Panorama (multi phot) joint artifacts (PS CS3)

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Elliott Roper wrote:
In article , Bruce
wrote:

Was there ever a more boring panorama?
What a waste of time and effort.

Not at all. It illustrates something.

...which waste is exceeded only by your patronising and irrelevant
remark. If your reading comprehension were equal to your unprovoked
petty nastiness, you would have noted that it was *part* of a 360º
pano. What point is there in denigrating the æsthetics of a fragment
published to illustrate a technical query?

This newsgroup could be a pleasant and useful place with only a little
more thought and politeness. OK, and a bit of vicious humour.

Some are already at the maximum output of thought.....

Stick around. You'd be surprised as what passes for humour. Or humor.

Anoraks can get a bit obsessive and precious. A more level headed approach
and sociable tilt can help people avoid that trap. Elitism and trolling
don't help but if people find themselves getting sucked in by that they can
always take a break and pick things up later.

And I thank you for making me look it up. It caused me to find
delightful article:

http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/Why_are_anoraks_called_anoraks%3F

--
John McWilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:

Anoraks can get a bit obsessive and precious. A more level headed
approach and sociable tilt can help people avoid that trap. Elitism and
trolling don't help but if people find themselves getting sucked in by
that they can always take a break and pick things up later.

And I thank you for making me look it up. It caused me to find delightful
article:

http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/Why_are_anoraks_called_anoraks%3F

I have no idea if that's true but it sounded plausible.

The photo groups have their share of dick waving and asshattery but I've
seen worse. You can't duck a photo and the DNA seems a little broader so
helps moderate some of those excesses.

--
Charles E Hardwidge

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
Pete D wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...

Alan Browne wrote:
Here is part of a 360 deg panorama I shot recently. Takes for ever to
render (full size is over 250M pix).

Oddly, when viewed at full size the artifacts are not visible, but
reduced to a much smaller size, they are. Here is a fragment (part
of 4
images with the artifact lines in white) where the artifacts are
visible
(although "softened" by photo.net).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9635831&size=lg

Anyone know how to avoid these artifacts? Is it the choice of the
re-sampling algo when reducing that will do it? Which one?

Don't use Photo Shop? Autostich is a better program.

No it most certainly is not.

I would not know about Autostitch, but Photoshop CS2 (don't know later
versions)
is crippled because it will not do 16 bit files.

I did my panos from raw resulting in 16 bit/colour files. (CS3).

Note CS is now at CS4.

John McWilliams wrote:
Elliott Roper wrote:
In article , Bruce
wrote:


Was there ever a more boring panorama?
What a waste of time and effort.

Not at all. It illustrates something.

"Bruce" is only capable of attacks. We've never seen a decent photo
from him under his real name or his alias.