Panorama software (Which do you use)

D-Mac wrote:
> "Colin_D" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:477de3b7$0$26024$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> mark.thomas.7.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
>
> rubbish snipped
>>> Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
>>> *another* image? I'm sure he can clarify this...
>>>
>>> Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.
>>>
>> I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
>> blowup from a 20D. I was not able from looking at the print, to know
>> whether it was cropped or not, or stitched. I saw no indication of
>> stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
>> was involved.
>>
>> As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.
>>
>> Colin D.
>>
>> --
>
> Hi Colin.
>
> It was indeed a 20D image and the one I sent you was most definitely
> 'cropped' from the panorama. I've been selling people sections of that
> picture, based on their boat or unit being in it, for several years. The NZ
> owners of the management rights to those units have parts of the picture on
> display in their office and on their business stationary. They frequently
> sell "suitcase" * varieties to visitors.
>
> It matters not to me if it is correctly described as a picture, artwork, a
> photograph, a montage or a 'piece'. For me it has been one of my most
> profitable images ever. Well and truly paying many times over the cost of
> the camera, lens and manfrotto 'pano head' I bought to take the picture in
> the first place.
>
> The print I sent you came off my old Sherpa I believe... A printer not known
> for it's sharpness but capable of true photographic output. Sometimes when I
> shell out for Epson inks, I wish I still had it!
>
> Quick and dirty 3:2 aspect ratio cropping instructions for Photoshop in 3
> easy steps:
>
> 1. Select crop tool.
> 2. In the dimension boxes that appear when you do ...define any dimension of
> the aspect ratio you seek. I.E. 6" x 4" or 24" x 36" and the resolution you
> want the print to be.
> 3. Drag the crop tool over the area you want to crop and click "OK".
> Like magic, you get a perfect aspect ratio crop!
>
> * Suitcase variety refers to a stretched canvas print able to be put in the
> bottom of most suit cases.
>
> Douglas
>
>
Douglas, I hate to have to say this, but I have to revise my opinion of
that print you sent over.

You said at the time, and repeated it above, that 'It was indeed a 20D
image'. i.e. an 8 MP single image from a 20D.

Now I find that it was half of a 24 x 72 inch print STITCHED FROM 20
IMAGES! So the half I got was a stitch of more or less 10 images, just
a tad misleading, don't you think?

Let's say nine images in a 3x3 matrix (to preserve the 3:2 ratio), so,
three images high by three images wide makes each image measure, lessee,
8x12!

Now, an 8x12 image from a 20D should be absolutely pin-sharp at almost
300 ppi. By that standard, the print you sent was not very sharp at
all, in fact it was definitely blurry - as an image from a single frame
it would have been ok, but as a stitch it was not very good at all.

I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness
and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to
your magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I
guess you could say that you stitched me up as well.

To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely
pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a
misrepresented print.

If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.

In utter disgust,

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"Colin_D" <nospam.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:477ec989$0$26086$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> D-Mac wrote:
>> "Colin_D" <nospam.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:477de3b7$0$26024$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> mark.thomas.7.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> rubbish snipped
>>>> Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
>>>> *another* image? I'm sure he can clarify this...
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.
>>>>
>>> I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
>>> blowup from a 20D. I was not able from looking at the print, to know
>>> whether it was cropped or not, or stitched. I saw no indication of
>>> stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
>>> was involved.
>>>
>>> As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.
>>>
>>> Colin D.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Hi Colin.
>>
>> It was indeed a 20D image and the one I sent you was most definitely
>> 'cropped' from the panorama. I've been selling people sections of that
>> picture, based on their boat or unit being in it, for several years. The
>> NZ owners of the management rights to those units have parts of the
>> picture on display in their office and on their business stationary. They
>> frequently sell "suitcase" * varieties to visitors.
>>
>> It matters not to me if it is correctly described as a picture, artwork,
>> a photograph, a montage or a 'piece'. For me it has been one of my most
>> profitable images ever. Well and truly paying many times over the cost of
>> the camera, lens and manfrotto 'pano head' I bought to take the picture
>> in the first place.
>>
>> The print I sent you came off my old Sherpa I believe... A printer not
>> known for it's sharpness but capable of true photographic output.
>> Sometimes when I shell out for Epson inks, I wish I still had it!
>>
>> Quick and dirty 3:2 aspect ratio cropping instructions for Photoshop in 3
>> easy steps:
>>
>> 1. Select crop tool.
>> 2. In the dimension boxes that appear when you do ...define any dimension
>> of the aspect ratio you seek. I.E. 6" x 4" or 24" x 36" and the
>> resolution you want the print to be.
>> 3. Drag the crop tool over the area you want to crop and click "OK".
>> Like magic, you get a perfect aspect ratio crop!
>>
>> * Suitcase variety refers to a stretched canvas print able to be put in
>> the bottom of most suit cases.
>>
>> Douglas
> Douglas, I hate to have to say this, but I have to revise my opinion of
> that print you sent over.
>
> You said at the time, and repeated it above, that 'It was indeed a 20D
> image'. i.e. an 8 MP single image from a 20D.
>
> Now I find that it was half of a 24 x 72 inch print STITCHED FROM 20
> IMAGES! So the half I got was a stitch of more or less 10 images, just a
> tad misleading, don't you think?
>
> Let's say nine images in a 3x3 matrix (to preserve the 3:2 ratio), so,
> three images high by three images wide makes each image measure, lessee,
> 8x12!
>
> Now, an 8x12 image from a 20D should be absolutely pin-sharp at almost 300
> ppi. By that standard, the print you sent was not very sharp at all, in
> fact it was definitely blurry - as an image from a single frame it would
> have been ok, but as a stitch it was not very good at all.
>
> I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness
> and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to your
> magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I guess
> you could say that you stitched me up as well.
>
> To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely
> pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a misrepresented
> print.
>
> If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.
>
> In utter disgust,
>
> Colin D.

WOW, are his pants ever on fire, along with the whole chest of drawers by
the look!!
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

Hugin/Enblend works well for me. For low res VR versions see:
www.bech.id.au/photos/pano
(devalvr plugin required, windows only. I will place a link to the
actual panos in the next day or so.)


Father McKenzie wrote:
> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the results.
> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch
> at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the
> dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and
> won't let you level it out.
> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
> looking flat.
>
> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

On Jan 5, 10:23 pm, "D-Mac" <o....DeleteThis@the.groups> wrote:

> you. send me one of your own images and I'll enlarge it for you. Same
> deal... No charge just tell it as you see it.

That is the first good idea you have had.

But to save money in both printing the shipping why not do a smaller
print, say a 4x6.

A 20D image when printed to 24x36 inches comes out very close to
100ppi.

Why not let Colin provide a 400x600 pixels image and let others might
wish to also produce a 4x6 inch print from the same 400x 600 pixels
image file?

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

"Colin_D" <nospam DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:477ec989$0$26086$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> D-Mac wrote:
>> "Colin_D" <nospam DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:477de3b7$0$26024$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> mark.thomas.7 DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> rubbish snipped
>>>> Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
>>>> *another* image? I'm sure he can clarify this...
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.
>>>>
>>> I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
>>> blowup from a 20D. I was not able from looking at the print, to know
>>> whether it was cropped or not, or stitched. I saw no indication of
>>> stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
>>> was involved.
>>>
>>> As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.
>>>
>>> Colin D.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Hi Colin.
>>
>> It was indeed a 20D image and the one I sent you was most definitely
>> 'cropped' from the panorama. I've been selling people sections of that
>> picture, based on their boat or unit being in it, for several years. The
>> NZ owners of the management rights to those units have parts of the
>> picture on display in their office and on their business stationary. They
>> frequently sell "suitcase" * varieties to visitors.
>>
>> It matters not to me if it is correctly described as a picture, artwork,
>> a photograph, a montage or a 'piece'. For me it has been one of my most
>> profitable images ever. Well and truly paying many times over the cost of
>> the camera, lens and manfrotto 'pano head' I bought to take the picture
>> in the first place.
>>
>> The print I sent you came off my old Sherpa I believe... A printer not
>> known for it's sharpness but capable of true photographic output.
>> Sometimes when I shell out for Epson inks, I wish I still had it!
>>
>> Quick and dirty 3:2 aspect ratio cropping instructions for Photoshop in 3
>> easy steps:
>>
>> 1. Select crop tool.
>> 2. In the dimension boxes that appear when you do ...define any dimension
>> of the aspect ratio you seek. I.E. 6" x 4" or 24" x 36" and the
>> resolution you want the print to be.
>> 3. Drag the crop tool over the area you want to crop and click "OK".
>> Like magic, you get a perfect aspect ratio crop!
>>
>> * Suitcase variety refers to a stretched canvas print able to be put in
>> the bottom of most suit cases.
>>
>> Douglas
> Douglas, I hate to have to say this, but I have to revise my opinion of
> that print you sent over.
>
> You said at the time, and repeated it above, that 'It was indeed a 20D
> image'. i.e. an 8 MP single image from a 20D.
>
> Now I find that it was half of a 24 x 72 inch print STITCHED FROM 20
> IMAGES! So the half I got was a stitch of more or less 10 images, just a
> tad misleading, don't you think?
>
> Let's say nine images in a 3x3 matrix (to preserve the 3:2 ratio), so,
> three images high by three images wide makes each image measure, lessee,
> 8x12!
>
> Now, an 8x12 image from a 20D should be absolutely pin-sharp at almost 300
> ppi. By that standard, the print you sent was not very sharp at all, in
> fact it was definitely blurry - as an image from a single frame it would
> have been ok, but as a stitch it was not very good at all.
>
> I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness
> and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to your
> magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I guess
> you could say that you stitched me up as well.
>
> To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely
> pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a misrepresented
> print.
>
> If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.
>
> In utter disgust,
>
> Colin D.
>

Not so fast Colin. You seem to be able to read what is not written too. Not
related to Scott are you?

I sent you with that poster, a "mini-disc" with the camera RAW file of the
enlargement in the tube which contained the enlargement itself . FYI, I
took about 90 photos for that Pano job and used 20 to compose the panorama.

Nowhere did I say I used 20 images side-by-side for that job. If you read
the text, you'd realize the "proof" print is just 18" high but six feet
long. Hardly the aspect ratio of a wall.

The right side portion (you got) is a full, single frame of the print I sent
you. If you bother to look at the camera original file I sent you, you'll
see it is indeed a true enlargement of a single frame portion.

The final image (which has never been posted) which I printed as wallpaper
had frames added to the sky above the masts to highlight the cloud
colourations and make the aspect ratio the same as the wall it was destined
for.

The crop you got was within a millimetre or two of the exact image size of
the original camera file in a single frame enlargement. This is one of those
times when discussing something honestly is a total waste of time because
idiots who would rather assume sinister meanings will go off on a tangent
looking for a flame war.

In the event you don't have the RAW file anymore... Let me know and I'll
post it on my web site. You can then measure it and determine if my math in
calculating the location to crop is accurate or not. If that doesn't satisfy
you. send me one of your own images and I'll enlarge it for you. Same
deal... No charge just tell it as you see it.


Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

D-Mac wrote:
> "Colin_D" <nospam.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:477ec989$0$26086$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> D-Mac wrote:
>>> "Colin_D" <nospam.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:477de3b7$0$26024$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>> mark.thomas.7.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>> rubbish snipped
>>>>> Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
>>>>> *another* image? I'm sure he can clarify this...
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.
>>>>>
>>>> I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
>>>> blowup from a 20D. I was not able from looking at the print, to know
>>>> whether it was cropped or not, or stitched. I saw no indication of
>>>> stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
>>>> was involved.
>>>>
>>>> As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.
>>>>
>>>> Colin D.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Hi Colin.
>>>
>>> It was indeed a 20D image and the one I sent you was most definitely
>>> 'cropped' from the panorama. I've been selling people sections of that
>>> picture, based on their boat or unit being in it, for several years. The
>>> NZ owners of the management rights to those units have parts of the
>>> picture on display in their office and on their business stationary. They
>>> frequently sell "suitcase" * varieties to visitors.
>>>
>>> It matters not to me if it is correctly described as a picture, artwork,
>>> a photograph, a montage or a 'piece'. For me it has been one of my most
>>> profitable images ever. Well and truly paying many times over the cost of
>>> the camera, lens and manfrotto 'pano head' I bought to take the picture
>>> in the first place.
>>>
>>> The print I sent you came off my old Sherpa I believe... A printer not
>>> known for it's sharpness but capable of true photographic output.
>>> Sometimes when I shell out for Epson inks, I wish I still had it!
>>>
>>> Quick and dirty 3:2 aspect ratio cropping instructions for Photoshop in 3
>>> easy steps:
>>>
>>> 1. Select crop tool.
>>> 2. In the dimension boxes that appear when you do ...define any dimension
>>> of the aspect ratio you seek. I.E. 6" x 4" or 24" x 36" and the
>>> resolution you want the print to be.
>>> 3. Drag the crop tool over the area you want to crop and click "OK".
>>> Like magic, you get a perfect aspect ratio crop!
>>>
>>> * Suitcase variety refers to a stretched canvas print able to be put in
>>> the bottom of most suit cases.
>>>
>>> Douglas
>> Douglas, I hate to have to say this, but I have to revise my opinion of
>> that print you sent over.
>>
>> You said at the time, and repeated it above, that 'It was indeed a 20D
>> image'. i.e. an 8 MP single image from a 20D.
>>
>> Now I find that it was half of a 24 x 72 inch print STITCHED FROM 20
>> IMAGES! So the half I got was a stitch of more or less 10 images, just a
>> tad misleading, don't you think?
>>
>> Let's say nine images in a 3x3 matrix (to preserve the 3:2 ratio), so,
>> three images high by three images wide makes each image measure, lessee,
>> 8x12!
>>
>> Now, an 8x12 image from a 20D should be absolutely pin-sharp at almost 300
>> ppi. By that standard, the print you sent was not very sharp at all, in
>> fact it was definitely blurry - as an image from a single frame it would
>> have been ok, but as a stitch it was not very good at all.
>>
>> I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness
>> and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to your
>> magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I guess
>> you could say that you stitched me up as well.
>>
>> To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely
>> pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a misrepresented
>> print.
>>
>> If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.
>>
>> In utter disgust,
>>
>> Colin D.
>>
>
> Not so fast Colin. You seem to be able to read what is not written too. Not
> related to Scott are you?
>
> I sent you with that poster, a "mini-disc" with the camera RAW file of the
> enlargement in the tube which contained the enlargement itself . FYI, I
> took about 90 photos for that Pano job and used 20 to compose the panorama.
>
> Nowhere did I say I used 20 images side-by-side for that job. If you read
> the text, you'd realize the "proof" print is just 18" high but six feet
> long. Hardly the aspect ratio of a wall.
>
> The right side portion (you got) is a full, single frame of the print I sent
> you. If you bother to look at the camera original file I sent you, you'll
> see it is indeed a true enlargement of a single frame portion.
>
> The final image (which has never been posted) which I printed as wallpaper
> had frames added to the sky above the masts to highlight the cloud
> colourations and make the aspect ratio the same as the wall it was destined
> for.
>
> The crop you got was within a millimetre or two of the exact image size of
> the original camera file in a single frame enlargement. This is one of those
> times when discussing something honestly is a total waste of time because
> idiots who would rather assume sinister meanings will go off on a tangent
> looking for a flame war.
>
> In the event you don't have the RAW file anymore... Let me know and I'll
> post it on my web site. You can then measure it and determine if my math in
> calculating the location to crop is accurate or not. If that doesn't satisfy
> you. send me one of your own images and I'll enlarge it for you. Same
> deal... No charge just tell it as you see it.
>
>
> Douglas
>
>
First, there was no minidisc with the print, just a letter. I have no
idea whether you intended to send a disc, or why you would send a disk,
since the subject was the print, and there was at that stage no
discussion about the source image

Second, the right-hand half of the pano you showed a day or so back
appeared to be exactly the same as the print you sent, no added sky that
I could see.

To tell the truth, Doug, I really do not know exactly what images
comprised the print, or where you are coming from here. Thank you for
the offer to enlarge one of my images, but due to the strained
relationship over time, with you abusing me and me abusing you, I do not
feel that I can accept.

I resolved some time ago to refrain from joining in the hostilities
between you and Annika, Mark, and others. and I regret jumping in this
time. It only happened because my name came up in the thread.

Count me out as from now.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

Scott W wrote:
> On Jan 5, 10:23 pm, "D-Mac" <o....RemoveThis@the.groups> wrote:
>
>> you. send me one of your own images and I'll enlarge it for you. Same
>> deal... No charge just tell it as you see it.
>
> That is the first good idea you have had.
>
> But to save money in both printing the shipping why not do a smaller
> print, say a 4x6.
>
> A 20D image when printed to 24x36 inches comes out very close to
> 100ppi.
>
> Why not let Colin provide a 400x600 pixels image and let others might
> wish to also produce a 4x6 inch print from the same 400x 600 pixels
> image file?
>
> Scott
>
Don't worry about it, Scott. I am not really interested in sending an
image to be printed - see my post above. I am retiring back to the
sideline, where I intend to stay in this ongoing brawl.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use) 

On Jan 6, 10:57 am, Colin_D <nos....TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 10:23 pm, "D-Mac" <o....TakeThisOut@the.groups> wrote:
>
> >> you. send me one of your own images and I'll enlarge it for you. Same
> >> deal... No charge just tell it as you see it.
>
> > That is the first good idea you have had.
>
> > But to save money in both printing the shipping why not do a smaller
> > print, say a 4x6.
>
> > A 20D image when printed to 24x36 inches comes out very close to
> > 100ppi.
>
> > Why not let Colin provide a 400x600 pixels image and let others might
> > wish to also produce a 4x6 inch print from the same 400x 600 pixels
> > image file?
>
> > Scott
>
> Don't worry about it, Scott. I am not really interested in sending an
> image to be printed - see my post above.  I am retiring back to the
> sideline, where I intend to stay in this ongoing brawl.
>

I can fully understand.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Panorama software (Which do you use)