Hi Mick Here is a very interesting paper on making strip panoramas out of ordinary photos taken from multiple viewpoints, written by one of the leaders in commercial image processing technology: http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/multipano/agarwala_sig06.pdf. It was inspired by the work of artist Michael Koller, whose website you should study. http://www.seamlesscity.com/
The "slit-scan" method is a far easier, hence more popular method. Here are some of my favorite examples: http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~slitcamera/egindex.htm (whole trains self- scanned) http://www.danubepanorama.net/en/Main/Showcase (banks of the Danube scanned by boat) http://www.cs.iupui.edu/~jzheng/RP/Changan/ (a long city street scanned by bus) http://www.flong.com/texts/lists/slit_scan/ (a wonderful collection of slit-scan art) > As you say, and I never thought about it before, the perspective is right from > the middle of each face of the original photograph and then the > equirectangular is a blend of the flat images ignoring the perspective. So I > suppose more photos is better for that but I never saw it as been an issue. > > this is a suitable examplehttp://www.panagito.com/MISC/quorr-abbey2.html > > somewhere in there then the perspective should be wrong around the seams ( I > think it is 6 photos around ) but I cannot see it. You can't see it because it isn't wrong. The whole point of pano stitching software is to reshape the separate pictures so they fit together perfectly on a sphere, then project the spherical composite image back into a flat one. So you won't see any sign of the "perspective" of the taking lens in a well stitched panorama. Nor will you see any sign of the cube edges in a cubic panorama that is being displayed by a properly designed program. The mapping from cube faces to screen is arranged to make it look as if you were viewing that spherical image from the inside, with your eye right at the center. > > I am not sure if what you imagine is possible just with photography I think it > requires cheating one of the 3 perspective points. Something like that is one of the main ingredients in the baroque wide angle drawing technique. But there are usually more than 3 "vanishing points" -- and in some areas, just a subtle continuous shift of perspective. > > Perhaps the old masters just didn't know what they were doing > :-)http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=hockney+camera+obscura&meta= Hockney is probably right that some old masters used images projected by lenses to help them get shapes right -- as do many modern masters. But that couldn't possibly have helped Panini -- the lenses of his day had terribly narrow fields, and even a Canon 12mm would not have showed St Peters the way he drew it. It is a work of the imagination -- his and the viewer's. Regards, Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
