Pan O'Rama

On 10/1/2015 11:52 PM, 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.


Considering the panos that you have posted, I agree.There is no need for
any overlap.

--
PeterN

On 10/2/2015 12:42 AM, 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.


Another typical non-answer. Waste of what?

--
PeterN

On 10/2/2015 8:43 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 10/02/2015 01:58 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:42:59 -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?

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

You made a statement. Explain it.

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

The pixels that you have cropped out (or the overlap in the stitching
operation) are a valuable resource and must be preserved. Already, at
peak picture-taking times (holidays, vacations, etc.), the USA is
importing pixels from Colombia and Portugal, two of the world's leading
pixel producers.

Cropped out and otherwise wasted pixels should be stored in air-tight
containers, and taken to the nearest pixel recycling center, where they
will be cleaned, sorted, and reinstalled in online photos through
websites such as Instagram, Dropbox, Flicker, and others.

Donald Trump would be happy with your admonition. We note with glee,
that no pixels are imported from Mexico.


Please do not simply discard unused pixels. Do not put our children, out
children's children, etc at the mercy of third world pixel producers.



--
PeterN

On 10/2/2015 10:24 AM, 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.

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.


IOW There is no way you can defend your statement. The only thing wasted
was our time, while we were waiting, hoping to learn something from you.

--
PeterN

On 10/2/2015 7:25 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

Unlike you, clams are usually silent, except for some soft hissing while
being steamed.




--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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.


I've taken two or three panos in my life. I have no advice to offer
in taking panos other than to move the camera in overlapping
increments rather than panning the camera.

What I said was "some" sources recommend between 30 to 50%. Here's a
source that says from 20 to 40% using a formula that should be dear to
the hearts of the engineers who do photography:

http://www.panoramafactory.com/discu...ges/10/57.html

Here's a source that says 30%:

http://digital-photography-school.co...oramic-photos-
with-any-camera/

Here's a source that says that 30% is a *starting point":
https://contrastly.com/panorama-phot...ting-tutorial/

Here's a source that says 50%:

https://photographylife.com/panoramic-photography-howto

So, that's proves my point that "some" sources say between 30 to 50%.

the issue isn't whether or not someone said that.

the issue is that 50% overlap is a waste.

your source also says,
You can certainly overlap them by a smaller margin and decrease the
total number of images, so it is totally up to you on how you want to
do this. Just make sure that the images overlap by at least 20% and
there are visible stationary objects that will allow the stitching
program to identify them and connect them later.

that's hardly a strong recommendation.

he also says,
a tripod is optional, but highly recommended for best results. Any
sturdy tripod should work, but make sure that the head is flexible
enough for you to be able to pan from left to right with ease.

are you sure you want to cite someone who uses the wrong word?

You are now a source that says 10%.

I have no opinion on what the right figure is, and have expressed no
such opinion.

It is my opinion that there is no concept of "waste" involved. That's
a silly premise made a silly person who often uses the wrong word and
then whines about being picked on over semantics. We aren't likely to
be using 256K SD card, so "no biggie" is actually "no problem
whatsoever".

more of your stupid insults. it's all you do when you have nothing to
refute.

your opinion is wrong, and since you have only taken a couple of panos
in your life, you're not in a position to comment.

anything beyond what's needed to properly stitch is a waste. it's that
simple.

20% is a good rule of thumb but it can vary depending on content. if
the edges are all similar, then more overlap will help to accurately
stitch. if the edges are not similar then less is sufficient.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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.

Cropping is like being a virgin. Either the image has been cropped,
or it hasn't.

nonsense.

the more it's cropped the more that is wasted.

it's a simple concept but you just want to argue.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

So, that's proves my point that "some" sources say between 30 to 50%.

the issue isn't whether or not someone said that.

the issue is that 50% overlap is a waste.

Once again you are stating what *you* consider to be the issue.

translated: your attempt at twisting has failed.

The
primary issue is that I said what "some" sources say.

sources can say all sorts of stuff.

there are sources that say the earth is flat and the moon landing is
faked. quite a few, in fact.

what matters is if the sources are correct and/or are giving good
advice, and they aren't.

As to the
"waste" issue, you have raised it but not documented in any way that
there is a waste or what is wasted.

why it's a waste is as obvious as the sky is blue.

nevertheless, i explained it for those with lesser intellect, such as
yourself.

your source also says,
You can certainly overlap them by a smaller margin and decrease the
total number of images, so it is totally up to you on how you want to
do this. Just make sure that the images overlap by at least 20% and
there are visible stationary objects that will allow the stitching
program to identify them and connect them later.

that's hardly a strong recommendation.

he also says,
a tripod is optional, but highly recommended for best results. Any
sturdy tripod should work, but make sure that the head is flexible
enough for you to be able to pan from left to right with ease.

are you sure you want to cite someone who uses the wrong word?

That is a correct usage of the word. The head should be able to turn
freely and pan. That doesn't mean that the shots should be taken
during the pan. It just establishes that there is free movement of
the head.

exactly the usage i was using.

when i say it, it's wrong but when he says it, it's correct.

further proof of what a total asshole you really are.

I have no opinion on what the right figure is, and have expressed no
such opinion.

It is my opinion that there is no concept of "waste" involved. That's
a silly premise made a silly person who often uses the wrong word and
then whines about being picked on over semantics. We aren't likely to
be using 256K SD card, so "no biggie" is actually "no problem
whatsoever".

more of your stupid insults. it's all you do when you have nothing to
refute.

your opinion is wrong, and since you have only taken a couple of panos
in your life, you're not in a position to comment.

anything beyond what's needed to properly stitch is a waste. it's that
simple.

What is wasted?

the overlap. do try to keep up.

stop arguing for once and maybe you'll learn something.

maybe.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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.

Cropping is like being a virgin. Either the image has been cropped,
or it hasn't.

nonsense.

the more it's cropped the more that is wasted.

it's a simple concept but you just want to argue.

Unfortunately, for you, you can't explain what is wasted or why that
is any kind of problem. So, you snip what you can't refute.

already explained elsewhere.

it's also common sense.

On 2015-10-03 03:04:10 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 22:36:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

What is wasted?

the overlap. do try to keep up.


No, the pixels in the overlapped area not used are discarded, but
there is no concept of waste involved.

From what I understand, pixels in the overlapped area are blended not
discarded. No waste.
BTW: From time-to-time I actually shoot panos.

For there to be waste, there must be some loss of something that might
be otherwise utilized. That's not the case in overlap or cropping.

Depending on the number of frames shot, the orientation of the camera,
the lens/focal length used, the amount of rotation, the final angle of
view, and the projection used by whatever software is used to stitch
the frames into the pano, cropping is unavoidable.

If you pour a cup of coffee, drink half of it, and throw out the
remaining coffee, that's waste. You have discarded something that
could have been consumed. It may be waste that you are willing to
absorb, but it is waste.

If you discard pixels, in a pano or a crop, and have no possible use
for them if kept, there is no waste.

Yup!
What were you going to do with all those extra pixels?

--
Regards,

Savageduck