Panorama (multi phot) joint artifacts (PS CS3)

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?

Thanks,
Alan.

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?



Reminder to self: flatten the image before reducing in size.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:16:51 -0400, 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?

Thanks,
Alan.

I've seen that before, but never knew the reason why it occured... I think I
filtered the images (Remove Pattern) before further processing, to get rid of
them.

Did you shoot that up near Lachute by any chance?

wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:16:51 -0400, 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?

Thanks,
Alan.

I've seen that before, but never knew the reason why it occured... I think I
filtered the images (Remove Pattern) before further processing, to get rid of
them.

Did you shoot that up near Lachute by any chance?


See my reply to myself. I'd forgotten to flatten the image.

Shot in Stanstead.

"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.

In article , Bruce
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:40:57 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:
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).
snip
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.


Was there ever a more boring panorama?

What a waste of time and effort.

....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 360¼
pano. What point is there in denigrating the ¾sthetics 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.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

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


Was there ever a more boring panorama?


For people who already live in the middle of a field maybe not, no.




print your name here

....

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.

Doug McDonald

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.

--
john mcwilliams

"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.

--
Charles E Hardwidge