Cool indeed!

I think I can foresee some copyright issues though....

Cheers!

Erik Leeman


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Willy Kaemena <panokaemena@...> wrote:
>
>
http://www.360cities.net/image/panoramic-view-of-seoul-city-of-google-earth
>
> that is something really  cool !!
>
> Willy Kaemena

Ah - the MIT Media Lab!  I spent the summers of 1984 and 1985 there,
working on Logo and learning theory under Seymour Papert and Alan Kay.
What a fun and exciting place!

I would want to sit down though, if I was going to be gesturing to my
computer all day . . . :-) .  I am going to try and be at Sundance next
year.  I coudn't make it this  year as I am still recovering from an
auto accident I had in southern Utah in September.

Thanks Erik.  I am creating 200 mapped cylinders for the interface of a
new product right now.  I am using Maya.  I am thinking they are going
to end up as small Flash animations.

Paul Fretheim

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
>
> Cool indeed!
>
> I think I can foresee some copyright issues though....
> > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Willy Kaemena <panokaemena@> wrote:
> >
> >
> http://www.360cities.net/image/panoramic-view-of-seoul-city-of-google-earth
>

Old Old news,
The Google Earth Panoramas has been around since 2006 and there are hundred,
perhaps
thousands,  of them created by different people.

http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/09/how_to_make_a_g.html

DigitalUrban alias  Dr Andrew Hudson-Smith was the one who started it all off 
but as
always when something new is tried in panoramics Peter Murphy got the idea.
http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-to-create-aerial-panorama-from.html

Hans

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans Nyberg" <hans@...> wrote:
...snip...
> Old Old news
...snip...
> Hans

I know, I know, and I think so does Willy.
Even so, thanks for the history lesson Hans : )

Next time I discuss a new car I'll remind everyone how very old and
boring the automobile-concept is, who actually invented, designed and
made the first cars, and how many have been made since then. I'm sure
everyone will be very interested!

Still, I think these GoogleEarth panoramas (I even made some myself
back then) cannot be published unless permission is granted by the
copyright owners of the source material. So my question is: is it allowed?

Erik

hi all!

i have/had some problems with this issue:
http://panoramabuch.com/beispiele/google_earth/index.html
(some of you will remember the 2007 pt meeting excursion location... ;-) )

as this pano is to be reprinted together with a how-to workshop in my
upcoming book about digital panoramic photography as an example in the
chapter "panos from 3d software" i was forced to get in touch with
google copyright issues.

for that i studied the terms and conditions of google / google earth in
depth (be aware that copyright issues are not only dealing with google,
but with numerous subcontractors of them, where they buy the satellite
image material! sometimes they're a lot!).

as you're have to remove the original copyright markup to be able to
stitch the screenshots together properly this is the first copyright
infringement when you look at it in a legal precise way.

so the minimum requirement is to remount a copyright markup back in the
finished pano as i did on the nadir.

from this point of view the seoul pano quoted by willy would not stand a
legal judgement about copyright markup at all as there is no copyright
markup in the pano itself. (only a hint to the creator of the pano)

another point of view i can imagine to be relevant is the 360cities
platform which is using google stuff itself which is to be assume
absolutely legal as a correct use of the api. perhaps this has an
influence of the material shown inside this platform which could keep
that away from legal complaints from google's point of view. but i'm
very uncertain about that.

the other point of view is weather it's a commercial use or not.

most of the published google earth panos in the web can be regarded as
technical proofs of concept made just for fun and not as a commercial
reusing or commercial derivative work based on copyrighted material from
google and/or its subcontractors.

as the judgement about this special case with tghe pano in my book is
pending and we're waiting for a final judgement from the editors legal
advisors all i said above can only be regarded as my personal opninion
and an estimation about this issue without any warranty. just to think
about...

as you see this stuff a bit complicated and cannot be seen as relaxed as
some people do.

at google it's mandatory to check precisely what's allowed with their
materials and techniques and what is not. a fairly good example is the
free use of map snippets on your website, but not inside local
applications as aldo's proof of concept of the google map geotagging
application running in adobe bridge
(http://www.hoeben.net/%5Buser%5D/adobe_bridge_cs3_geotagger).

just my 2 cent ;-)

cheers
thomas


erik leeman schrieb:
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>, "Hans Nyberg" <hans@...> wrote:
> ...snip...
>  > Old Old news
> ...snip...
>  > Hans
>
> I know, I know, and I think so does Willy.
> Even so, thanks for the history lesson Hans : )
>
> Next time I discuss a new car I'll remind everyone how very old and
> boring the automobile-concept is, who actually invented, designed and
> made the first cars, and how many have been made since then. I'm sure
> everyone will be very interested!
>
> Still, I think these GoogleEarth panoramas (I even made some myself
> back then) cannot be published unless permission is granted by the
> copyright owners of the source material. So my question is: is it allowed?
>
> Erik
>
>

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...>
> wrote:
>
> For those interested in developments in interface design:
>
> http://oblong.com/
>
> Just watch the video I'd say.
>


"Minority Report"...  :-)

/ Ingemar
http://panoramas.bergmark.com

<sunday wandering>
That's really cool... but I watched it, became gobsmacked, and went
back to my 13X19,5X3,3cm (yes, it's that thick) book. Isn't it weird,
so many cool things hapening and we're still attracted to
old-but-safe-and-warm tech? And, as a side note, the arms and hands
movements sincerely look like an old and BAD 50's movie, the ones you
look at and think "hummm, so good this didn`t become real on my
days...". Kind of a Elton John's video clip - sorry for the EJ's fans.
<G> Let's wait for the Apple's take on it, maybe we'l'l be easierly
fooled for this.</G>
</sunday wandering>
Regards,
Rodolpho Pajuaba

2009/2/1 Ingemar Bergmark <ingemar@...>:
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> For those interested in developments in interface design:
>>
>> http://oblong.com/
>>
>> Just watch the video I'd say.
>>
>
>
> "Minority Report"...  :-)
>
> / Ingemar
> http://panoramas.bergmark.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
>

Carpal tunnels super-stressed. My wrists hurt just looking at the
demo. I hope they coordinate with yoga and let the whole body get
into it. Make it a dance.

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> For those interested in developments in interface design:
>>
>> http://oblong.com/
>>

Caroling Geary, www.wholeo.net

> From: Hans Nyberg
>
> Old Old news,
> The Google Earth Panoramas has been around since 2006 and there
> are hundred, perhaps
> thousands,  of them created by different people.
>
> http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/09/how_to_make_a_g.html
>
> DigitalUrban alias  Dr Andrew Hudson-Smith was the one who
> started it all off  but as
> always when something new is tried in panoramics Peter Murphy got
> the idea.
>
http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-to-create-aerial-panorama-from.
html

Seems kind of pointless: why not just use Google Earth? It does what we wish
360VRs could do, but never will, since you can move your viewpoint in GE,
not just turn your head.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Tia Chi for geeks -- on the other hand -- oh that's an unintended pun --
we might see slimmer, more graceful gamers and websters...

Rodolpho Pajuaba wrote:
> <sunday wandering>
> That's really cool... but I watched it, became gobsmacked, and went
> back to my 13X19,5X3,3cm (yes, it's that thick) book. Isn't it weird,
> so many cool things hapening and we're still attracted to
> old-but-safe-and-warm tech? And, as a side note, the arms and hands
> movements sincerely look like an old and BAD 50's movie, the ones you
> look at and think "hummm, so good this didn`t become real on my
> days...". Kind of a Elton John's video clip - sorry for the EJ's fans.
> <G> Let's wait for the Apple's take on it, maybe we'l'l be easierly
> fooled for this.</G>
> </sunday wandering>
> Regards,
> Rodolpho Pajuaba
>
> 2009/2/1 Ingemar Bergmark <ingemar@...>:
>
>>--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...>
>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>For those interested in developments in interface design:
>>>
>>>http://oblong.com/
>>>
>>>Just watch the video I'd say.
>>>
>>
>>
>>"Minority Report"...  :-)
>>
>>/ Ingemar
>>http://panoramas.bergmark.com
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Hmm, but what about elderly and other, ehh, 'physically challenged'
people?

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:
>
> Tia Chi for geeks -- on the other hand -- oh that's an unintended pun --
> we might see slimmer, more graceful gamers and websters...

Well, I don't think Homeland Security will be forcing people to use it.

Idunno, maybe they will...

Or just hire a migrant worker to do it...

erik leeman wrote:
> Hmm, but what about elderly and other, ehh, 'physically challenged'
> people?
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:
>
>>Tia Chi for geeks -- on the other hand -- oh that's an unintended pun --
>>we might see slimmer, more graceful gamers and websters...
>
>
>
>

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey Ilyin" <ilyin1drey@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What sort of viewer do you have in mind?  There are standalone,
> > browser plugin, java and flash viewers.
> >
> > --
> > Bruno
> >
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> I think about browser plugin first of all - supporting integration
> with google services lime google map, youtube etc.
>
> Andrey
>

My "Panini" is a GPL pano viewer that runs on all major platforms
(though still problems on Mac, anyone like to help debug?) But it is
not (yet) a browser plugin (anyone like to help wioth that, too?).

Get id at pvqt.sf.net


-- Tom

what sort of knowledge / equipment would someone need to help you
debug ?


On 01 Feb 2009, at 14:14, tksharpless wrote:
>
> My "Panini" is a GPL pano viewer that runs on all major platforms
> (though still problems on Mac, anyone like to help debug?) But it is
> not (yet) a browser plugin (anyone like to help wioth that, too?).
>
> Get id at pvqt.sf.net
>
> -- Tom


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When I see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EOJr11bvo&fmt=18
the camera is mounted the wrong way according to the replies.
At that distance with a painting I guess it doesn't matter that much, is it
?




Erik Krause wrote:
>
> erik leeman wrote:
>
>> It could also mean that if the NPP is reasonable far behind the
>> camera, the entire camera should move along a radius. If that radius
>> is large enough it would come close to a straight line.
>
> It is a straight line, if the lens is of the telecentric type. In this
> case the NPP is an infinite distance behind the camera. This lenses
> exist in reality and they have some weird properties. They are f.e. used
> by Rik Littlefield for focus stacked macro photography:
> http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1032
> and for the theory of the NPP (which permits this):
>
http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoParallaxPoint/TheoryOfTheNoParallaxPoint.pd\
f
>
>> Isn't that what some people want when they are photographing a mosaic
>> of a large flat surface like a painting? I think I read somewhere
>> that in theory the NPP could even be at infinity behind the camera.
>
> Not only in theory. The downside and the reason why this is limited to
> macrophotography is, that the area of view of such a lens can't be
> larger than the lens diameter - naturally, if you think about it: if
> the entrance pupil is infinitely behind the camera the lens must not
> limit the rays.
>
> More info (and how to make one): look for the telecentric articles on
> Rik's link page: http://janrik.net/RiksLinks.html
>
> --
> Erik Krause
> http://www.erik-krause.de
>
>
> -----
> Erik Krause
> http://www.erik-krause.de
>

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/NP-200-and-300mm-Canon-tp21647383p21781464.html
Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

bigwade wrote:

> When I see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EOJr11bvo&fmt=18
> the camera is mounted the wrong way according to the replies.
> At that distance with a painting I guess it doesn't matter that much, is it
> ?

Since the painting is flat it doesn't matter at all: You won't have
parallax.

But yes, it looks as if they tried to rotate around the front lens
(probably misinterpreting the term "entrance pupil" :-). I would
understand if they rotated around the balance point...

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

You'd be hard pressed to find ANY shooting scenario where you need to
have a 200 or 300mm lens rotate around the nodal point.

Matt

On 1 Feb 2009, at 22:48, bigwade wrote:

>
> When I see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EOJr11bvo&fmt=18
> the camera is mounted the wrong way according to the replies.
> At that distance with a painting I guess it doesn't matter that
> much, is it
> ?
>
> Erik Krause wrote:
> >
> > erik leeman wrote:
> >
> >> It could also mean that if the NPP is reasonable far behind the
> >> camera, the entire camera should move along a radius. If that
> radius
> >> is large enough it would come close to a straight line.
> >
> > It is a straight line, if the lens is of the telecentric type. In
> this
> > case the NPP is an infinite distance behind the camera. This lenses
> > exist in reality and they have some weird properties. They are
> f.e. used
> > by Rik Littlefield for focus stacked macro photography:
> > http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1032
> > and for the theory of the NPP (which permits this):
> >
http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoParallaxPoint/TheoryOfTheNoParallaxPoint.pd\
f
> >
> >> Isn't that what some people want when they are photographing a
> mosaic
> >> of a large flat surface like a painting? I think I read somewhere
> >> that in theory the NPP could even be at infinity behind the camera.
> >
> > Not only in theory. The downside and the reason why this is
> limited to
> > macrophotography is, that the area of view of such a lens can't be
> > larger than the lens diameter - naturally, if you think about it: if
> > the entrance pupil is infinitely behind the camera the lens must not
> > limit the rays.
> >
> > More info (and how to make one): look for the telecentric articles
> on
> > Rik's link page: http://janrik.net/RiksLinks.html
> >
> > --
> > Erik Krause
> > http://www.erik-krause.de
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Erik Krause
> > http://www.erik-krause.de
> >
>

Which one Matt?

: )

Cheers!

Erik Leeman


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Rogers <matthew@...> wrote:
>
> You'd be hard pressed to find ANY shooting scenario where you need to
> have a 200 or 300mm lens rotate around the nodal point.
>
> Matt

Matthew Rogers wrote:

> You'd be hard pressed to find ANY shooting scenario where you need to
> have a 200 or 300mm lens rotate around the nodal point.

I thought so, too. But then I thought closer and considered hyperfocal
distance and desired resolution. I calculated the expected parallax
error and it's not so small: A 200mm in portrait has 6.5° FoV. Given 25%
overlap you rotate 4.9°. If you shoot at f/16 with hyperfocal distance
you get a near limit of about 50m.

Now if you assume a displacement of 200mm (rotating around the front
lens instead of NPP) and use the formula from
http://wiki.panotools.org/Parallax you get a ß of 0.01°. Since the total
parallax error is twice as large (0.02°) this is roughly 1/320 of the
total portrait FoV.

This gives about 8 pixels parallax on a Nikon D3 or 11 pixels on a EOS
5D II. Quite reasonable if you go for a gigapixel panorama. And the
overlap in vertical direction (or landscape) is by 1.5 larger.

Ok, the estimated seam line will be in the middle of the overlap, hence
the values most likely will be 25% smaller: (6 resp. 8 pixels in
portrait or 9 resp. 13 pixels in landscape)

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

All well in theory but try finding a scene where you can shoot like
this. I've been shooting a lot lately with a 300mm on the D700 and I'm
yet to find a scene where having both the foreground and background in-
focus makes any sense. I've also looked on gigapan.org and a few other
gigapixel sites and again I can't find a single shot that parallax
would have ruined.

It seems that some people just get bogged down in theory, numbers and
what-if scenarios instead of getting out there and actually shooting.

Matt

On 2 Feb 2009, at 09:48, Erik Krause wrote:

> Matthew Rogers wrote:
>
> > You'd be hard pressed to find ANY shooting scenario where you need
> to
> > have a 200 or 300mm lens rotate around the nodal point.
>
> I thought so, too. But then I thought closer and considered hyperfocal
> distance and desired resolution. I calculated the expected parallax
> error and it's not so small: A 200mm in portrait has 6.5° FoV. Given
> 25%
> overlap you rotate 4.9°. If you shoot at f/16 with hyperfocal distance
> you get a near limit of about 50m.
>
> Now if you assume a displacement of 200mm (rotating around the front
> lens instead of NPP) and use the formula from
> http://wiki.panotools.org/Parallax you get a ß of 0.01°. Since the
> total
> parallax error is twice as large (0.02°) this is roughly 1/320 of the
> total portrait FoV.
>
> This gives about 8 pixels parallax on a Nikon D3 or 11 pixels on a EOS
> 5D II. Quite reasonable if you go for a gigapixel panorama. And the
> overlap in vertical direction (or landscape) is by 1.5 larger.
>
> Ok, the estimated seam line will be in the middle of the overlap,
> hence
> the values most likely will be 25% smaller: (6 resp. 8 pixels in
> portrait or 9 resp. 13 pixels in landscape)
>
> --
> Erik Krause
> http://www.erik-krause.de
>
>

You're right Matt, for those who just want to do what everybody else
is doing, follow the herd so to speak, there is absolutely no need to
bother. But for the few who want to reach a little bit further and do
things others avoid, it pays to know enough about these things to
overcome otherwise insurmountable obstacles. Some people want to
progress and improve, others are content with the way things are.
Perfectly normal I'd say.

Regards,

Erik Leeman

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Rogers wrote:
>
> All well in theory but try finding a scene where you can shoot
> like this. I've been shooting a lot lately with a 300mm on the D700
> and I'm yet to find a scene where having both the foreground and
> background in-focus makes any sense. I've also looked on gigapan.org
> and a few other gigapixel sites and again I can't find a single
> shot that parallax would have ruined.
>
> It seems that some people just get bogged down in theory, numbers
> and what-if scenarios instead of getting out there and actually
> shooting.
>
> Matt

Thanks Hans for reminding everyone that they're not as cool as they think
;-)))

This is a lovely panorama however I've unpublished it for now until I hear
what kind of copyright attribution should be included in the image so as not
to raise any objections.

Jeffrey




Jeffrey Martin
www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality
tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Matthew Rogers wrote:

> All well in theory but try finding a scene where you can shoot like
> this. I've been shooting a lot lately with a 300mm on the D700 and
> I'm yet to find a scene where having both the foreground and
> background in- focus makes any sense.

So you don't ever stop down in order to get more depth of field?

> I've also looked on gigapan.org and a few other gigapixel sites and
> again I can't find a single shot that parallax would have ruined.

Most likely not. Multi spline blending works wonders, but on the other
hand manual post processing is very tedious for those large images. See
the gigapixel examples stitched by autopano pro...

At gigapan.org it will be hard to find examples of parallax problems.
AFAIK the gigapan supports point-and-shoot cameras only, where a huge
displacement can't be assumed. My calculation was for full frame DSLRs
with large lenses.

One could argue that DoF at pixel level is far smaller than what
conventional DoF calculators assume. Hence parallax errors will be
covered in blur.

This is only partly true, since parallax is far larger than focus blur.
The conventional DoF limit is assumed at roughly 1/900 of the short side
(1/1500 of the diagonal). This is: At the conventional DoF limit you get
a blur of 3 or 4 pixels (D3 or 5DII) compared to 9 or 13 pixels parallax
error.

The situation gets better the longer the lens is and at 300mm the DoF
and rotation angle are so small that you indeed would need a pretty
large displacement to get visible parallax problems.

However, on the other hand the problem gets worse again, if you shoot at
shorter distances. Sooner or later people will start to use focus
bracketing on their gigapixels to avoid unsharp foreground, and then it
will be pretty important.

> It seems that some people just get bogged down in theory, numbers and
> what-if scenarios instead of getting out there and actually
> shooting.

I know this is your mantra ;-)

However, if we wouldn't consider numbers and theory as a valid model of
reality on which our actions can be based we probably would still live
in the middle ages (or in stone age?) - and a 360precision head wouldn't
have ever been built.

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

hi jeffrey!

it would be very fine to post google's answer here on the list. i'm very
interested in it for my own case in my book.

obviously you have some direct connections to them due to your site...

thanks in advance + cheers
thomas



Jeffrey Martin schrieb:
>
>
> Thanks Hans for reminding everyone that they're not as cool as they think
> ;-)))
>
> This is a lovely panorama however I've unpublished it for now until I hear
> what kind of copyright attribution should be included in the image so as not
> to raise any objections.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> Jeffrey Martin
> www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality
> tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Yes it would be interesting to hear Google's answer. There is also
Nasa's Worldwind .. this is less restricted
http://www.worldwindcentral.com/wiki/Copyright_Questions_When_Using_Im
ages_From_World_Wind
here is a panorama I made from Worldwind --
http://www.mediavr.com/fitzroyfallsnasa.htm

These sorts of earth viewer derived panoramas are useful inter alia
when you want to show the locations (the red dots in this case --
though hot spots are not enabled here) of aerial panoramas or flight
paths etc in an elevated panoramic view.

Peter Murphy



--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Bredenfeld
<mailinglist@...> wrote:
>
> hi jeffrey!
>
> it would be very fine to post google's answer here on the list. i'm
very
> interested in it for my own case in my book.
>
> obviously you have some direct connections to them due to your
site...
>
> thanks in advance + cheers
> thomas
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Martin schrieb:
> >
> >
> > Thanks Hans for reminding everyone that they're not as cool as
they think
> > ;-)))
> >
> > This is a lovely panorama however I've unpublished it for now
until I hear
> > what kind of copyright attribution should be included in the
image so as not
> > to raise any objections.
> >
> > Jeffrey
> >
> > Jeffrey Martin
> > www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality
> > tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>

.. and soon Google Ocean panoramas will be possible
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2009/01/big_google_earth_annou
ncement_with.html

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <mediavr@...> wrote:
>
> Yes it would be interesting to hear Google's answer. There is also
> Nasa's Worldwind .. this is less restricted
>
http://www.worldwindcentral.com/wiki/Copyright_Questions_When_Using_Im
> ages_From_World_Wind
> here is a panorama I made from Worldwind --
> http://www.mediavr.com/fitzroyfallsnasa.htm
>
> These sorts of earth viewer derived panoramas are useful inter alia
> when you want to show the locations (the red dots in this case --
> though hot spots are not enabled here) of aerial panoramas or
flight
> paths etc in an elevated panoramic view.
>
> Peter Murphy
>
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Bredenfeld
> <mailinglist@> wrote:
> >
> > hi jeffrey!
> >
> > it would be very fine to post google's answer here on the list.
i'm
> very
> > interested in it for my own case in my book.
> >
> > obviously you have some direct connections to them due to your
> site...
> >
> > thanks in advance + cheers
> > thomas
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey Martin schrieb:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Hans for reminding everyone that they're not as cool as
> they think
> > > ;-)))
> > >
> > > This is a lovely panorama however I've unpublished it for now
> until I hear
> > > what kind of copyright attribution should be included in the
> image so as not
> > > to raise any objections.
> > >
> > > Jeffrey
> > >
> > > Jeffrey Martin
> > > www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality
> > > tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
>

http://www.vrlog.net/2009/02/google-earth-50/


Jeffrey Martin
www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality
tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin

Release 0.62.83 of the Panini pano viewer and perspective tool is
available at https://sourceforge.net/projects/pvqt/ (project name
change to "panini" is pending, so url may change).  This update adds
Pannini views of cubic panos, general alignment of cubic panos on the
panosurface, correct scaling of several source projections, and some
UI improvements.  It is a pretty usable program and will probably be
the last release of Panini in its present form.   As usual there is a
win32 self installer and a source zip with build instructions, and a
Mac binary should be up soon.

Anyone interested in helping develop a better Panini, please contact
me.  The most pressing needs are for a Mac graphics expert to sort out
persistent problems with cubic images, a web designer to make a nice
project web page, and an OpenGL expert to help with advanced image
processing functions.

Cheers, Tom

Amen to that!  This is one of the biggest misconceptions I encounter
when discussing AutoMate with people who want to use if with long
lenses.  A great percentage of people I communicate with think that
rotating about the NPP is critical for all kinds of panos, regardless
of focal length or subject.  It is good to hear other people speak the
truth about this.

Don French
www.TheGadgetWorks.com



--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Rogers <matthew@...> wrote:
>
> You'd be hard pressed to find ANY shooting scenario where you need to
> have a 200 or 300mm lens rotate around the nodal point.
>
> Matt
>
> On 1 Feb 2009, at 22:48, bigwade wrote:
>
> >
> > When I see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EOJr11bvo&fmt=18
> > the camera is mounted the wrong way according to the replies.
> > At that distance with a painting I guess it doesn't matter that
> > much, is it
> > ?
> >
> > Erik Krause wrote:
> > >
> > > erik leeman wrote:
> > >
> > >> It could also mean that if the NPP is reasonable far behind the
> > >> camera, the entire camera should move along a radius. If that
> > radius
> > >> is large enough it would come close to a straight line.
> > >
> > > It is a straight line, if the lens is of the telecentric type. In
> > this
> > > case the NPP is an infinite distance behind the camera. This lenses
> > > exist in reality and they have some weird properties. They are
> > f.e. used
> > > by Rik Littlefield for focus stacked macro photography:
> > > http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1032
> > > and for the theory of the NPP (which permits this):
> > >
http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoParallaxPoint/TheoryOfTheNoParallaxPoint.pd\
f
> > >
> > >> Isn't that what some people want when they are photographing a
> > mosaic
> > >> of a large flat surface like a painting? I think I read somewhere
> > >> that in theory the NPP could even be at infinity behind the camera.
> > >
> > > Not only in theory. The downside and the reason why this is
> > limited to
> > > macrophotography is, that the area of view of such a lens can't be
> > > larger than the lens diameter - naturally, if you think about it: if
> > > the entrance pupil is infinitely behind the camera the lens must not
> > > limit the rays.
> > >
> > > More info (and how to make one): look for the telecentric articles
> > on
> > > Rik's link page: http://janrik.net/RiksLinks.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Erik Krause
> > > http://www.erik-krause.de
> > >
> > >
> > > -----
> > > Erik Krause
> > > http://www.erik-krause.de
> > >
> >
>

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Postle <bruno@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu 29-Jan-2009 at 22:01 +0000, Bruno Postle wrote:
> >
> >Both Firefox and Sun Java are GPL licensed.  Gnash is a GPL flash
> >viewer, but last time I checked Flash panoramas didn't work in
> >Gnash.
>
> Completing the list of Open Source panorama viewers:
>
> Standalone viewers: panoglview, freepv, panini(pvqt)
> Browser plugin: freepv
> Java applet: ptviewer
> Flash: panosalado
>
> --
> Bruno
>

I'd add pvQt (or perhaps even Panini) to the list of open source
browser plugins, if I had the time and skill to write a plugin wrapper
for it.  Can anyone help me with this?

-- Tom