I finally thought to go check the individual images and see that only
three of them contain the birds. Two frames have two birds each and one
frame has only one. The birds are always generally in the center of the
overall pano but in different positions of course. It's a mystery to me
how the software chose what it did. The two birds in the final image
are from two adjacent frames containing both birds but with the final
image having only one of each bird from each frame.
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/24/2012 6:21 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 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/
|