On Nov 17, 4:13 pm, kfj <_...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 17 Nov., 21:14, JohnPW <johnpwatk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What is needed is probably more like a photo finish > > camera:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_finish > > Which looks to be very similar tho the line camera Kay has described > > (pretty similar idea.) > > Really, it should be quite simple. A sensor from a scanner should do > the trick, use any old wide angle lens and have the scanner's sensor > in the focal plane - there you go it's a line camera. The problem is > that only very few people can actually go ahead and do such a thing - > microelectronics has given us great things to do, but it's made it > hard to do some good old tinkering... and the ones who do the > tinkering probably charge you at least an arm and a leg
It always surprises me, but it is amazing how when you get down to it, tinkering is still a possibility. In 2000 I did a project for my design masters that was an experiment in physical user interface concepts. It was designed for the museum space as a way to bring immersive physical engagement to the interpretation of physical artifacts. I built a working prototype that took physical input and controls (using BasicStamp) and fed the interaction data to a Mac laptop via the serial line. This controlled a MacroMedia Director project that included a QuickTimeVR object movie (or maybe I just built the program to work like a QTVR object movie?) and a bunch of interactive media. I'm not much of a programmer and don't really know much about electronics, but I managed. It turned out pretty cool and worked very well. I would have benefitted from an engineering staff though. > > That PanoScan is cool (much like certain film panoramic cameras of the > > past, only digital.) > > Panoscan don't even give a price on their site but ask you to contact > them for pricing... doesn't bode well. Indeed. > > But I'm thinking one could do this with standard equipment we all > > already own. > > This is why we now try and coerce 2D hardware to do a 1D job. I actually think using a 2D camera might be superior in many ways. Besides ready availability of interchangeable equipment, it would also be more forgiving of camera movement while also allowing you to readily remove moving object artifacts. I suppose the panorama feature that has recently appeared on some point and shoot cameras works on something like this method. > By the > way, we had this discussion before - hang on, I'll try anf find the > thread - here it is > > http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx/browse_thread/thread/d6f0e20... As usual, all that is old is new again! ;-) I always say life isn't a line or a circle. It's a spiral, or a corkscrew. We do things, experiment, learn from our mistakes, and do things again. We learn and relearn the same lessons over and over, each time moving forward and trying to do better. It's the journey, not the destination. :-) (Three month is a pretty fast cycle though!) -- John -- 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 hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
