|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
{K:91109} 5/17/2006
|
hi and thanks for dropping by my mother's day shot
...I particularily like the center frame of this pano with the shadows and casual diners...i think image would be stronger with a contrast tweaking
Always cool to see a pano from you in your adopted country of Japan...regards,gayle
|
|
|
|
Steve Aronoff
{K:18393} 5/2/2006
|
Not a problem. I was a little embarrassed (hence the "oh") not to realize that simply resizing a window would also resize the object within the window. I do it all the time, but I never think about it when I'm doing it. I appreciate the direction. Anyway, I do love the work you've been doing with the panoramas.
Steve
|
|
|
|
safak tortu
{K:2724} 5/1/2006
|
Great shot and exellent technique...Congrats...
Best wishes......
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 5/1/2006
|
Dear Steve, I hope I wasn't out of line explaining window resizing... I did wonder. Kind of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, as they say. Anyway, I have zapped off a mail to the author (who is very quick to incorporate suggestions for improvement) suggesting that the list of key commands should be instantly presented when you click on "help" and that the program should come up in a 600 x 600 pixel window with obvious resizing "handles" in the corners, like most Windows programs. That should prevent the frustration and disappointment that you have experienced.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Aronoff
{K:18393} 5/1/2006
|
oh.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 5/1/2006
|
Not wanting to hit you over the head too hard, Steve, but I wonder if you are overlooking the standard Windows re-size window functions? If you choose the variable sizing option, the one that shows the square frame in the upper RH corner, not the overlapping squares, you can resize it to any size you want by dragging the corners. I have just recommended to someone on the related Panorama forum topic that they should try 600 x 600 pixels for the best subjective effect in view of the high compression one has to use to meet UF limitations. I typically use 2,500 pixels width and between 1,250 - 850 pixels for height on my "full size" US panoramas, whereas the originals are all at least 5000 x 2,500. That's four times the number of pixels per unit area, so a much better subjective experience. But you can see things looking good using a 600 x 600 "window." Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Aronoff
{K:18393} 5/1/2006
|
Aha! Programs have to really hit me over the head to make me see what to do. I originally went to the help menu and didn't go to "about" because on every other program I've ever seen "about" only gives you the version and date of the program. So I assumed that what was on the menu bar was all there was. Now I know better.
Having sussed things out, I find I like the program much better than I did. I still wish you could scale the photo to even smaller sizes, but it did take out the aberrations. So, it's all for the good. It's a neat program, I do like the ability to see the scene from many different angles, but I still prefer the flat version of your wonderful photo. Call me a stick in the mud. :>)
STeve
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 5/1/2006
|
Thanks for trying it out, Steve, but I don't understand what you mean by "no scaling function." Did you look at how to change the size of the "window" and how to zoom in and out? I agree that "overly large" is not the best way to view them as there are JPEG artifacts associated with the small file size and high compression, not to mention unresolved issues over grain, but if you zoom out, and view in a window say 600 x 600 pixels, the pictures are quite, er, bearable. [g] Try the viewer "help" function... it might actually help. [g] What I like about the VR viewer is that you can virtually stand at the point where the photo was taken and see what other photos could have been taken by pointing a camera with a VERY powerful zoom in various directions... Indeed I have sometimes gone back to the site of a panorama to take a photo at the angle I discovered afterwards, not having noticed it at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Aronoff
{K:18393} 4/30/2006
|
Well, Roger, I did as you asked and downloaded the software, which is pretty neat, and looked at your photo that way. The program's nice as far as it goes, but there's no scaling function, so what I saw included a bunch of aberrations from being overly large. I would like the experience from some photos, but I do think this one works better as a flat image. By panning around you lose the relationships among all of the wonderful curves that go this way and that in the photo.
So, for this particular photo, my vote is flat. As a bonus my vote is also for wonderful. I love the composition, and I love all the meandering curves. Well done!!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/30/2006
|
Ah, that explains how you could use a MAC and still play with the VR viewer... I thought you might have been confusing something else (there are viewers that merely enable you to zoom in on details without doing the warping needed for VR).
The scan/pan/zoom capability was so amazing and fascinating to me that I guess I assumed others would be just as attracted. I guess it's like lensbaby in revers. [grin] Actually, although the learning curve is quite steep, once you have mastered it, creating a good stitched panorama takes about ten minutes! Depends on the software you use, of course. I use a splendid package created by a Dutch friend (Joost). Thanks for the feedback, Hugo!
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 4/30/2006
|
Hi Roger, I have a windows laptop too, and I have played with these images a bit and the VRviewer, so I do know what I'm talking about. I also know the quicktime tool that can show these panoramic cubic images - and of course I don't really mind the iTune software..:) I've seen quite a few of those images of the world heritidge sites on one of the UN websites. It's cool, but it doesn't really tick for me.
Never realised it isn't as easy to clone things out as it is with normal images, but it does make sense.
As to my preference, well, I don't mind distorted images. But that's obviously a personal liking, as I don't mind an unnatural look, as long as it serves a purpose. I can only appreciate the time and effort it requires to create such images, and to explore it's possibilities to get the most out of the technology, and must commend you on the effort, time and energy you put into it, with the forum and all, but I guess it's just not my thing. I like to be puzzled and trigered by an image, and to me the distorted photo on screen does just that....
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/30/2006
|
Thanks for all your encouragement, Ray. And thank Usefilm for making the large panoramas possible! I am sure you will enjoy the viewer... great fun! I was hooked the very first time I tried one, and the latest viewer is far superior to the ones I first used four or five years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/30/2006
|
Yes, Dubravko, that's my shadow. I'm having problems removing both shadows and the "hole" that exists at the bottom of the picture because my fisheye lens doesn't quite cover the full 180 degrees vertically...
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/30/2006
|
Hi, Hugo. Yes, tones could be pushed up a little in contrast and saturation. In fact they originally were both a little higher but I turned them down because I prefer a more natural look. The software I recommended doesn't work on MACs, so you can't have seen anything with it. I refuse to believe you could possibly prefer the distorted pseudo photo with all its distortion over the undistorted original--with the ability to pan and zoom. I know that QuickTime is what MAC people prefer, but most non-MAC users choke on a 32MB download which forces you to take i-Tune software at the same time. [wry grin] It is also a troublesome extra stage for me to convert spherical panoramas to quick-time cubes. But I will try to get around to it for you, Hugo. My JAVA utility for taking out unwanted shadows is running into memory limitations on my home computer, otherwise the shadow would be gone... You can't simply clone things out of the JPEG image because when it is warped for VR viewing the textures become all wrong and when you pan there's a distracting "sparkle." [sigh] The panoramacist's lot is not an easy one.
|
|
|
|
stingRay pt.4 .
{K:250401} 4/30/2006
|
A great scene Roger and I shall try to track down the software once I have caught up with my commenting. I must say I do enjoy them as you send them in the full UF panoramic format. Thank-you for sharing the results of this technique my friend......Cheers...Ray
|
|
|
|
|
Dubravko Grakalic
{K:25235} 4/30/2006
|
good made ultrawide panorama... I can you on the photo, too...
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 4/30/2006
|
Hi Roger, Again an intersting photo, yet I feel the tones could be pushed up in contrast and saturation a bit. Also, I think your shadow is a bit of a distraction, and the reference is not really necessary here. Only a minor thing. Good scene, though.
I have looked at the viewer software briefly, but I don't really think it adds much. Besides, I use a mac, and find all these additional little apps more trouble than they're worth. The full size pano on screen has a remarkable good quality, and works fine for me...:)
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
{K:163889} 4/30/2006
|
Although I could not view this image in its Panorama format ,still it is very great capture to me and with wonderful DOF , composition and with a lot of energy, great job my friend and wishing you all of the best
|
|
|
|
João F * Photography
{K:41945} 4/30/2006
|
Great pan excelent Roger !!
joão
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/29/2006
|
Me too, Yazeed. Did you try the panorama viewer? I am sure your love of panoramas will increase if you haven't tried it before!
|
|
|
|
Yazeed Al Ghuraibi
{K:4588} 4/29/2006
|
Great panorama
i love panorama very much :)
Yazeed
|
|
0 
