Hi!

Chris Burck wrote:
> lars, are there specific problems that you had running hugin on
> 10.3.9?  which version/build of linux do you use?
>
The problem was just that I was stuck with an old release. And whenever
I want to install open source software, I have to get the old releases
from 2005, 2006, with unfixed bugs, not much support (as noone else is
using it anymore) and the frustration of spending times with problems
that have been solved a long time ago. I have been using Debian /PPC (I
think it was Etch) on my old Powerbook 12" 867MHz until I replaced it
with a Thinkpad last year. Linux on Mac is very nice except the one
button mouse on Laptops, you even get Java fresh and up-to-date as IBM
is supporting its Power-platform very well.

So again I think either getting a Linux installation or making sure to
always have the latest OS X is the way to go when using open source on a
Mac.

CU Lars.

On Tue 30-Jun-2009 at 23:01 +0100, Antonio Roberts wrote:
>I had an idea for stitching stills from a movie together to make a
>panoramic image using Hugin. I separated the movie into stills using
>Avidemux and then tried to get it to automoatically stitch them
>together but it kept asking me for the HFOV of the first two images
>and then I had to manually use the algorithm to add points (the G key)
>to all 240 images.

You can just use normal control point generation, see this blog
posting for some tips:

http://habi.gna.ch/2009/04/10/panoramas-from-low-quality-movies/

..and this flickr group for some stitched examples:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/panoramasfrommovies/

--
Bruno

Hello all,

This is a reminder that the 2009 PanoTools meeting takes place in
Timisoara, Romania, from Monday 10th August to Thursday 13th August.

If you are planning to come, please join the PT Meeting list at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/panotools-meeting/

Then add yourself to the table of attendees:
http://tinyurl.com/ptm-2009

Details for the hotel that most people are staying at are here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/panotools-meeting/message/1337

Looking forward to meeting up,

Ian

harry, 0.6.1 does not seem to be available any longer?  at least not
at the link you gave me.  does anyone know if it's archived anywhere?
i did a web search, but so far any third party sites ultimately link
bank to the hugin download page at sourceforge. :(

Ok, everyone else chimed in, I will too :-)

I agree on the quality. It can and should be far better.
But to be cynical, most clients will be more than happy with what we have
here. That's not an excuse to keep it the way it currently is, though :-)

The performance IMO is bad. Way too long to load. It should load 5x faster
and in fullscreen. Maybe it was only my connection, but I don't think it is.

Criticism aside, I think it's cool and I'm happy to see it. But it's not
good enough - make it better - you asked us for criticism and you have it
:-))) (Yes, what will you do now with all this criticism? I'm curious)

good luck and send us more links when you have them.
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]

ok, bruno kindly provided the url for the complete list of hugin
downloads, which could not seem to navigate to.  now i need to ask
which of the options do i want?  there is a link for
hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar.gz, another for hugin-0.6.1.tar.bz, and
another for HuginOSX-v061_build2.dmg a universal binary.  this last
one seems like it would use more drive space than a native ppc
version.  so if i can use the first one, apparently a tarball version
(haven't figured what that means yet), then i guess that would my
preference.  can anyone offer any guidance?  thanks again.

Quoting Chris Burck <chris.burck@...>:

> ok, bruno kindly provided the url for the complete list of hugin
> downloads, which could not seem to navigate to.  now i need to ask
> which of the options do i want?  there is a link for
> hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar.gz, another for hugin-0.6.1.tar.bz, and
> another for HuginOSX-v061_build2.dmg a universal binary.  this last
> one seems like it would use more drive space than a native ppc
> version.  so if i can use the first one, apparently a tarball version
> (haven't figured what that means yet), then i guess that would my
> preference.  can anyone offer any guidance?  thanks again.

a tarball is like a furball all wrapped up tight. like a zip file.

.gz as I understand it is additionally compressed so
gunzip hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar.gz
gives hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar
then
tar xvf hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar
gives
hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools


regards

mick


----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

> tar xvf hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar
> gives
> hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools
  or rather
tar -xvf hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar

and the .bz file I guess is
bunzip instead of gunzip, what the advantages are I do not know.

mick


----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

Hi Chris,

You should download the
HuginOSX-v061_build2.dmg<http://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?group_id\
=77506&filename=HuginOSX-v061_build2.dmg&a=42849664>.
The other ones are not suitable for your.
The tarball is a source version which you have to compile yourself.
The universal one can be run on both ppc and i386 and is bigger than a
native ppc version, but it will take installed about 50 MB. What's the
issue?
10 8Mp+ source images and it's resulting pano take more space. And that's
when talking about jpegs. With 10 8p+ tiff images you have easily 150-250
MB.

Harry


2009/7/1 Chris Burck <chris.burck@...>

>
>
> ok, bruno kindly provided the url for the complete list of hugin
> downloads, which could not seem to navigate to. now i need to ask
> which of the options do i want? there is a link for
> hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar.gz, another for hugin-0.6.1.tar.bz, and
> another for HuginOSX-v061_build2.dmg a universal binary. this last
> one seems like it would use more drive space than a native ppc
> version. so if i can use the first one, apparently a tarball version
> (haven't figured what that means yet), then i guess that would my
> preference. can anyone offer any guidance? thanks again.
>
>


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

Hi all,

I am in the process of purchasing a 360 degree one-shot camera.
May I ask for your input?

Please find a few examples (raw doughnuts and processed panoramas) at:

http://mybestprojects.com/examples

I'd like to do a kind of Google streetview website and therefore need to
take a panos every 1 second.
From rooftop of a moving car, motorbike, bicycle or on foot.

What do you think?
Is this worth 1100 USD?

Alternatives (that are robust enough)?

Thanks,
Jan


You will find 3 types of images:
-d  frame extracted from the video the camera takes: 500-700kb
-p  jpg pano made from doughnut: 450 kb
-sm smaller pano made with 75% setting from jpeg: 90-110 kb

Please use the picture numbers for you comments:
1,3,4,6,15,32.


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

You could do the same thing with a compact camera and a cheap
fisheye pointed straight up -- if you have a low car.  And if
you don't, you could put one on the front and one on the back and
sequence the shots so that the back camera moves forward to the
front camera's old position before the shot.

Or for $1100, you could put 4 of them on your car...

Jan Martin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am in the process of purchasing a 360 degree one-shot camera.
> May I ask for your input?
>
> Please find a few examples (raw doughnuts and processed panoramas) at:
>
> http://mybestprojects.com/examples
>
> I'd like to do a kind of Google streetview website and therefore need to
> take a panos every 1 second.
>>From rooftop of a moving car, motorbike, bicycle or on foot.
>
> What do you think?
> Is this worth 1100 USD?
>
> Alternatives (that are robust enough)?
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
>
> You will find 3 types of images:
> -d  frame extracted from the video the camera takes: 500-700kb
> -p  jpg pano made from doughnut: 450 kb
> -sm smaller pano made with 75% setting from jpeg: 90-110 kb
>
> Please use the picture numbers for you comments:
> 1,3,4,6,15,32.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Details please.

What compact cameras can take (or has) fisheye lens?
And for just 250 USD per camera and lens together?

And I don't get the "sequence the shots so that the back camera moves
forward to the  front camera's old position before the shot." idea.

Could one really get 360 degree panos in a 100% automated way using 4
cameras?
No manual stitching or correction or entering of points for matching!
Free Open Source software only.

Anyone done something like this?
ULRs of Examples please?

Thanks,
Jan

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

>
>
> You could do the same thing with a compact camera and a cheap
> fisheye pointed straight up -- if you have a low car. And if
> you don't, you could put one on the front and one on the back and
> sequence the shots so that the back camera moves forward to the
> front camera's old position before the shot.
>
> Or for $1100, you could put 4 of them on your car...
>
>
> Jan Martin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am in the process of purchasing a 360 degree one-shot camera.
> > May I ask for your input?
> >
> > Please find a few examples (raw doughnuts and processed panoramas) at:
> >
> > http://mybestprojects.com/examples
> >
> > I'd like to do a kind of Google streetview website and therefore need to
> > take a panos every 1 second.
> >>From rooftop of a moving car, motorbike, bicycle or on foot.
> >
> > What do you think?
> > Is this worth 1100 USD?
> >
> > Alternatives (that are robust enough)?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jan
> >
> >
> > You will find 3 types of images:
> > -d frame extracted from the video the camera takes: 500-700kb
> > -p jpg pano made from doughnut: 450 kb
> > -sm smaller pano made with 75% setting from jpeg: 90-110 kb
> >
> > Please use the picture numbers for you comments:
> > 1,3,4,6,15,32.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>


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

On Wed 01-Jul-2009 at 20:11 +0200, Jan Martin wrote:
>
>What compact cameras can take (or has) fisheye lens?
>And for just 250 USD per camera and lens together?

Probably three or four GoPro Wide cameras could take a full 360
panorama:

http://www.goprocamera.com/index.php?area=2&productid=4

I'm sure someone is doing this already.

>And I don't get the "sequence the shots so that the back camera moves
>forward to the  front camera's old position before the shot." idea.

If the car is moving, the back of the car is soon at the same
location as the front.

>Could one really get 360 degree panos in a 100% automated way using 4
>cameras?
>No manual stitching or correction or entering of points for matching!
>Free Open Source software only.

Yes you can template and script it with the hugin toolset or the
libpano13 toolset:

http://wiki.panotools.org/Panorama_scripting_in_a_nutshell

--
Bruno

>On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:
>
>> You could do the same thing with a compact camera and a cheap
>> fisheye pointed straight up -- if you have a low car. And if
>> you don't, you could put one on the front and one on the back and
>> sequence the shots so that the back camera moves forward to the
>> front camera's old position before the shot.

>> Jan Martin wrote:
>> > I am in the process of purchasing a 360 degree one-shot camera.
>> > May I ask for your input?
>> >
>> > Please find a few examples (raw doughnuts and processed panoramas) at:
>> >
>> > http://mybestprojects.com/examples
>> >
>> > I'd like to do a kind of Google streetview website and therefore need to
>> > take a panos every 1 second.
>> > From rooftop of a moving car, motorbike, bicycle or on foot.

Well I wouldn't do it unless you can't afford anything else. The
quality is very low on single shot solutions due the angular
resolution of the mirror, which is the limiting factor these days.
Cameras have decent resolution but small mirrors can't resolve that
so your images will be fuzzy and noisy.

A better solution is going to cost some money though. I have been
working on something like this and it costs something like
$6,000-16,000 to put together a decent rig with good resolution. To
shoot from a moving vehicle you need cameras that can shoot high ISO
so the shutter speed can be very high to reduce motion blur. A lot of
considerations in doing something like this. Good quality work costs
a certain amount of money. If you can get enough money for the
project to write off the costs of the rig and still make money then
that's the perfect situation.

On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Jan Martin wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am in the process of purchasing a 360 degree one-shot camera.
> May I ask for your input?
>
> Please find a few examples (raw doughnuts and processed panoramas) at:
>
> http://mybestprojects.com/examples
>
> I'd like to do a kind of Google streetview website and therefore
> need to
> take a panos every 1 second.
> From rooftop of a moving car, motorbike, bicycle or on foot.
>
> What do you think?
> Is this worth 1100 USD?
>
> Alternatives (that are robust enough)?
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
> You will find 3 types of images:
> -d frame extracted from the video the camera takes: 500-700kb
> -p jpg pano made from doughnut: 450 kb
> -sm smaller pano made with 75% setting from jpeg: 90-110 kb
>
> Please use the picture numbers for you comments:
> 1,3,4,6,15,32.
>































Cheers
Robert Fisher
VR Photography / Cinematography





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

Do you want me to drive the car too?
Here's the lens --
http://store.nodalninja.com/category_s/30.htm
Ebay has lots of cameras.

Or not -- you still have the $1100 to spend on your first choice.

Jan Martin wrote:
> Details please.
>
> What compact cameras can take (or has) fisheye lens?
> And for just 250 USD per camera and lens together?
>
> And I don't get the "sequence the shots so that the back camera moves
> forward to the  front camera's old position before the shot." idea.
>
> Could one really get 360 degree panos in a 100% automated way using 4
> cameras?
> No manual stitching or correction or entering of points for matching!
> Free Open Source software only.
>
> Anyone done something like this?
> ULRs of Examples please?
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You could do the same thing with a compact camera and a cheap
>>fisheye pointed straight up -- if you have a low car. And if
>>you don't, you could put one on the front and one on the back and
>>sequence the shots so that the back camera moves forward to the
>>front camera's old position before the shot.
>>
>>Or for $1100, you could put 4 of them on your car...
>>
>>
>>Jan Martin wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I am in the process of purchasing a 360 degree one-shot camera.
>>>May I ask for your input?
>>>
>>>Please find a few examples (raw doughnuts and processed panoramas) at:
>>>
>>>http://mybestprojects.com/examples
>>>
>>>I'd like to do a kind of Google streetview website and therefore need to
>>>take a panos every 1 second.
>>>>From rooftop of a moving car, motorbike, bicycle or on foot.
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>>Is this worth 1100 USD?
>>>
>>>Alternatives (that are robust enough)?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>You will find 3 types of images:
>>>-d frame extracted from the video the camera takes: 500-700kb
>>>-p jpg pano made from doughnut: 450 kb
>>>-sm smaller pano made with 75% setting from jpeg: 90-110 kb
>>>
>>>Please use the picture numbers for you comments:
>>>1,3,4,6,15,32.
>>>
>>>
>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Ken,

Wow, that got my brain moving! If you had a Coolpix with their fisheye lens
attached, that gives you about 185 fov, right? If you had a particular
location that you wanted to cover TOTALLY, would the following scenario
work?

1. Mount the camera on a motorized platform, pointing forward so that the
platform isn't in the photo.

2. Set up a local GPS system that gives you perhaps centimeter or even
millimeter accuracy. (An engineer friend of mine told me about a site he was
working on where they had a local GPS system set up with several
transmitters and several receivers mounted on a bulldozer. They fed in what
they wanted the topology to be, and the bulldozer automatically adjusted the
pitch and height of the blade.)

3. Drive the platform around the area to be covered, taking photos at
regular intervals in a grid pattern so that you end up with four views taken
at each intersection of the grid.

4. Group the images together based on their local GPS coordinates, which
should give you four fisheye images that you can stitch together.

5. Navigate the final array of panos which should give you a fully immersive
tour.

Mark
www.pinnacle-vr.com
www.northernlight.net
www.360cities.net


>-----Original Message-----
>From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Ken Warner
>Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:03 PM
>To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Buying or not? 360 degree one-shot camera for
>1100 USD
>
>You could do the same thing with a compact camera and a cheap
>fisheye pointed straight up -- if you have a low car.  And if
>you don't, you could put one on the front and one on the back and
>sequence the shots so that the back camera moves forward to the
>front camera's old position before the shot.
>
>Or for $1100, you could put 4 of them on your car...
>
>Jan Martin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am in the process of purchasing a 360 degree one-shot camera.
>> May I ask for your input?
>>
>> Please find a few examples (raw doughnuts and processed panoramas) at:
>>
>> http://mybestprojects.com/examples
>>
>> I'd like to do a kind of Google streetview website and therefore need to
>> take a panos every 1 second.
>>>From rooftop of a moving car, motorbike, bicycle or on foot.
>>
>> What do you think?
>> Is this worth 1100 USD?
>>
>> Alternatives (that are robust enough)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> You will find 3 types of images:
>> -d  frame extracted from the video the camera takes: 500-700kb
>> -p  jpg pano made from doughnut: 450 kb
>> -sm smaller pano made with 75% setting from jpeg: 90-110 kb
>>
>> Please use the picture numbers for you comments:
>> 1,3,4,6,15,32.
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>--
>
>
>

The IPIX has about 185 degree FOV but the edges have a strong rolloff so
you really only can use about 175 degrees.

And I doubt that you will get cm or mm GPS accuracy.  Bulldozers are not
really mm accurate in their work :-)

A smart guy with money to burn could do a lot of things like you suggest.
Unfortuantely, I miss both requirements :-))))

Mark D. Fink wrote:
> Ken,
>
> Wow, that got my brain moving! If you had a Coolpix with their fisheye lens
> attached, that gives you about 185 fov, right? If you had a particular
> location that you wanted to cover TOTALLY, would the following scenario
> work?
>
> 1. Mount the camera on a motorized platform, pointing forward so that the
> platform isn't in the photo.
>
> 2. Set up a local GPS system that gives you perhaps centimeter or even
> millimeter accuracy. (An engineer friend of mine told me about a site he was
> working on where they had a local GPS system set up with several
> transmitters and several receivers mounted on a bulldozer. They fed in what
> they wanted the topology to be, and the bulldozer automatically adjusted the
> pitch and height of the blade.)
>
> 3. Drive the platform around the area to be covered, taking photos at
> regular intervals in a grid pattern so that you end up with four views taken
> at each intersection of the grid.
>
> 4. Group the images together based on their local GPS coordinates, which
> should give you four fisheye images that you can stitch together.
>
> 5. Navigate the final array of panos which should give you a fully immersive
> tour.
>
> Mark
> www.pinnacle-vr.com
> www.northernlight.net
> www.360cities.net
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
>>Behalf Of Ken Warner
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:03 PM
>>To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Buying or not? 360 degree one-shot camera for
>>1100 USD
>>
>>You could do the same thing with a compact camera and a cheap
>>fisheye pointed straight up -- if you have a low car.  And if
>>you don't, you could put one on the front and one on the back and
>>sequence the shots so that the back camera moves forward to the
>>front camera's old position before the shot.
>>
>>Or for $1100, you could put 4 of them on your car...
>>
>>Jan Martin wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I am in the process of purchasing a 360 degree one-shot camera.
>>>May I ask for your input?
>>>
>>>Please find a few examples (raw doughnuts and processed panoramas) at:
>>>
>>>http://mybestprojects.com/examples
>>>
>>>I'd like to do a kind of Google streetview website and therefore need to
>>>take a panos every 1 second.
>>>>From rooftop of a moving car, motorbike, bicycle or on foot.
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>>Is this worth 1100 USD?
>>>
>>>Alternatives (that are robust enough)?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>You will find 3 types of images:
>>>-d  frame extracted from the video the camera takes: 500-700kb
>>>-p  jpg pano made from doughnut: 450 kb
>>>-sm smaller pano made with 75% setting from jpeg: 90-110 kb
>>>
>>>Please use the picture numbers for you comments:
>>>1,3,4,6,15,32.
>>>
>>>
>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Ah, but it's fun to dream. :o)

How about this one then:

Take three of the IPIX lenses, mount them back to back with a periscope
assembly on each of them. The periscope transfers the image circles down to
a full frame camera. I did a quick test in Photoshop, and there is room for
three of these 14.9mm image circles on a full frame, with a tiny bit of
overlap.

So, instead of pointing a camera up into a mirror, you point it up into an
array of three lenses, each of which records to a 14.9mm circle on the
sensor at the same time.

That would give you enough overlap between the lenses to compensate for the
light falloff. Then, write actions in Photoshop to extract the three areas
into separate images and stitch them together. Might even work for video?

Mark
www.pinnacle-vr.com
www.northernlight.net
www.360cities.net


>-----Original Message-----
>From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Ken Warner
>Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:52 PM
>To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Buying or not? 360 degree one-shot camera for
>1100 USD
>
>The IPIX has about 185 degree FOV but the edges have a strong rolloff so
>you really only can use about 175 degrees.
>
>And I doubt that you will get cm or mm GPS accuracy.  Bulldozers are not
>really mm accurate in their work :-)
>
>A smart guy with money to burn could do a lot of things like you suggest.
>Unfortuantely, I miss both requirements :-))))
>
>Mark D. Fink wrote:
>> Ken,
>>
>> Wow, that got my brain moving! If you had a Coolpix with their fisheye
>lens
>> attached, that gives you about 185 fov, right? If you had a particular
>> location that you wanted to cover TOTALLY, would the following scenario
>> work?
>>
>> 1. Mount the camera on a motorized platform, pointing forward so that the
>> platform isn't in the photo.
>>
>> 2. Set up a local GPS system that gives you perhaps centimeter or even
>> millimeter accuracy. (An engineer friend of mine told me about a site he
>was
>> working on where they had a local GPS system set up with several
>> transmitters and several receivers mounted on a bulldozer. They fed in
>what
>> they wanted the topology to be, and the bulldozer automatically adjusted
>the
>> pitch and height of the blade.)
>>
>> 3. Drive the platform around the area to be covered, taking photos at
>> regular intervals in a grid pattern so that you end up with four views
>taken
>> at each intersection of the grid.
>>
>> 4. Group the images together based on their local GPS coordinates, which
>> should give you four fisheye images that you can stitch together.
>>
>> 5. Navigate the final array of panos which should give you a fully
>immersive
>> tour.
>>
>> Mark
>> www.pinnacle-vr.com
>> www.northernlight.net
>> www.360cities.net

thanks, harry.  i'll download the binary for now.  i am on a fixed
storage income, so to speak, for the next several months at least so i
have to try and optimize wherever possible.  i don't work with large
image files.  99% of what i do is film, scanning black and white negs
at 1200ppi or 2400ppi so the files are usually 10MB or less, and only
the very best of them are stored as tiffs.  the rest are either
deleted or saved as jpegs (if i want to share them, i'd be doing so in
jpeg format anyway).  thanks again.  i appreciate all the help
everyone has kindly given.  i'll let you all know how i get on.

Hi all,

thanks for your input.

Ken:
I am aware of the GoPro cameras.

One would "just" have to solve these problems:
- Reliably adjust the cameras so one could use same templates for hugin all
the time.
- Arrange power supply while in water-proof casing.
- Control 4 cameras to fire at once.
- Get the pictures out of 4 cameras without disassembling everything.

And yes, I need drivers very soon, but you need to bring your own car and
gas. ;)

Robert:
Of course I could spend more.
But I am building a prototype and complete workflow for a grass-root
project.
So a 15.000 USD entry fee for a Ladybug rig is a pretty hight hurdle for
anyone to join.

There is no mirror, just a crazy-looking lens. And I get an better one in a
few months.

6.000- 16.000 USD that is the price range of a Ladybug rig.
Therefore I wouldn't construct a rig for that money myself anymore.

The example pictures have been taken from a moving car, so no motion blur
problem at all.

Mark:
GPS-idea not going to work for lots of GPS reasons.
Periscope idea not working for lots of die-hard-math optical reasons.

There is a commercial solution for the periscope idea of yours. Its 50.000
USD minimum. Used on aircraft carriers mostly. So no luck.

All you can hope for is to put 3 or 4 cameras back to back and do the best
(e.g. blending) to cover for parallax problems arising from that scenario.

Jan


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

Mark,

just found the link:

http://www.fullview.com/technology.html

Also nice overview on all the different panorama technologies available
right now.

Jan


On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Jan Martin <janmartin3@...>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> thanks for your input.
>
> Ken:
> I am aware of the GoPro cameras.
>
> One would "just" have to solve these problems:
> - Reliably adjust the cameras so one could use same templates for hugin all
> the time.
> - Arrange power supply while in water-proof casing.
> - Control 4 cameras to fire at once.
> - Get the pictures out of 4 cameras without disassembling everything.
>
> And yes, I need drivers very soon, but you need to bring your own car and
> gas. ;)
>
> Robert:
> Of course I could spend more.
> But I am building a prototype and complete workflow for a grass-root
> project.
> So a 15.000 USD entry fee for a Ladybug rig is a pretty hight hurdle for
> anyone to join.
>
> There is no mirror, just a crazy-looking lens. And I get an better one in a
> few months.
>
> 6.000- 16.000 USD that is the price range of a Ladybug rig.
> Therefore I wouldn't construct a rig for that money myself anymore.
>
> The example pictures have been taken from a moving car, so no motion blur
> problem at all.
>
> Mark:
> GPS-idea not going to work for lots of GPS reasons.
> Periscope idea not working for lots of die-hard-math optical reasons.
>
> There is a commercial solution for the periscope idea of yours. Its 50.000
> USD minimum. Used on aircraft carriers mostly. So no luck.
>
> All you can hope for is to put 3 or 4 cameras back to back and do the best
> (e.g. blending) to cover for parallax problems arising from that scenario.
>
> Jan
>


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

Last time I checked the ladybug is $25k. I am talking about 3-4 still
cameras with lenses. cosumer cameras and the ladybug don't have the
resolution but if your goal is to do the same as Streetview then
that's a pretty low standard of quality. I would aim higher.

Also I would bet that crazy looking lens has a mirror in it otherwise
the image would be shaped differently.

On Jul 1, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Jan Martin wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
> thanks for your input.
>
> Ken:
> I am aware of the GoPro cameras.
>
> One would "just" have to solve these problems:
> - Reliably adjust the cameras so one could use same templates for
> hugin all
> the time.
> - Arrange power supply while in water-proof casing.
> - Control 4 cameras to fire at once.
> - Get the pictures out of 4 cameras without disassembling everything.
>
> And yes, I need drivers very soon, but you need to bring your own
> car and
> gas. ;)
>
> Robert:
> Of course I could spend more.
> But I am building a prototype and complete workflow for a grass-root
> project.
> So a 15.000 USD entry fee for a Ladybug rig is a pretty hight
> hurdle for
> anyone to join.
>
> There is no mirror, just a crazy-looking lens. And I get an better
> one in a
> few months.
>
> 6.000- 16.000 USD that is the price range of a Ladybug rig.
> Therefore I wouldn't construct a rig for that money myself anymore.
>
> The example pictures have been taken from a moving car, so no
> motion blur
> problem at all.
>
> Mark:
> GPS-idea not going to work for lots of GPS reasons.
> Periscope idea not working for lots of die-hard-math optical reasons.
>
> There is a commercial solution for the periscope idea of yours. Its
> 50.000
> USD minimum. Used on aircraft carriers mostly. So no luck.
>
> All you can hope for is to put 3 or 4 cameras back to back and do
> the best
> (e.g. blending) to cover for parallax problems arising from that
> scenario.
>
> Jan
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Cheers
Robert Fisher
VR Photography / Cinematography





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

The new WWP event is online. "TIME"


http://worldwidepanorama.org/worldwidepanorama/wwp609/index.html







Willy Kaemena
http://worldwidepanorama.org/worldwidepanorama/wwppeople/html/WillyKaemena.html


Willy Kaemena
(0049) 0177 327 2935
http://homepage.mac.com/wkaemena/FSPanos/Menu268.html
http://360cities.net/profile/willy-kaemena
http://360cities.net/area/damascus-syria
http://360cities.net/area/bremen-germany
http://360cities.net/area/rio-de-janeiro-brazil-2
http://360cities.net/area/lisbon-portugal











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

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Robert Fisher <bob@...> wrote:
>
> Last time I checked the ladybug is $25k. I am talking about 3-4 still
> cameras with lenses. cosumer cameras and the ladybug don't have the
> resolution but if your goal is to do the same as Streetview then
> that's a pretty low standard of quality. I would aim higher.
>
> Also I would bet that crazy looking lens has a mirror in it otherwise
> the image would be shaped differently.
>
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Jan Martin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > thanks for your input.
> >
> > Ken:
> > I am aware of the GoPro cameras.
> >
> > One would "just" have to solve these problems:
> > - Reliably adjust the cameras so one could use same templates for
> > hugin all
> > the time.
> > - Arrange power supply while in water-proof casing.
> > - Control 4 cameras to fire at once.
> > - Get the pictures out of 4 cameras without disassembling everything.
> >
> > And yes, I need drivers very soon, but you need to bring your own
> > car and
> > gas. ;)
> >
> > Robert:
> > Of course I could spend more.
> > But I am building a prototype and complete workflow for a grass-root
> > project.
> > So a 15.000 USD entry fee for a Ladybug rig is a pretty hight
> > hurdle for
> > anyone to join.
> >
> > There is no mirror, just a crazy-looking lens. And I get an better
> > one in a
> > few months.
> >
> > 6.000- 16.000 USD that is the price range of a Ladybug rig.
> > Therefore I wouldn't construct a rig for that money myself anymore.
> >
> > The example pictures have been taken from a moving car, so no
> > motion blur
> > problem at all.
> >
> > Mark:
> > GPS-idea not going to work for lots of GPS reasons.
> > Periscope idea not working for lots of die-hard-math optical reasons.
> >
> > There is a commercial solution for the periscope idea of yours. Its
> > 50.000
> > USD minimum. Used on aircraft carriers mostly. So no luck.
> >
> > All you can hope for is to put 3 or 4 cameras back to back and do
> > the best
> > (e.g. blending) to cover for parallax problems arising from that
> > scenario.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> Cheers
> Robert Fisher
> VR Photography / Cinematography
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
There is a community of radio controlled model aeroplane fanatics interested in
monitoring their flights in realtime via a video feed and they are working on
hacking the cheap Aiptek A-HD+ video camera so that the tiny camera sensor part
of the video camera can be detached and tethered with a cable to the rest of the
camera. This sensor has a M12 lens mount and can be fitted with a miniature
Sunex fisheye lens. Quality for stills and video with this is much better in my
tests than the GoPro. (5M stills) When the detaching problem is solved (soon
apparently) it will be possible to build a 3 lens fisheye module that will fit
in a 1" cube I think (for about $1000US). The only problem then will be
overriding the automatic exposure of the camera.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=936068&page=44


Peter M

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <panovrx@...> wrote:
>

> > I have made a two handed camera grip for use with my laser plum bob (and
general overhead handheld use)
> > http://www.mediavr.com/lasergrip.jpg
> >
> > The idea is you stand a little behind the laser pointer (so your stomach
doesnt obstruct the beam -- motivation to not get fat) and hold the camera
overhead so that the beam goes between your arms and hits the underneath of the
lens. It is easy to find the beam because you are holding the camera
symmetrically. It is possible to hold the beam on the required spot without too
much effort to within a few mm. But you have to keep looking at it really to
keep it there. So not ideal but pretty good for very accurate stitching with
just a handheld grip and a laser gadget. You can take sharp shots with it down
to about 1/50th.
> >

I did some tests yesterday (at a local Chinese Garden) with the laser plumbbob
(Dewalt)and two handed camera grip. You can see from my shadow in a couple of
them what's going on. There were a couple of issues but generally the
stitchability was very good for handheld panoramas. First issue, hard to see the
laser dot on the underneath of the lens when looking into the sun. Second issue,
I had put the laser in a camera bag (so it didnt look conspicuous), and as the
breeze blew it made the bag move and the laser swing. Indoors, with no wind, if
you concentrate hard you can keep the dot right where it should be and get
almost perfect stitching but outdoors it is harder to do that. Here are the
panoramas straight as they came out of PTGui without retouching or nadir shot
incorporation.
http://www.mediavr.com/flash/chinagarden2.htm
http://www.mediavr.com/flash/chinagarden4.htm
http://www.mediavr.com/flash/chinagarden5.htm

Peter M

When I started in this business back in the mid-90s you didn't have to
choose between cylindricals and sphericals because cylindricals were all
that were available via QTVRAS the tool I was using at the time.
Several years ago sphericals became popular, and they certainly have
their place, like inside buildings, but I always felt like those pixels
in the sky and the dirt at your feet were wasted, that my customers were
better served with a panorama of a view from the top of a mountain with
a strip cylindrical shot with a 50 mm lens than they were with spherical
image shot with a 15 mm, or even worse, with the advent of the DX
format, a 10 mm lens.  But sometimes sphericals are really good, even
for scenery, like for example, at the edge of the abyss at Toroweap at
the Grand Canyon.

Well, on my current project, a CD offering VR Illustrated Topo Maps of
the Sierra Nevada, I have been stuck for a couple of weeks on a panorama
shot at the top of New Army Pass, a few miles south of the Mt. Whitney
uplift.  The views from there are incredibly expansive, and I had shot a
3 row with a 50 mm lens and my D200 at its highest NEF resolution.  When
I input the finished cylinder to Pano2VR, it crashed repeatedly.  Then,
this afternoon I tried cropping the stitched image down to more of a
cylindrical orientation, getting rid of a lot of clear blue sky and some
nondescript rocks at my feet (no plants grow at the pass, it's too
elevated) and now Pano2VR is able to produce a pretty good panorama.

The Black Kaweahs, a strange and very remote range, rises about 30 miles
distant from New Army Pass, and that's what I used as a marker to decide
when the image could not be reduced any further without losing important
detail.  So I just sized the image down with Photoshop's Image command
until the Black Kaweah started to diminish more than I wanted and then
started cropping out sky and rock until it worked.  Now Pano2VR is able
to produce a pretty good panorama from a source tiff 26880 x 2920.

But there is a noticeable degradation of the image.  What is Pano2VR
doing to the image between the tif and the .swf?  Could I be making
manual steps in creating the pieces of the spherical, or whatever it
does, to maintain image detail better than the automated functions of
Pano2VR?

So I proved to myself what I have long felt, that there is still good
reason for cylindrical panoramas in the scenic art photography world.
Now if I could just figure out how to keep Pano2VR from turning the
image into a piece of crap I would be happy.

Paul Fretheim

Some of you didn't make it to the Neverland Ranch for the Michael Jackson media
circus today.  I enjoyed seeing all of the equipment and talking to some of the
professionals there.
When I got there no-parking signs were being placed along the road for miles,
when leaving they had set up a road block about 2 miles away and were not
allowing anyone down the road.  Here's my first pano, sorry the quality setting
had to be set low in Photoshop and even the file is larger that I would like.
http://www.indiavrtours.com/vrphotos/jackson4.html

Hi Paul

What interpolation filter do you use in Pano2VR?

regards!
fiero

Well, gee whiz.  It might be helpful to be abit more technically specific as to
which settings you used to create your pano2vr output image.

Which version of pano2vr are you using?
What format are your original images?
What stitching software did you use to stitch your panorama?
What file size and was it 8bit or 16bit Tif?

There are a lot of preliminary issues that might have caused your concerns.

Is your browser using Flash Version 10?

Help us ... just bit more.

You might help us by replying here in this forum or in the Pano2vr forum.

Our first panorama were taken back in 1989.

dave still at 360texas.com

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Paul Fretheim <paul@...> wrote:
>
> When I started in this business back in the mid-90s you didn't have to
> choose between cylindricals and sphericals because cylindricals were all
> that were available via QTVRAS the tool I was using at the time.
> Several years ago sphericals became popular, and they certainly have
> their place, like inside buildings, but I always felt like those pixels
> in the sky and the dirt at your feet were wasted, that my customers were
> better served with a panorama of a view from the top of a mountain with
> a strip cylindrical shot with a 50 mm lens than they were with spherical
> image shot with a 15 mm, or even worse, with the advent of the DX
> format, a 10 mm lens.  But sometimes sphericals are really good, even
> for scenery, like for example, at the edge of the abyss at Toroweap at
> the Grand Canyon.
>
> Well, on my current project, a CD offering VR Illustrated Topo Maps of
> the Sierra Nevada, I have been stuck for a couple of weeks on a panorama
> shot at the top of New Army Pass, a few miles south of the Mt. Whitney
> uplift.  The views from there are incredibly expansive, and I had shot a
> 3 row with a 50 mm lens and my D200 at its highest NEF resolution.  When
> I input the finished cylinder to Pano2VR, it crashed repeatedly.  Then,
> this afternoon I tried cropping the stitched image down to more of a
> cylindrical orientation, getting rid of a lot of clear blue sky and some
> nondescript rocks at my feet (no plants grow at the pass, it's too
> elevated) and now Pano2VR is able to produce a pretty good panorama.
>
> The Black Kaweahs, a strange and very remote range, rises about 30 miles
> distant from New Army Pass, and that's what I used as a marker to decide
> when the image could not be reduced any further without losing important
> detail.  So I just sized the image down with Photoshop's Image command
> until the Black Kaweah started to diminish more than I wanted and then
> started cropping out sky and rock until it worked.  Now Pano2VR is able
> to produce a pretty good panorama from a source tiff 26880 x 2920.
>
> But there is a noticeable degradation of the image.  What is Pano2VR
> doing to the image between the tif and the .swf?  Could I be making
> manual steps in creating the pieces of the spherical, or whatever it
> does, to maintain image detail better than the automated functions of
> Pano2VR?
>
> So I proved to myself what I have long felt, that there is still good
> reason for cylindrical panoramas in the scenic art photography world.
> Now if I could just figure out how to keep Pano2VR from turning the
> image into a piece of crap I would be happy.
>
> Paul Fretheim
>

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:04:46 +0900, panovrx <panovrx@...> wrote:

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <panovrx@...> wrote:
>>
>
>> > I have made a two handed camera grip for use with my laser plum bob
>> (and general overhead handheld use)
>> > http://www.mediavr.com/lasergrip.jpg
>> >
>> > The idea is you stand a little behind the laser pointer (so your
>> stomach doesnt obstruct the beam -- motivation to not get fat) and hold
>> the camera overhead so that the beam goes between your arms and hits
>> the underneath of the lens. It is easy to find the beam because you are
>> holding the camera symmetrically. It is possible to hold the beam on
>> the required spot without too much effort to within a few mm. But you
>> have to keep looking at it really to keep it there. So not ideal but
>> pretty good for very accurate stitching with just a handheld grip and a
>> laser gadget. You can take sharp shots with it down to about 1/50th.
>> >
>
> I did some tests yesterday (at a local Chinese Garden) with the laser
> plumbbob (Dewalt)and two handed camera grip. You can see from my shadow
> in a couple of them what's going on. There were a couple of issues but
> generally the stitchability was very good for handheld panoramas. First
> issue, hard to see the laser dot on the underneath of the lens when
> looking into the sun. Second issue, I had put the laser in a camera bag
> (so it didnt look conspicuous), and as the breeze blew it made the bag
> move and the laser swing. Indoors, with no wind, if you concentrate hard
> you can keep the dot right where it should be and get almost perfect
> stitching but outdoors it is harder to do that. Here are the panoramas
> straight as they came out of PTGui without retouching or nadir shot
> incorporation.
> http://www.mediavr.com/flash/chinagarden2.htm
> http://www.mediavr.com/flash/chinagarden4.htm
> http://www.mediavr.com/flash/chinagarden5.htm

Wow! Very impressive demonstration of concept. Beautiful spot for panoramas
and amazing results without either retouching or nadir fixing.

I was letting alll this "laser this and that" go past me, thinking all
the while "not for me..." but now I think I'll have to check it out.
Especially as I prefer handheld to monopod and monopod to tripod. I
guess it would be more difficult for panoramas that require more shots
to square the circle--like the 10.5mm Nikor on my Fujifilm S5 Pro,
which requires six around plus up and/or down...

Roger W.

--
Work: www.adex-japan.com