"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:OvDxm.101147$OO7.67950@text.news.virginmedia. com...
> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
> news:mf-dndcbI51qX1vXnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> []
>> Well, that is an advantage I'm sure. Panorama Maker doesn't have any sort
>> of perspective control (that I'm aware of) so the camera has to be kept
>> reasonably level.
>
> Converging verticals might be the best description, Neil. AutoPano Pro
> allows you to draw lines on such an image which you want to be vertical -
> so you draw on edges of buildings, drainpipes etc. It won't work on a
> single image (as it doesn't think there can be a panorama in a single
> image), so I just point it two files: image.jpg and copy-of-image.jpg.
That's interesting. I just looked on the AutoPano Pro site, and it does look
like a great program. However, it's $139 U.S., which frankly exceeds my
interest in panoramas. I enjoy them a lot, but don't really do that many of
them. Those that I do, I keep the camera level which of course prevents the
converging verticals. Panorama Maker can handle very small deviations from
level all right.
"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
news:cOydnTswapP8wlrXnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
> news:OvDxm.101147$OO7.67950@text.news.virginmedia. com...
[]
>> Converging verticals might be the best description, Neil. AutoPano Pro
>> allows you to draw lines on such an image which you want to be
>> vertical - so you draw on edges of buildings, drainpipes etc. It won't
>> work on a single image (as it doesn't think there can be a panorama in
>> a single image), so I just point it two files: image.jpg and
>> copy-of-image.jpg.
>
> That's interesting. I just looked on the AutoPano Pro site, and it does
> look like a great program. However, it's $139 U.S., which frankly
> exceeds my interest in panoramas. I enjoy them a lot, but don't really
> do that many of them. Those that I do, I keep the camera level which of
> course prevents the converging verticals. Panorama Maker can handle very
> small deviations from level all right.
I recall downloading a free trial version of AutoPano Pro before I bought
the program, but whether it had the "set these edges vertical" feature I
can't recall. It should have - the demo version renders images with a
watermark, can't save projects, and can't export fully to Panotools.
Apart from that, it should all be there.
Whilst the verticals feature can be used in panoramas, I actually find it
very handy for correcting the single image of a building from a wide-angle
lens - tilted upwards. I do sometimes make vertical panos in such
situations as well.
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:0oLxm.101324$OO7.92865@text.news.virginmedia. com...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
> news:cOydnTswapP8wlrXnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>
>> "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
>> news:OvDxm.101147$OO7.67950@text.news.virginmedia. com...
> []
>>> Converging verticals might be the best description, Neil. AutoPano Pro
>>> allows you to draw lines on such an image which you want to be
>>> vertical - so you draw on edges of buildings, drainpipes etc. It won't
>>> work on a single image (as it doesn't think there can be a panorama in a
>>> single image), so I just point it two files: image.jpg and
>>> copy-of-image.jpg.
>>
>> That's interesting. I just looked on the AutoPano Pro site, and it does
>> look like a great program. However, it's $139 U.S., which frankly exceeds
>> my interest in panoramas. I enjoy them a lot, but don't really do that
>> many of them. Those that I do, I keep the camera level which of course
>> prevents the converging verticals. Panorama Maker can handle very small
>> deviations from level all right.
>
> I recall downloading a free trial version of AutoPano Pro before I bought
> the program, but whether it had the "set these edges vertical" feature I
> can't recall. It should have - the demo version renders images with a
> watermark, can't save projects, and can't export fully to Panotools. Apart
> from that, it should all be there.
>
> Whilst the verticals feature can be used in panoramas, I actually find it
> very handy for correcting the single image of a building from a wide-angle
> lens - tilted upwards. I do sometimes make vertical panos in such
> situations as well.
That's interesting. I've never considered doing a vertical panorama. But I
can't really visualize how this would work. If for example you're
photographing a tall building, and at a distance close enough that you have
to do it in two or three sections moving progressively upward, I should
think it would be very difficult if not impossible to keep the verticals
parallel (with any sort of software) and still keep adequate resolution at
the top of the building. Am I missing something, or misunderstanding
something?
"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
news:FMedneDHQrwDXlXXnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@giganews.com ...
[]
> That's interesting. I've never considered doing a vertical panorama. But
> I can't really visualize how this would work. If for example you're
> photographing a tall building, and at a distance close enough that you
> have to do it in two or three sections moving progressively upward, I
> should think it would be very difficult if not impossible to keep the
> verticals parallel (with any sort of software) and still keep adequate
> resolution at the top of the building. Am I missing something, or
> misunderstanding something?
Quite correct - the resolution at the top (when straightened) will be less
than that at the base, but it may still be adequate (I tend to be talking
churches rather than skysc****rs).
You can even take a pano as a matrix of, say, nine pixtures - three
vertical by three horizontal - three rows of three side-by-side. You
might do this with a less wide-angle lens to get more resolution at the
top. AutoPano Pro seems to sort those out quite nicely....
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> message news:0oLxm.101324$OO7.92865@text.news.virginmedia. com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
>> news:cOydnTswapP8wlrXnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>> "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
>>> news:OvDxm.101147$OO7.67950@text.news.virginmedia. com...
>> []
>>>> Converging verticals might be the best description, Neil. AutoPano Pro
>>>> allows you to draw lines on such an image which you want to be
>>>> vertical - so you draw on edges of buildings, drainpipes etc. It won't
>>>> work on a single image (as it doesn't think there can be a panorama in a
>>>> single image), so I just point it two files: image.jpg and
>>>> copy-of-image.jpg.
>>> That's interesting. I just looked on the AutoPano Pro site, and it does
>>> look like a great program. However, it's $139 U.S., which frankly exceeds
>>> my interest in panoramas. I enjoy them a lot, but don't really do that
>>> many of them. Those that I do, I keep the camera level which of course
>>> prevents the converging verticals. Panorama Maker can handle very small
>>> deviations from level all right.
>> I recall downloading a free trial version of AutoPano Pro before I bought
>> the program, but whether it had the "set these edges vertical" feature I
>> can't recall. It should have - the demo version renders images with a
>> watermark, can't save projects, and can't export fully to Panotools. Apart
>> from that, it should all be there.
>>
>> Whilst the verticals feature can be used in panoramas, I actually find it
>> very handy for correcting the single image of a building from a wide-angle
>> lens - tilted upwards. I do sometimes make vertical panos in such
>> situations as well.
>
> That's interesting. I've never considered doing a vertical panorama. But I
> can't really visualize how this would work. If for example you're
> photographing a tall building, and at a distance close enough that you have
> to do it in two or three sections moving progressively upward, I should
> think it would be very difficult if not impossible to keep the verticals
> parallel (with any sort of software) and still keep adequate resolution at
> the top of the building. Am I missing something, or misunderstanding
> something?
You could try zooming in as you pan up the skysc****r but that's still
pushing it. Better to go to the middle floor of an adjacent skysc****r.
Also see the recent thread about the National Geographic Largest Trees
panorama for a very difficult method.
"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:yoadnX3Zob4qwVvXnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>
> "Troll Killer" <tk@trollkillers.org> wrote in message
> news:4s0bc51o23ojseqpuqu7khb0sjmisko143@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:42:15 +1000, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Great feature set but sadly you would then have to put up with crap
>>>result
>>>from a tiny weeny sensor that just can't walk the walk.... no matter how
>>>much bull**** gets spread.
>>>
>>
>> You mean like this P&S camera from the same line that is supported by
>> CHDK
>> that rivals the quality of images from a medium-format Hasselblad H2?
>> Something that no DSLR can even do.
>>
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>>
>> Like that?
>>
>> Go get a life and learn how to use ANY camera properly, you useless ****
>> of
>> a pretend-photographer DSLR TROLL.
>>
>
> So one photo has been taken that is worthy, any others or is that it?
>
>
>
Just as I expected, not actually able to walk the walk, nothin but talk,
talk, talk.
> CHDK cameras provide the most information-rich and user-adaptable live-view
> displays of any cameras on earth. Any one, some, all, or none of these
> information bites available as user-selectable options to be displayed, at
> whatever position on the screen that you want, and in whatever opaque or
> transparent colors that you need them displayed in. All completely user
> configurable from the CHDK menu options. After you have configured what
> information you want, in what colors and screen positions you want, then
> you can even turn them all on and off with a quick button-press, as needed.
<edited>
Could CHDK be copied to a digicam's internal memory, for convenience? Or,
would that be somehow dangerous (e.g., risking corruption of the camera's
own firmware)?
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:31:04 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
wrote in <4AEBCB98.D0195AFF@concentric.net>:
>Further Info wrote:
>
><heavily edited for brevity>
>
>> CHDK cameras provide the most information-rich and user-adaptable live-view
>> displays of any cameras on earth. Any one, some, all, or none of these
>> information bites available as user-selectable options to be displayed, at
>> whatever position on the screen that you want, and in whatever opaque or
>> transparent colors that you need them displayed in. All completely user
>> configurable from the CHDK menu options. After you have configured what
>> information you want, in what colors and screen positions you want, then
>> you can even turn them all on and off with a quick button-press, as needed.
>
><edited>
>
>Could CHDK be copied to a digicam's internal memory, for convenience? Or,
>would that be somehow dangerous (e.g., risking corruption of the camera's
>own firmware)?
CHDK is stored on and loaded (manual or auto) from a memory card.
It is cleared from the camera by a power cycle.
<http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief>
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
John Navas wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:31:04 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
> wrote in <4AEBCB98.D0195AFF@concentric.net>:
<edited for brevity>
> >Could CHDK be copied to a digicam's internal memory, for convenience? Or,
> >would that be somehow dangerous (e.g., risking corruption of the camera's
> >own firmware)?
>
> CHDK is stored on and loaded (manual or auto) from a memory card.
> It is cleared from the camera by a power cycle.
> <http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief>
Yes, I was already aware of that fact; I'm merely wondering whether
any harm could be done, by the approach I'd mentioned, above?
(Just curious, even though I've never owned a Canon camera of any
type.)
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
sony does not have 'live view' in that you aren't looking at the
actual
sensor taking the image, you are looking at a secondary sensor. the
advantage of that is you can still use the phase detect autofocus
sensors because the mirror is still down, but the disadvantage of
course, is that you are using an entirely different sensor.
Re: Best "Live View" cameras 
Linear Mode
