I have no idea how the decision was made but it does reflect reality.
There were 2 birds in the real scene and two birds depicted in the final
result even though 5 birds show up in different positions across 3
different frames. Had I preferred some other result I suppose I could
have cloned out the birds I didn't want to appear.
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/25/2012 1:38 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> That's a lovely picture, Chuck.
>
> I am surprised about the application being able to eliminate parts of
> the image; it's a very impressive capability, but perhaps one that
> you might not want if it made the wrong choice.
>
> Chris
>
> On 24 Apr 2012, at 23:21, 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.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|