinionated idiots spew out when they discover
    they can't do something someone tells them about? NOISE? RAMBLING? SOUR
    GRAPES or just plain CRAP?

    For most of last year a ferrel idiot from NSW Australia (we seem to breed
    'em like rabbits here) has been pestering me about my claims over "stepped
    out" panoramas. It's almost as bad as when I announced in 2004 I could make
    wall posters from post card size images!

    Despite me posting a quick and dirty example of a "stepped out panorama",
    This idiot somehow managed to convince a half a dozed weak minded fools who
    like nothing better than getting in a little head kicking than invent
    something... That I was full of bullshit. Whoopee!

    Well...
    After the decorators are finished pasting this baby on the wall and the
    electricians are finished installing the lights in my latest gallery
    venture, I'll post a photo of it as it will be on the wall. Until then, this
    is a glimpse of how I make these commercially sought after, "stepped out
    panoramas"... And no, not just anyone can make them either... As a few of
    the regular self centred idiots in this group found out.
    http://www.d-mac.info/examples/stepped_pano.htm

    As Gordon Moat said about my digital enlargement algorithm in 2005 when Alan
    Browne challenged me to prove I could make prints rivalling Medium Format
    quality from a (Canon 10D) DSLR:

    "His results are not easy for just anyone to repeat. Skill, experience, and
    very good equipment allow higher limits".
    http://www.d-mac.info/evidence/moats_comments.htm

    So when the idiots get through discovering their unimaginative little minds
    are what's holding them back and preventing them from making breath taking
    pictures, will they apologise?

    Not if past performances are anything to go by... ROTFL. They are more
    likely to steal my photos, alter them and try a frontal attack. What a
    stupid thing to do. Jealousy is a terrible motive to do things. It sucks out
    any imagination and creativity you might have had to begin with and then
    eats away at your sole.

    Happy new year people!

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 8, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. D-Mac

    Jeff R. Guest

    Douglas, Douglas, Douglas.

    [shakes head in disbelief]

    Why don't you listen?
    Can't you understand?

    No-one is interested in how you produce some silly two-shot unchallenging
    linear pano (note the spelling, Doug: "linear")

    I'll say it again:

    Produce the Manly stepped out pano - the way you claimed you could.
    You know - the one with the real depth - not like the "handrail" example
    you've tried to pass off here (with two planes of interest - dead easy to
    stitch.)

    Produce the Manly pano as you claimed - or apologise for lying and for
    insulting us.
    It'd be nice if you admitted to lying about how the Manly shots were
    "stepped-out", when they were obviously not so.

    I don't care how many other bogus Tangalooma or handrail "linier" panos you
    show here. You're just avoiding the (very obvious) fact that you *cannot*
    produce the Manly pano you said you could.

    Do the Manly thing, Doug.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 8, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. D-Mac

    ^Tems^ Guest

    I hope you aren't still next to that mail box, nearly a year isn't it?

    I don't mind the Doggy shot but as you say it is only two pictures.
    And imagine those fat legs in the reflection at 2ft x 15ft

    So the Doggy has cut the stepped out pano from 5 shots to two
    Bet his Mrs says the same about his yearly sex average
     
    ^Tems^, Jan 8, 2009
    #3
  4. D-Mac

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Naturally I would like to also offer a few corrections and observations
    - in particular.. this new example isn't even a normal stitched panorama
    in the area in question, let alone linear (or linier)... Jump down to
    the asterisks if you are familar with this sad tale.

    First, let's look again at the initial claim, where Douglas said he
    would create a linear panorama from a series of 8-9 'stepped out' images
    of a marina scene:
    http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html

    As Jeff correctly notes, D-Mac was 'incorrect' when he said he had taken
    the sample images from stepped out locations. He simply, and very
    obviously, rotated the camera slightly. The scene contains a huge
    jumble of yacht masts and fore-ground, mid-ground and back-ground
    scenery. Douglas claimed he had taken 8-9 shots of that scene from
    several locations along the pathway (despite the fact that the two
    images shown were taken from exactly the same position), and he would
    then create a viable linear panorama suitable for poster-size
    enlargement. Jeff, I and many others dispute this claim, but would be
    happy to be shown the resulting complete panorama, along with the
    *truly* 'stepped-out' source images, to prove otherwise.

    But Douglas "St James" MacDonald has NOT been able to post any proof
    whatsoever that he has created this panorama. Not even a small,
    copyright-covered image has been proffered, despite his claims that the
    completed image can now be seen at his 'galleries', none of which are
    ever named and that no-one has seen in the wild.

    Bit like unicorns, these galleries. Could other readers please take up
    Mr MacDonald's offer and get the gallery addresses from him? Thanks.
    He doesn't seem to want to give the locations out here...

    Now, on to this latest claim. I have removed the insults.
    It is quite a bit more than one person...
    You'll find that (*completely different*) 'example' here:
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/4theidiots.htm
    Here, it received less-than-kind reviews:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/a6d1c0259d43619f
    and it was pointed out, as I do here, that this was nothing like the
    scene he made the claims about.

    By the way, has anyone else seen pages like these of Doug's - laced with
    insults and accusations about usenet posters? Does that tell you anything?
    We trust it will be large enough to evaluate - Douglas can of course
    post copyright messages on it to his heart's content to prevent the huge
    losses he might incur from its 'theft'.
    The initial claim was made almost a full year ago, so I won't be holding
    my breath.
    Which ones? As far as I can see, no-one is convinced, nor have they
    changed their mind. But I'm sure Douglas "St James: MacDonald will name
    them to clarify this point.

    Now for the meaty bit...
    *********************************************************
    ********************************************************* Sigh. If you look at the 'source images', it seems pretty obvious that
    the *entire area of the yachts above the railing* has simply been pasted
    from *one* shot, with a bit of duplication of the clear patch in the
    middle to stretch it out. You can see the telltale evidence of that
    stretch very easily - look at the C symbol. Right in the middle you
    will see a rock, with a small black mark beneath it extending slightly
    down into the water (likely a pylon.) Now look just left of the circle
    surrounding the C - does that *second* rock and pylon look familiar,
    just a touch larger? Yes, it's the same rock and pylon duplicated, of
    course, look at the source images to verify it. There is more evidence
    there of what has been done - eg just look at the area in question - has
    *any* of it come from the other image? NO. It is clear even from those
    tiny images that this has very little to do with linear panoramas, and
    is just a fairly simple copy/distort/paste job.

    So as far as I can see there is *no linear panorama stitching* in the
    marina area. None whatsoever, and of course this is nothing like
    stitching 8-9 stepped out images of such a scene, which was the original
    claim. Douglas can feel free to post larger images and show how the
    areas of the scene were made up, in order to disprove my comments.

    Douglas himself seems to admit that he hasn't done any stitching in the
    area of the yachts when he says, in the ONLY comment relating to joins
    or stitching - "I ran the join in an erratic line roughly in the middle
    of the left side fellow's arm." There you have it.
    Completely irrelevant, and readers will note that despite this article
    being penned by Mr Moat, his name does not appear anywhere on the
    article and he is not credited with authorship. Some links on it,
    including an email link to Mr Moat, are broken - the page is quite old
    and was removed long ago. Douglas claimed that he was the 'instigator'
    of this article, but Gordon (and you would think the author would
    know...) has previously pointed out that is *not* true. At the time of
    the article, Douglas was making claims about "real added detail" in his
    enlargement process. This was disputed by many, including Gordon,
    myself and many others. You will note that Gordon himself says "One
    thing that needs to be considered is that upsizing any image will never
    add information to the original file." Mr Moat clarifies the situation
    in more detail here, for anyone interested:
    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/f0bc2af22e84217b/
    For pointing out that linear panoramas are not suitable for scenes with
    a lot of complexity at different distances from the camera?
    NO. That is absolutely correct advice.

    For pointing out that Douglas' initial source images were NOT taken from
    different vantage points as claimed?
    NO. If you make a serious 'error' such as the claim the images were
    stepped out when they were clearly nothing of the sort, whether it is
    deliberate or accidental, you don't get out of it by withdrawing the
    page and pretending it never happened.

    And AC still awaits *his* apology for your mistaken-identity insults on
    that page.



    PS - The poses, image composition and the fat legs reflected in the
    glass are all masterstrokes.

    "We don't need no steenkin' polariser"
     
    Mark Thomas, Jan 8, 2009
    #4
  5. D-Mac

    Jeff R. Guest

    Doug - before I turn in for the night, can you just confirm one thing for
    me:

    Is the "linier" pano you posted here another "quick-and-dirty" example, like
    the Tangalooma one, or is a dinkum example of your professional expertise?

    Just wondering.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 8, 2009
    #5
  6. D-Mac

    Jeff R. Guest

    Actually, I was thinking the tilted horizon and haloes around the heads were
    pretty cool, too.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 8, 2009
    #6
  7. D-Mac

    Mark Thomas Guest

    And not that I would rub it in (O: but there are also some obvious
    telltale signs that Douglas has not moved more than about 18" - hardly a
    linear challenge even if he *did* try to merge anything.. But parallax
    is your area of expertise, and I'm over this already.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jan 8, 2009
    #7
  8. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Well...
    For one:
    You don't know what the third and forth images hold so your comment is
    premature ...and
    for 2.
    Any troll stealing this much of it is a bigger idiot than I thought!

    The point of it Paul is not to provide the whole breathtaking image for
    Usenet viewers.
    I do enough of that for my paying customers.

    I "bother" as you put it, just to DEMONSTRATE that the idiots who steal my
    'net examples and alter them, as they try to peddle their own form of
    disbelief because they can't do it themselves are just what they are.

    Stupid idiots without the brains or intelligence to produce their own
    evaluations... Sound familiar?

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 8, 2009
    #8
  9. D-Mac

    Colin.D Guest

    D-Mac wrote:

    <snip the vitriolic invective>

    There is one method of handling a stepped-out pano, and Doug has
    illustrated it here.

    If an object in the foreground obscures the background, as do the
    figures in his pano, then a mismatch of the background is hidden.
    Without those figures, or some other object such as a lamp standard, the
    pano would be impossible.

    I guess if Doug is right with his 9-image creation, he either has a post
    or something in the foreground to use as a 'joiner', between images, or
    the background is undefined, as in an expanse of water.

    The incontrovertible fact remains, however, that a panorama containing
    definable objects or scenery from foreground to background, i.e.
    perspective, cannot be done by 'stepping out'.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Jan 8, 2009
    #9
  10. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    You should qualify a contradictory statement like you just made Colin.

    What you said is only "your opinion". It most certainly is not mine.
    Nor is it the opinion of the people who pay good money for my limited
    edition canvas prints of those scenes with "definable objects" in them as
    you put it.

    It is quite strange Colin, that you are one of the people posting negative
    comments about my methods yet you've seen at least one digital enlargement I
    sent you. When I said later it "was from a group of photos I used to create
    a photo wall", you immediately got on the wagon accusing me of fraud
    without ever considering the possibility I might have sent you a full frame
    enlargement of one frame of one portion I used for that wallpaper job.

    So let's put that one to rest right now, shall we?.
    http://www.d-mac.info/evidence/lies-of-thomas.htm

    The same thing here. Without ever seeing any of my stepped out panoramas -
    in particular the one Jeff Ralph sits in judgment of without ever having
    seen it either, you are prepared to say it can't be done with complex
    subjects. Bunkum. It is *YOU* who can't do it with complex subjects. Not me.

    So here's a news flash Colin. You've been wrong in the past and you are
    wrong now. All it takes is more time and more images to create an unusual
    pan from a complex scene. Did I also mention Skill? I guess anyone who
    closes their mind to possibilities doesn't have any.

    I note in someone else's reply to the ferrel idiot who at first said stepped
    out panorama's couldn't be done but after Googling the topic changed his
    mind to say: "not with such and such a subject". He's in for a rude
    awakening too.

    I guess by now no one believes the lies of Mark Thomas who went to the very
    harbour I made the picture from and tried but failed to make one. Promptly
    announcing I was lying and fraud - AGAIN! He really ought to change the
    needle. There's more tracks on the disc than the one he's stuck in.

    I'll be launching my new gallery publicly in February. You'll all get to see
    the "impossible Panoramas" when I put up the on-line store selling them.
    Feel free until then to continue making a fool out of yourself by making
    absolute statements about techniques and methods you haven't got the
    faintest idea about.

    Douglas
     
    D-Mac, Jan 9, 2009
    #10
  11. D-Mac

    Paul Furman Guest

    OK well I don't see any value to the approach in this photo. Maybe there
    was a reason and something to be demonstrated but this doesn't show me
    anything except that it's possible to assemble a pano even if you move a
    little bit before realizing that an expanded view would be nice & snap
    another shot.
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 9, 2009
    #11
  12. D-Mac

    Jeff R. Guest

    Jeff R., Jan 10, 2009
    #12
  13. D-Mac

    Jeff R. Guest

    hehehe.
    Above link requires no comment. :)

    Look - that reminds me Doug.
    I sit in judgement of *your claim* that you can produce the Manly panorama.
    I can't sit in judgement of the actual panorama.
    ....because it doesn't exist.

    Prove me wrong.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 10, 2009
    #13
  14. D-Mac

    Jeff R. Guest


    ....and I *bet* the imaginary Manly panorama will not be included.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 10, 2009
    #14
  15. D-Mac

    ^Tems^ Guest

    Jesus 100 shots but what a great result
     
    ^Tems^, Jan 10, 2009
    #15
  16. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Jan 10, 2009
    #16
  17. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    http://www.d-mac.info/examples/stepped_pano.htm

    That's pretty comical for the reasons everyone else has pointed out.
    It certainly isn't a linear (note the spelling) pano.
    But that walkway provides you with a perfect place to do a linear pano
    of the entire harbour. Why didn't you do that?
    Just walk the entire length of it taking pics as you go and stitch
    them together (using your super-secret proprietary methods, of
    course). That should shut up "the idiots."
     
    Annika1980, Jan 10, 2009
    #17
  18. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Jan 10, 2009
    #18
  19. D-Mac

    Jeff R. Guest

    And its got 25 other streets given the same treatment.

    I wonder if this project preceded Googlemaps street view...

    ....either way - what a great promotion!

    Has anyone managed to locate a genuine linear panorama which includes
    continuous depth across the frame?

    (Hello! Is anybody there?.... [blank] )

    Hmmmmm.
    I thought not.
     
    Jeff R., Jan 10, 2009
    #19
  20. D-Mac

    ^Tems^ Guest

    ^Tems^, Jan 11, 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.