Pan O'Rama

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Some may feel that a 20% overlap is not sufficient, but I doubt if
anyone would suggest that the instructions say to pan the camera.

20% or so... That should work.

True enough, but *some* sources recommend an overlap between 30% and
50%.

wasteful.

What, exactly, is wasted?

there is no need to have a 50% overlap for panos. it's a complete waste.

You didn't answer the question. What is wasted?

i did answer.

Is there some way that the pixels not used in the pano be utilized?
Have I wasted time or money? What?

it's a waste to overlap by 50%. what part is not clear?

You made a statement. Explain it.

there's no need, since it's clear as mud what is meant.

If I take a photograph and crop that photograph to less than the full
frame of what was taken, have I wasted something?

yes.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Some may feel that a 20% overlap is not sufficient, but I doubt if
anyone would suggest that the instructions say to pan the camera.

20% or so... That should work.

True enough, but *some* sources recommend an overlap between 30% and
50%.

wasteful.

What, exactly, is wasted?

there is no need to have a 50% overlap for panos. it's a complete waste.

If two photos in a pano series are overlapped by 50%, and are - by
your definition - a complete waste, then neither is necessary to
complete the pano?

If only difference between what you mandate to be the necessary
overlap and the 50% overlap is wasted, it would not be a complete
waste? Now would it?

nowhere did i mandate anything and it's clear you are just wanting to
argue for the sake of arguing.

You didn't answer the question. What is wasted?

i did answer.

Is there some way that the pixels not used in the pano be utilized?
Have I wasted time or money? What?

it's a waste to overlap by 50%. what part is not clear?

You made a statement. Explain it.

there's no need, since it's clear as mud what is meant.

If I take a photograph and crop that photograph to less than the full
frame of what was taken, have I wasted something?

yes.

If we waste something, what we waste can be identified. We can waste
time, money, effort, food, and even words. Attempting to get you to
defend your more silly statements is a waste of words.

as usual, more bashing.

I have asked you to identify what is wasted with a 50% overlap when
shooting a pano series. Surely, if you believe something has been
wasted, you can explain what that something is.

i did.

The next question would be "What loss is incurred in the waste?". I
won't ask that question because I know that you cannot, and will not,
answer that question.

i can, but will not because you aren't interested in an answer or a
discussion. you just want to argue.

On 2015-10-01 13:43, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-01 17:33:27 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2015-09-30 16:24, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-30 15:52:32 +0000, Tony Cooper
said:

Tim Grey's most recent "Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter" is on the subject of
bracketing shots in taking a panorama.

In it, he says "Once you've captured the set of exposures for the
first frame, rotate the camera to the next frame, overlapping by about
20% or so...".

Some may feel that a 20% overlap is not sufficient, but I doubt if
anyone would suggest that the instructions say to pan the camera.

20% or so... That should work.

I usually overlap to about 10% and haven't had any issues with CS5
stitching. I suppose detail in the image helps and if it is a less
"noisy" scene, then more overlap would be better.

It also depends if you are shooting in landscape or portrait
orientation. Landscape gives you more leeway, portrait is far more
critical. Then selection of an appropriate projection is critical.

I'd assume the stitching program would have less issue in portrait as it
would have a longer baseline per edge to line up with. That said all
my panos are single strip in landscape - I've never done a 'tiled' pano
(eg: 3 x 2 or some such) either.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:55:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Some may feel that a 20% overlap is not sufficient, but I doubt if
anyone would suggest that the instructions say to pan the camera.

20% or so... That should work.

True enough, but *some* sources recommend an overlap between 30% and
50%.

wasteful.

What, exactly, is wasted?

there is no need to have a 50% overlap for panos. it's a complete waste.

You didn't answer the question. What is wasted?

i did answer.

Is there some way that the pixels not used in the pano be utilized?
Have I wasted time or money? What?

it's a waste to overlap by 50%. what part is not clear?

You made a statement. Explain it.

there's no need, since it's clear as mud what is meant.

That's the problem. Very thick mud.

If I take a photograph and crop that photograph to less than the full
frame of what was taken, have I wasted something?

yes.

Why is it wasted if it was always intended that it would not be used?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If I take a photograph and crop that photograph to less than the full
frame of what was taken, have I wasted something?

yes.

Why is it wasted if it was always intended that it would not be used?

if it was always intended that it would not be used, then why was it
included in the original photo?

On 2015-10-01 23:52, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

20% or so... That should work.

True enough, but *some* sources recommend an overlap between 30% and
50%.


Depends on the subject matter.

no.

Yep.

On 2015-09-30 18:07, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:24:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 15:52:32 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

Tim Grey's most recent "Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter" is on the subject of
bracketing shots in taking a panorama.

In it, he says "Once you've captured the set of exposures for the
first frame, rotate the camera to the next frame, overlapping by about
20% or so...".

Some may feel that a 20% overlap is not sufficient, but I doubt if
anyone would suggest that the instructions say to pan the camera.

20% or so... That should work.

True enough, but *some* sources recommend an overlap between 30% and
50%.

50%? Hmm, consider frames A B C

If A and C overlap B by 50% (each) then they'd almost or certainly meet
in the middle of B. So pretty wasteful of memory (no biggie) and
processing later on (perhaps a biggie).

If the subject matter is sufficiently changing, an overlap of 10% is
more than ample. If it's relatively "smooth" (to a limit) then more
overlap is desirable.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

If I take a photograph and crop that photograph to less than the full
frame of what was taken, have I wasted something?

yes.

Why is it wasted if it was always intended that it would not be used?

if it was always intended that it would not be used, then why was it
included in the original photo?

Another alarm bell rings about your claim to actually take
photographs.

more of your bashing.

Actual photographers often frame wide as a safety measure to ensure
the final composition is both balanced and inclusive of everything of
interest.

looks like the alarm bell you clam to be hearing is really about you.

actual photographers compose their shots *before* taking the photo.

they might crop it slightly later, but it's minor, if at all.

otherwise, they'd just use a wide angle lens and point the camera in
the general direction and crop later.

The photographer doesn't know what part will discarded in
the crop, but knows that something will be. The cropped-out part is
not wasted.

yes it is wasted, although it's usually minor. it's certainly not the
50% waste you were babbling about earlier.

On 2015-10-02 23:16:04 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2015-09-30 18:07, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:24:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 15:52:32 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

Tim Grey's most recent "Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter" is on the subject of
bracketing shots in taking a panorama.

In it, he says "Once you've captured the set of exposures for the
first frame, rotate the camera to the next frame, overlapping by about
20% or so...".

Some may feel that a 20% overlap is not sufficient, but I doubt if
anyone would suggest that the instructions say to pan the camera.

20% or so... That should work.

True enough, but *some* sources recommend an overlap between 30% and
50%.

50%? Hmm, consider frames A B C

If A and C overlap B by 50% (each) then they'd almost or certainly meet
in the middle of B. So pretty wasteful of memory (no biggie) and
processing later on (perhaps a biggie).

If the subject matter is sufficiently changing, an overlap of 10% is
more than ample. If it's relatively "smooth" (to a limit) then more
overlap is desirable.

With this 6 frame pano I am probably using 20%-30% overlap. The source
frames are in the "filmstrip".
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_335.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/1/2015 11:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Some may feel that a 20% overlap is not sufficient, but I doubt if
anyone would suggest that the instructions say to pan the camera.

20% or so... That should work.

True enough, but *some* sources recommend an overlap between 30% and
50%.

wasteful.


Digits images are very expensive.

--
PeterN