Re: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
RS It's one of the most impressive spherical panos I've viewed. I really have no RS idea how the camera was suspended, he says it was 2m out, it's a very cleverly RS constructed image. Also I don't know if it's a joke but there is an odd looking RS shadow shaped like a camera on a ledge below the boys legs. Truly mindboggling view! You should have included a warning for those just after breakfast ;-) The shadow you pointed out - it seems to me he had the camera on a long pole, stretched from the position where the man with baby is standing, that's what the shadow directly underneath looks like - a camera on a pole. It is spectacular nevertheless, and the stitching and retouching must have been some work. Good light! fra
Re: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
I was there a couple of years ago. The walk along the bottom of the gorge is very interesting, but you need to be fit to climb back out of it. Not a mid-summer activity. John On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:11:58 +, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, http://www.erik-krause.de/pano/verdon/index.htm The Quicktime version is amazing. Indeed. There's a bit of a Michael Jackson / baby / balcony moment going on in that photo. One of my brothers has a house near there, a bit further north in the Mercantour NP. There are some very spectacular views. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
I suspected that Rob's question was rhetorical, but as Ryan has tried to figure it out I'll put in my two cents before the floodgates open. This page: http://www.erik-krause.de/index.htm?./panohead/index.htm shows the gear that is used, pretty basic pano gear IMO. I wouldn't be surprised if the author is using something more elaborate and 'neglecting' to tell us. My guess as to technique: Firstly the rig needs to be mounted on a sturdy pole so it can be extended into the gap. A full panorama is shot in EVERY direction including above and below and every point between and around. This is why I reckon that a servo controlled rig is the minimum requirement, because the rig shown would need to be withdrawn after each shot to be advanced to the next position. The size of the pole and its support is of no consequence, it could even be mounted on, and extended from, a vehicle. It won't show up in the result because. Secondly, the mount is moved to a new location, BUT, the camera is extended to exactly (ideally) the same point in space. This time the rig would be mounted in the opposite orientation to the first series, i.e. if the rig was first mounted above the pole with its vertical arm on the left of the camera, the second time it would be suspended beneath the pole with the arm on the right. The second series doesn't need to be a full panorama, but just enough to replace the vehicle, pole, and mount (that would have been visible in the first series) with clean landscape. Thirdly, spend very much time stitching the shots together. Et viola a fully immersive panorama. Easy peasy. regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed- just spent 10 minutes trying to figure it out. Where are the tripod legs even! I don't think he was in mid air, I'm guessing he was on the edge of the cliff and the mid air illusion is a result of the stitching software. Perhaps it can choose which axis it rotates on (and compensates accordingly?). I thought at first it may have been one of those Benbo tripods, but then it wouldn't have been, at some point, looking back on itself.. Interesting. Cheers, Ryan
RE: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
On 26 Jan 2005 at 2:20, Anthony Farr wrote: Thirdly, spend very much time stitching the shots together. Et viola a fully immersive panorama. Easy peasy. Har, far easier said than done I expect :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
Perhaps a 'winky' following easy peasy would have better expressed my deliberate understatement of the process's complexity. regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Har, far easier said than done I expect :-) Rob Studdert
Re: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
it is way cool! mishka On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:55:48 +1000, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't know where this type of image fits into the lie cheat subvert argument but it's obviously a representation from a point in space with little margin for creative cropping :-) So how did he shoot it from where he did? http://www.erik-krause.de/pano/verdon/index.htm The Quicktime version is amazing. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
On 24 Jan 2005 at 16:43, Tom C wrote: My own two eyes always 'represent my own personal representation of something' to my brain. If this is the definition of a lie then to discuss the ability of a photo to lie is moot. Don't know where this type of image fits into the lie cheat subvert argument but it's obviously a representation from a point in space with little margin for creative cropping :-) So how did he shoot it from where he did? http://www.erik-krause.de/pano/verdon/index.htm The Quicktime version is amazing. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
Whoa... that's pretty cool. I wouldn't call it a lie. It's an image. Tom C. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:55:48 +1000 On 24 Jan 2005 at 16:43, Tom C wrote: My own two eyes always 'represent my own personal representation of something' to my brain. If this is the definition of a lie then to discuss the ability of a photo to lie is moot. Don't know where this type of image fits into the lie cheat subvert argument but it's obviously a representation from a point in space with little margin for creative cropping :-) So how did he shoot it from where he did? http://www.erik-krause.de/pano/verdon/index.htm The Quicktime version is amazing. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
Hi, http://www.erik-krause.de/pano/verdon/index.htm The Quicktime version is amazing. Indeed. There's a bit of a Michael Jackson / baby / balcony moment going on in that photo. One of my brothers has a house near there, a bit further north in the Mercantour NP. There are some very spectacular views. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
Agreed- just spent 10 minutes trying to figure it out. Where are the tripod legs even! I don't think he was in mid air, I'm guessing he was on the edge of the cliff and the mid air illusion is a result of the stitching software. Perhaps it can choose which axis it rotates on (and compensates accordingly?). I thought at first it may have been one of those Benbo tripods, but then it wouldn't have been, at some point, looking back on itself.. Interesting. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 10:55 AM Subject: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?) http://www.erik-krause.de/pano/verdon/index.htm The Quicktime version is amazing. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: How'd they do it? (was:Dogmatism: what is allowed?)
On 25 Jan 2005 at 10:30, Ryan Lee wrote: Agreed- just spent 10 minutes trying to figure it out. Where are the tripod legs even! I don't think he was in mid air, I'm guessing he was on the edge of the cliff and the mid air illusion is a result of the stitching software. Perhaps it can choose which axis it rotates on (and compensates accordingly?). I thought at first it may have been one of those Benbo tripods, but then it wouldn't have been, at some point, looking back on itself.. Interesting. It's one of the most impressive spherical panos I've viewed. I really have no idea how the camera was suspended, he says it was 2m out, it's a very cleverly constructed image. Also I don't know if it's a joke but there is an odd looking shadow shaped like a camera on a ledge below the boys legs. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
