If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
clandestin_écureuil wrote:
Alienjones wrote: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/HDRatdawn.htm For the sheep bleating in the background... Baaaaah. Please don't let me interrupt your squabble with various posters, many of whom I have found to make considerate, polite and informative posts, but 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? 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). Why do you choose to re-name a well established procedure? Calling it "stepped out" sounds clumsy and imprecise to my thinking. 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? Secret Squirrel When I make linear panoramas I use a trolly on a fold up "rail" that serves the same purpose as your bicycle mount did. The "step" thing goes back nearly a year to when I suggested to Troy Piggins he might find more challenge in making "stepped out" panoramas than rotational ones. The trolls picked it up and ran with it. Later I fueled the flames by posting an example I'd taken a mere 6" apart. It was part of a 50 frame panorama. Anyway... You are right. They are linear panoramas. I used the "stepped out" description to separate ones taken using my purpose built rail to the quick and dirty ones made by walking along a path. As you probably know, there is quite a lot of work in making one, even if you use a rail. Even more work when the camera is hand held. The theme from the gallery of trolls has changed from "it can't be done" to "it can be done but..." after the fanboi troll actually did some research ...into the current flame. I didn't do it cleanly enough. The thing about Usenet that will eventually see it's demise is the way in which a couple of key individuals can create an environment in a group that prevents people from engaging in discussion for fear of attracting the attention of one of them. Excuse me if I adopt a low tolerance to the noise in the group. No one is immune from them or insulated from them. The best idea is to ignore the flak. I'll happily talk to anyone (except the trolls) who has anything photographic to talk about. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
"Alienjones" wrote in message
... The "step" thing goes back nearly a year to when I suggested to Troy Piggins he might find more challenge in making "stepped out" panoramas than rotational ones. The trolls picked it up and ran with it. Later I fueled the flames by posting an example I'd taken a mere 6" apart. It was part of a 50 frame panorama. Well... In the above paragraph Douglas *finally* admits that the two Manly photos were indeed taken from the same spot - not "stepped-out" as he had previously insisted. Here is a sample of the explanatory notes which accompanied Doug's post of these two pix: "...Either way this is a quick and dirty example of a Panorama (...) made by walking along the pathway above the road, taking shots at frequent intervals. Dozens of them! This is just two images of the final picture ... ...(it's an unfinished work) because there are another 8 or 9 images to be stitched into the picture before I'm done with it." Eight or nine, or dozens, or fifty? The "fifty" reference follows: " 10 megapixel images x 5 or 6 equals a final 50 or 60 megapixel image..." Poor Doug. So easily confused. 50 Megapixels becomes 50 images. "Stepped-out" becomes 6" But wait! There's mo " I shot these images with a Panasonic FZ50 in RAW mode, setting it's Leica lens to 50mm which equates to about a medium wide lens in 35mm terms" That FZ50 of yours must have a h-u-u-u-ge sensor, Doug, for that to be the case. I guess that would make your Panasonic a "Stepped-out-Panno"? (...and why bother mentioning "it's (sic) Leica lens"? Who cares what company owns the franchise? You write like someone who's terminally hung up on brand-name envy. Nikes or Reebok, Doug?) Still mo " And yes! My dual CPU PC with 5 Meg of RAM labors under the strain of the computations needed as the image grows but... " Crikey! My dual CPU PC would surely labour under the strain if it only had 5 Meg of RAM. Yes - I'm (we're) picking on you Doug - because you beg for it, with your supercilious invective and downright dishonesty. Your libellous webpages and your tiresome hollow threats. All I ask is that you admit your mistakes (a few of which are mentioned above) and apologise for being such a rude and ingracious old SOB. Then - who knows? We might share a friendly beer or two. Heaven knows - I've stocked up a few slabs for a (ahem) similar sort of occasion anyway... Waiting, but breath not held... -- Jeff R. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
OT HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
Annika1980 wrote:
Contrary to what you keep saying, I have NEVER claimed that your lousy photo was my own. Yes, I did some work on it after you posted the original and I posted the new and improved version on my site and linked to it here. I even offered to send you an improved version if you sent me the original. **** me for trying to be nice. But there was never the implication that the photo was taken by me as you claim. Your gripe at the time was that the photo on my pbase site originally had no caption or credit or attribution to you, but instead of asking me to properly credit you you starting yelling that I had stolen your pic. So after listening to you cry like a bitch for a day or so I credited it to you on the site. Nobody else (besides you) was stupid enough to believe that I took that horrible pic because the only ones that saw it were directed to it from here and they all knew it was simply an improved version of your lousy photo. Which is a perfectly accurate summary - I watched this event unfold at the time, as I'm sure many others here did. Since then, Mr Obsessed has ranted and raved about this incident as if it was the end of his life. Can you imagine the sort of person who would get so upset about an incident that didn't actually cost him anything except (deserved) embarrassment? The fact that not a single person has rallied to mII's completely lost (and completely trivial) complaint would be a hint to most people. The only reason he now persists, is his ongoing need for 15 minutes of fame, and he *so* needs to be a 'victim'... It's a bit late to fix your credibility problem, mII, so maybe just change your name and try again. And try to understand what most people seem to get - when you post images to the web, expect them to be 'reused' and reposted, especially if you post them asking for comment/advice. As long as you are not being ripped off (and you weren't), consider it publicity (it's all good!), and listen to the advice. I have no problem with folk altering and reposting my images for a good cause, and I think you'll find that applies to most here - except you. I remember the original image well, and believe me, you should have accepted the good advice offered to you. As it is, I presume you have learnt nothing except how to waste your existence on your lame 'crusade'. But do carry on. You and Dmac seem to have a lot in common, so keep it to this thread... (O: |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
OT HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
Let me translate the 'Dougspeak'
Alienjones wrote: All irrelevant rantings removed Translation: "I am guilty of all charges, and would rather they were not brought up again." Boy... You are one sick puppy. Mark - or is it Charles today? Translation: "I like to post personal abuse, and nobody but me is allowed to use more than identity. You may know me as Ryadia, Alienjones, Cryptopix or about a hundred others - I am the posterboy for HYPOCRISY." A happy snapper with a digicam trying to make out in a DSLR forum... that he somehow has a clue while demonstrating quite the opposite. Translation: "I like to claim superiority, even though all my images get slammed. I am jealous that Mark seems to avoid attracting such criticism when he posts. I wish I knew why.." Now why is that? It's simple, Douglas. I don't make stupid claims. I do what I say I will do. I don't lie. There's the difference between us. Now, here's the questions again: 1. Why did you post those Manly pictures from exactly the same location, pretend they were 'stepped out', promise to post the result, and then run away? 2. Why won't you describe me, from your alleged security footage? 3. Why won't you post your solicitor's name? 4. Why haven't you posted your legal documents to Jeff? 5. Can you explain exactly what the 'CPPA' is?? You claim on your Ebay shopfront that you are certified with them, and that the CPPA is an Industry Association. So who are they? I'll be repeating these requests every time you post, Doug. You are still a cowardly liar, and prove it every time you avoid those questions.. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
Mark Thomas wrote:
Annika1980 wrote: Contrary to what you keep saying, I have NEVER claimed that your lousy photo was my own. Yes, I did some work on it after you posted the original and I posted the new and improved version on my site and linked to it here. I even offered to send you an improved version if you sent me the original. **** me for trying to be nice. But there was never the implication that the photo was taken by me as you claim. Your gripe at the time was that the photo on my pbase site originally had no caption or credit or attribution to you, but instead of asking me to properly credit you you starting yelling that I had stolen your pic. So after listening to you cry like a bitch for a day or so I credited it to you on the site. Nobody else (besides you) was stupid enough to believe that I took that horrible pic because the only ones that saw it were directed to it from here and they all knew it was simply an improved version of your lousy photo. Which is a perfectly accurate summary - I watched this event unfold at the time, as I'm sure many others here did. Ok, Bret. I asked to get accreditation. You conveniently forget that. Here is my posting. It's rather polite. =========================== So..we can now see you in the crib..happy? As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order? http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/72067191 May lead people to believe the photographer isn't who it actually is. mike II =========================== Then Bret proceeded to attribute the picture to "Some asshole" mike -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:02 am, m II wrote: You have already posted here that you took the picture and put it on your 'experimental' site. Then you wrote that the link you posted to my picture on YOUR web site was ok, as in your opinion, there is a limited viewing audience here. Then you said it wasn't really theft because it was a very bad picture. I also have the original name calling you posted when I first asked you to attribute the picture. Doing one minute of Photoshop work on the picture did NOT make it yours. You know that. Contrary to what you keep saying, I have NEVER claimed that your lousy photo was my own. Yes, I did some work on it after you posted the original and I posted the new and improved version on my site and linked to it here. I even offered to send you an improved version if you sent me the original. **** me for trying to be nice. But there was never the implication that the photo was taken by me as you claim. Your gripe at the time was that the photo on my pbase site originally had no caption or credit or attribution to you, but instead of asking me to properly credit you you starting yelling that I had stolen your pic. So after listening to you cry like a bitch for a day or so I credited it to you on the site. Nobody else (besides you) was stupid enough to believe that I took that horrible pic because the only ones that saw it were directed to it from here and they all knew it was simply an improved version of your lousy photo. If you want to keep stalking me then that's your right, but that poor horse was beaten to death years ago. You just make yourself look like a bigger idiot with each post. Kinda like Rita. You don't seem to get the point Bret. Copyright. That's the word. The photographer has a right to say what will and will not be done with his work ands by whom. You can't take someone else's photo for any reason without them either offering them to you or making it known you can have them. Ethics, I know is something that seems to have variable interpretations amongst people who never started out with any. It's not too late now to discover them and in all seriousness Bret, you will be a better liked person if you have some. What you need to do to appease Mike, is simply not try and grandstand your photoshop skills at his expense. Step up to the plate and apologize. I'm sure he is man enough to accept it. Then you can start making some inroads with others you've ****ed off since you learnt to talk. Maybe get some community spirit and put your name down for Santa a the local Wallmart so all the kids in the neighborhood can come and **** on you the way you **** on every one you come in contact with. I'll even send a shoot crew over at my expense to cover it! ROTFL. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
HDR and Stepping out a Panorama
m II wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote: Annika1980 wrote: Contrary to what you keep saying, I have NEVER claimed that your lousy photo was my own. Yes, I did some work on it after you posted the original and I posted the new and improved version on my site and linked to it here. I even offered to send you an improved version if you sent me the original. **** me for trying to be nice. But there was never the implication that the photo was taken by me as you claim. Your gripe at the time was that the photo on my pbase site originally had no caption or credit or attribution to you, but instead of asking me to properly credit you you starting yelling that I had stolen your pic. So after listening to you cry like a bitch for a day or so I credited it to you on the site. Nobody else (besides you) was stupid enough to believe that I took that horrible pic because the only ones that saw it were directed to it from here and they all knew it was simply an improved version of your lousy photo. Which is a perfectly accurate summary - I watched this event unfold at the time, as I'm sure many others here did. Ok, Bret. I asked to get accreditation. You conveniently forget that. Here is my posting. It's rather polite. =========================== So..we can now see you in the crib..happy? As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order? http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/72067191 May lead people to believe the photographer isn't who it actually is. mike II =========================== Then Bret proceeded to attribute the picture to "Some asshole" mike There is in Tennessee a known and identifiable population of people who are descended from "kissing cousins". I think the term is applied inbred idiots who think having sex with their cousins is great fun 'cause they won't get caught. These idiots take offense at what the rest of the world considers politeness and correctness. They seem to have formulated some kind of behavioral pattern that until the Internet gave them access to the rest of the world, went un-noticed by normal people. It seems we have a couple or three idiots in Australia with the same attitude. Not bad I suppose. 4 idiots out of 20 million who read news groups. It's just their volume is turned up so high to try and blast everyone else into submission, they are noticed at all. Like Chattanooga is the center of the universe ROTFL. In all seriousness Mike... You simply can't expect a jerk like Bret Douglas to have any principals or morels much less any ethics. It's a sad fact that when you filter out the idiots, there is little or no traffic in this and AUS.PHOTO. Do that and neither he nor the trio from AU will be a bother to you again. It must **** them off big time when I don't answer... Ha, ha, ha. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D | JPH | Digital SLR Cameras | 69 | October 13th 06 05:27 AM |
konica Minolta Z20 - stepping rings + filters | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 2 | October 14th 05 06:15 PM |
Stepping Up to Medium Format - Suggestions please. | OnSafari | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 17 | April 25th 05 09:07 PM |