Hi Bruno I may be treading on thin ice here, as you are an artist/architect and I'm just a software engineer. But anyhow...
Yes, it does look "right", as if it were a straightforward rectilinear image. But it isn't. I would defy anyone to capture a photographic view that looks the same. Panini's most impressive feat along these lines is an incredibly wide angle view inside St Peter's, that nevertheless appears to have almost "true" perspective. I have not been able to find a good image of it on the web; the best I found is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stpetes.JPG. I've compared this painting to several photos with roughly the same point of view, both panoramic and conventional; and it blows them all away. You can't see this view with the naked eye, either. In the first place it is around 170 degrees wide! If you look carefully you should be able to notice that you are seeing the floor and ceiling from different positions, but there is no clue in the picture as to how you got from one to the other. And the vertical bits between look as they might from 100 yards out in the piazza. Nevertheless the "gestalt" is that this is a scene you might really be seeing. It should come as no surprise that Panini was trained as a stage designer, rather than a painter. They really knew how to fool the eye in the 18th century. Indeed, they still do. Many modern "photo realist" works exhibit perspectives you could not get in a photograph. One of the things that started me building panoramic cameras was a photorealist painting of the Brooklyn Bridge, as seen from near the Brooklyn/Queens border (it was published as a pair of posters, about 2 x 7 feet total). The bridge absolutely soars across the East River! Oh, says I, I'll make a scanning camera and take a picture of that. Fat chance. There are many photos that depict the same scene; none of them soar. Yet I still believe that with the right software I could construct that soaring image directly from photographs. Regards, Tom On Nov 24, 11:57 am, Bruno Postle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon 24-Nov-2008 at 16:23 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Quoting Tom Sharpless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> PS here's a web view of one Panini: > >>http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/frac/ho_52.63.2.htm# > > >I know what you mean but that perspective looks accurate. > > Yes this is a 'single-point' perspective with the primary point > about 25% up from the bottom and about 35% in from the left. > > In modern photographic terms it is 'cropped', you could extend the > canvas to the left and bottom and get the 'normal' rectilinear view > (and then use it as an input photo in hugin to extract a > conventional three-point perspective). > > -- > Bruno --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
