Ali Shah wrote:
> Is this considered Panoramic photography?
I think so -- it's not actually that hard to get a lot of detail, you
just use high-res images all the way through the stitching/remapping,
and you'll wind up with large final files.
> http://www.guyjbrown.com/articles/westone.html
(notice the weirdness at the floor on this one.. That said, it would
be a _huge_ pain to patch that sort of texture up if things didn't match
up properly, and I suspect there's tripod legs in the way to add to the fun)
Compare the surface directly below the viewpoint here, where I
cunningly stood somewhere that I knew I could repair later on..
http://www.danielmitchell.net/pano8a.mov
It's not as super-sharp as the guyjbrown ones, but I was only using a
cheapy Peleng fisheye lens, so the source images aren't all they might
be. Trying the same thing with a whole bunch of 11-22mm shots or
something, I'd get better results, but my patience for taking source
images runs out at around 8 or so. There's still a lot of detail in
there if you zoom in, it's just fuzzy detail, if you see what I mean.
(hm. What's the absolute most detail I could get? A 50-200 at max zoom
has a FOV of 5 horiz and 3.4 vert, so assuming perfect alignment and
zero overlap needed, that's 3816 images I'd need to take.
After all that, though, the final (equirectangular) image would be (on
an e-330, for the sake of argument) 225792 * 112896 pixels..
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|