* Annika1980 wrote :
> Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
> the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
> images.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
Jeez. Looks like hard work. What lens and focal length? All
the perspective changes between frames with all the lines in the
brickwork, footpath joints, even roofing, end wall of building,
rectangular columns.
Wonder if some of that pano software would blend it all easier.
Never used it.
Or are you thinking more overlaps on the shots would do the
trick?
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cea26010-1e2a-451b-8cae-674316c177de@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
> the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
> images.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
Nice work.
Those shingles and sidewalk cracks are buggers, though, as you say.
It'll drive you mad taking more images - but hey! Its only a short drive,
yes?
You need to take slices narrow enough so that you can distort the
perspective into "parallel" for each slice. You sure you wanna do that?
(I'm thinking hundreds of shots, here.)
What you have done is nicely fudged, however. It does demonstrate
beautifully the insoluble problem of depth - denied elsewhere.
....and...
Ye Gods! That school is a soul-less foreboding horrid-looking institution.
Unfair of me to say so, but that's how it *feels* here.
On Jul 15, 1:57*pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's what I have so far. *It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
> the sidewalk and the roof. *I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
> images.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
Being that this would be considered as one of the easier subjects for
such a technique, it just goes to show how hard a linear pano really
is. (Or how impossible they are to get right for a subject with any
"depth")
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
>
> Being that this would be considered as one of the easier subjects for
> such a technique, it just goes to show how hard a linear pano really
> is. (Or how impossible they are to get right for a subject with any
> "depth")
I think the ideal subject would be a mural.
Perhaps if I re-shoot this one and get it looking good I can print it
out as a mural and maybe sell it to the school.
mail@potd.com.au wrote:
> On Jul 15, 1:57 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
>> the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
>> images.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
>
> Being that this would be considered as one of the easier subjects for
> such a technique, it just goes to show how hard a linear pano really
> is. (Or how impossible they are to get right for a subject with any
> "depth")
I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to do a traditional pano from the
middle. If there is room to back up it would certainly be easier, if
not, no choice.
There is software to stitch this kind of image set but it's used for
building 3D models and requires a lot of manual match point linking.
After all that, you could set up an isometric or elevation view of the
model. The common application is used to build topographic maps from
aerial stereo pairs.
On Jul 14, 11:57*pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's what I have so far. *It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
> the sidewalk and the roof. *I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
> images.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
Great work thus far! I knew it would be a painstaking job. The roof
and its weird patterns and the brick work must be tough and time
consuming.
On Jul 15, 2:25 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> m...@potd.com.au wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 1:57 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
> >> the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
> >> images.
>
> >>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
>
> > Being that this would be considered as one of the easier subjects for
> > such a technique, it just goes to show how hard a linear pano really
> > is. (Or how impossible they are to get right for a subject with any
> > "depth")
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to do a traditional pano from the
> middle. If there is room to back up it would certainly be easier, if
> not, no choice.
>
> There is software to stitch this kind of image set but it's used for
> building 3D models and requires a lot of manual match point linking.
> After all that, you could set up an isometric or elevation view of the
> model. The common application is used to build topographic maps from
> aerial stereo pairs.
>
> --
> Paul Furmanwww.edgehill.netwww.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam
I agree with Paul, getting back further and shooting at a longer focal
length would have helped flatten it closer to that mural... As it is,
it is hard not to notice the roof lines and pavement, but one can always
say that these effects add, rather than subtract!
It is worth noting that you have managed to align the whole scene quite
accurately and avoid problems with doubled up/broken/missing/impossible
elements - and of course the straight roofline and path are pointers to
someone who knows what they are doing..
Others (grin) have not been so successful in their attempts.
Annika1980 wrote:
> Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
> the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
> images.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original
Considering the pasting (pardon the pun) you gave D-Mac over his
seemingly slapped together example which I thought demonstrated the
technique very well, this is an insult to a viewer's senses.
D-Mac may very well troll these groups with an ulterior motive but at
least he knew enough not to try the impossible: matching the tiles on a
roof!
You seem to have ignored every principal of creating one of these images
and now wonder why it doesn't "look right". Back at the first post D-Mac
made about it, he said using a telephoto lens, not a wide angle one was
a key to successfully gathering images to work with. What did you use? 17mm?
You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.
Mark Thomas wrote:
[]
> I agree with Paul, getting back further and shooting at a longer focal
> length would have helped flatten it closer to that mural... As it is,
> it is hard not to notice the roof lines and pavement, but one can
> always say that these effects add, rather than subtract!
>
> It is worth noting that you have managed to align the whole scene
> quite accurately and avoid problems with doubled
> up/broken/missing/impossible elements - and of course the straight
> roofline and path are pointers to someone who knows what they are
> doing..
> Others (grin) have not been so successful in their attempts.
Agreed.
The perspective looking into the adjacent areas is completely wrong, and
destroys the image for me. In this case, moving the camera was a mistake.
Linear pano - halfway home! 
Linear Mode
