wrote:
SS, it's quite dififcult to explain exactly why Douglas gets this
response, if you have not seen his fascinating and lengthy history..
But if interested, read on. Be patient, and make up your own mind
*after* visiting the links - beware of taking anything Doug says on
face value (same for me - judge for yourself!). You'll note that
Doug's answer to you didn't include any references - mine does...

On Jul 7, 4:38 pm, clandestin_écureuil wrote:
Please don't let me interrupt your squabble with various posters, many of
whom I have found to make considerate, polite and informative posts

Thanks! (O:

you have aroused my curiosity. When you refer to a "stepped out" panorama,
you are actually referring to what is usually known as a linear panorama
are you not?

Yes, he is. Here's the original thread:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...d1c0259d43619f
Pretty heavy going, and you will see that there has been quite a bit
of ill feeeling surrounding Doug in the past..
Anyway, to stay ontopic - the page he offered up to demonstrate the
concept showed a scene that was a seriously flawed candidate for a
linear panorama (see link below). Further more, his sample 'stepped
out' images were very obviously taken from exactly the same vantage
point, with merely a slight rotation.. The page received a lot of
very negative feedback, and, presumably because of this, Douglas
pulled the page from view. Douglas has a history of this type of
behavior. Ie making extraordinary and often false claims and then
pulling the pages down and running away.

So the evidence was gone... Or so he thought! Because of his
'history', several of us now grab copies of Douglas' pages, just in
case they are withdrawn. And he
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
you will find Doug's original 'stepped out panorama' page reposted by
Jeff R (another of those considerate folk you refer to!), along with
copious explanatory notes at left. You'll note Douglas was rather
scathing in his comments about another poster, "Atheist Chaplain".
Yet AC had posted absolutely no such thing - Douglas had confused him
with someone else! But Douglas has refused to apologise. That's the
sort of guy he is....

Note the complex scene that Doug suggests would be a good candidate
for a linear panorama. Note how his two sample images (of the alleged
50) are *not* even taken from different vantage points!! Note the
tone of the page, and finally note that Douglas has *not* returned to
post the promised result. I've even offered to supply real source
images of this very scene, taken to Douglas' specifications, for
anyone who wants to try. No takers, strangely. (O: Do you wish to
have a go? Here are two:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano_moved.jpg
I have more images if you want, and at larger sizes... but I think it
is patently clear that this sort of scene simply *cannot* be stitched
as a linear. Douglas has not proved otherwise.

Amusingly, some time after that initial thread, Douglas posted this:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/4theidiots.htm
to 'prove' he could do a linear panorama and show us 'idiots' a thing
or two... As you can see, he avoided the original scene. And when
you look closely, that one is.. oh.. a little less than
satisfactory...? It is dissected in detail he
http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...35da59cde7a455

When I did my second photography unit in college we were taught about
linear panoramas as against rotational or pivotal panoramas. I did one as
an assignment for credit in that course, using a mini-tripod clamped to a
luggage carrier mounted on my mountain bike, a device created by my father.
Using the tripod's inbuilt level and the bike's computer I could move an
exact distance before each shot, making the final "assembly" less arduous
and the result more consistent. The only trouble I had initially, causing
me to wait for a clear day, was with constantly moving clouds. The outcome
was pleasing and the project was interesting, it earned me a Distinction
(but not a High Distinction unfortunately).

Do you still have it? Why not post it if you do... We are all
actually quite gentle on posters who do not make silly claims about
their work..!

I don't but you an be certain that my parents do. They keep everything. It
wasn't spectacular, rather boring, but a technical challenge. The technique
has no real use, but it does teach in the sense that it makes you very
aware of a number of issues, perspective and lighting (source) being two of
the primary issues.


Why do you choose to re-name a well established procedure? Calling it
"stepped out" sounds clumsy and imprecise to my thinking.

Indeed. We can only presume Douglas had not heard of the correct
name..

Was there a
reason why you did that? Are you actually attempting to do this hand-held
and walking rather than mounted in some form?

He said this "(the photographer) may be better off walking and
snapping shots to stich (sic) than the recent method of using a
rotating head on a tripod". At no time did he refer to the potential
problems caused by perspective changes, nor did he point out the fact
that linear panoramams are generally only useful when there is a
relatively 'linear' or flat scene without a lot of fore-/mid-/back-
ground clutter, depending on the plane of interest.

Don't get me wrong, linears have their place, but Doug's suggestions
were so wide of the mark, it all had to be challenged.

So, we still await Douglas' masterpiece showing all those yachts and
masts.. (O: Perhaps, as he is talking to you, you can convince him
to show us his expertise, as promised..

cheers,

mt

Yes, well having looked at the two images in question I do agree, they were
taken from the same point. If you drop a perpendicular line from the pole
to the white line on the road edge they intersect the line in the same
place. I just dropped those two images into Photoshop and used the line
tool to precisely verify that. There is no way that they were "stepped out"
unless he was using a very long lens and even then they would only be
inches apart.


I wonder why he did it? It isn't hard to do a linear panorama, though not
with that background.

I always wanted to do a panorama of a Carousel, keeping the camera mounted
in one place and rotating the carousel by one horse for each shot. In close
using a long lens with a close-up lens fitted for depth of field etc., or
maybe rig a "blue screen" system with clothesline and bedsheets behind the
horses. It would be an interesting image, all the horses in a straight line.

Secret Squirrel



--

Ingrid Rose

clandestin.ecureuil(insert missing symbol here)gmail.com