Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OM) OT image stitching / panoramas

Subject: Re: [OM] (OM) OT image stitching / panoramas
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:21:48 -0400
I understand what you mean now that you've used distortion rather than 
compression.  However, I don't think the software operates as you 
surmise.  I probably took at least a minute and maybe even two minutes 
making the images that comprise the pano.  During that time the bird was 
all over the place but always somewhere within the view that I was 
making.  It's clear to me that the software recognized that this was a 
single moving object, chose one and deleted the others.  Had it tried to 
make all the bird's positions fit one the final image would have been a 
distorted mess.  It's not.  It may be the best pano I took in Scotland. 
  Now that I look at it again I see there are two birds.  Could be the 
same one but I don't think so.  In any case he was flying around over 
enough area that he could have appeared in most of the 9 images that 
make up this pano.  You can see it here... it's Loch Fyne:
<http://www.chucknorcutt.com/Loch%20Fyne/>

Clicking on the one image gets you a really big one.

Chuck Norcutt


On 4/24/2012 2:28 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Chuck
>
> I'm guessing that there is nothing smart about the software to avoid
> this, but what I mean is,
>
> If the bird is moving over a stationary landscape, making the images
> coincide at the moving bird will distort the landscape which is not
> moving; it would be impossible for it not to be so.  The landscape is
> at different positions relative to the moving bird so each point be
> in the same position relative to the bird requires some distortion of
> it.
>
> I saw this with my Madeira panorama.  There were a couple of points
> that were similar and Photoshop blended the images together at one of
> those points, not the other, thereby distorting the sea beneath that
> point.
>
> Have I explained myself with sufficient clarity and persuasion? :-)
> If not, it might require diagrams . . .
>
> Chris
>
> On 24 Apr 2012, at 14:37, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> I don't understand what you meant by: "if a moving bird were
>> "frozen" in the panorama, it's likely that there was some
>> compression of other parts of the scene."  I don't understand the
>> use of "compression" here.
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz