I have created a cylindrical pano and used the free Pano2QVTR to make a
mov file.
Using QTPlayer  7.6.4. I can move the movie with the mouse but would
like for it to move automatically by itself.
How do I get it to do it?
Thanks,
Nathan

Nathan Gutman wrote:

> I have created a cylindrical pano and used the free Pano2QVTR to make a
> mov file.
> Using QTPlayer  7.6.4. I can move the movie with the mouse but would
> like for it to move automatically by itself.

in Pano2QTVR go to "Sprites" tab and select the desired autorotate mode.
For more specialized autorotations you need to add QTVR sprites.

Be careful with autorotation: Users tend to think they watch a movie if
a panorama autorotates...

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

Erik Krause wrote:

> > I have created a cylindrical pano and used the free Pano2QVTR to make a
> > mov file.
> > Using QTPlayer  7.6.4. I can move the movie with the mouse but would
> > like for it to move automatically by itself.
>
> in Pano2QTVR go to "Sprites" tab and select the desired autorotate mode.
> For more specialized autorotations you need to add QTVR sprites.

Sorry, I have the pro version. The free version doesn't seem to support
autorotation: http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2qtvr_features.php

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

Best place to ask would on the Pano2VR forum here -
http://gardengnomesoftware.com/forum/  There should be a button you click in the
software to enable autorotaion.


Pete

Peter Stephens Photography
www.peterstephens.co.uk


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Nathan Gutman <nzgutman@...> wrote:
>
> I have created a cylindrical pano and used the free Pano2QVTR to make a
> mov file.
> Using QTPlayer  7.6.4. I can move the movie with the mouse but would
> like for it to move automatically by itself.
> How do I get it to do it?
> Thanks,
> Nathan
>

Mr. Steib showed me a working prototype of this camera in April, very
interesting solution. I also like their lenses :-)

btw RED is also modular.. ;-)

Posted by: "erik_leeman"
>
> This comes close:
> <http://www.hartblei.de/en/index.htm>
>
> Ken Warner wrote:
>> >
>> > I wonder if there will ever be a time when you can piece
>> > together a camera like you piece together a PC.
>> > I'll have a 12mpx Fuji sensor and a Canon sensor board
>> > with a Leica lens mount and an Olympus body please...

Agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

2009/11/2 Carl von Einem <einem@...>:
> Mr. Steib showed me a working prototype of this camera in April, very
> interesting solution. I also like their lenses :-)
>
> btw RED is also modular.. ;-)
>
> Posted by: "erik_leeman"
>>
>> This comes close:
>> <http://www.hartblei.de/en/index.htm>
>>
>> Ken Warner wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I wonder if there will ever be a time when you can piece
>>> > together a camera like you piece together a PC.
>>> > I'll have a 12mpx Fuji sensor and a Canon sensor board
>>> > with a Leica lens mount and an Olympus body please...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
>



--
Luca Vascon.

www.canalview.it
www.officinepanottiche.com

Robert Slade wrote:

> I have a Pano2VR project with input of six cube faces of 2000x2000
> pixels each.
>
> I want to create a transformation to an angular map "little planet"
> (circular).
>
> How do I calculate the maximum resolution possible given the size of the
> cube faces?

Just an estimate: 2000px cube face width has the same resolution as
6282px equirectangular width. You can do "little planet" with a 360°
fisheye mapping which would be the same width as the equirect. It very
much looks as if Pano2VR uses this mapping.

However, the better mapping for "little planet" is stereographic, which
stretches the outer regions. PTGui f.e. suggest 300° for "little planet"
with about 14000px for a 6000px wide input equirect...

Perhaps you find some more info following the links on
http://wiki.panotools.org/Stereographic_Projection.

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

Ken Warner wrote:

> Instead of focusing on another interchangeable lens format, the
> companies may release truly compact cameras with built-in zoom
> lenses much like those in their existing PowerShot and Coolpix lines,
> but with large consumer-level DSLR sensors.
[...]
> slip into your pocket.

Ha ha. A good laugh. A large sensor camera with fixed 10x zoom lens will
never "slip in your pocket". You can make a camera tiny, but you can't
make a large sensor lens tiny. Physics implies certain limits.

  From the whole article it's apparent that the author didn't understand
much of the relations...

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

Big pocket???

Erik Krause wrote:
> Ken Warner wrote:
>
>> Instead of focusing on another interchangeable lens format, the
>> companies may release truly compact cameras with built-in zoom
>> lenses much like those in their existing PowerShot and Coolpix lines,
>> but with large consumer-level DSLR sensors.
> [...]
>> slip into your pocket.
>
> Ha ha. A good laugh. A large sensor camera with fixed 10x zoom lens will
> never "slip in your pocket". You can make a camera tiny, but you can't
> make a large sensor lens tiny. Physics implies certain limits.
>
>  From the whole article it's apparent that the author didn't understand
> much of the relations...
>
> best regards

I expect lenses to be a thing of the past... in some years.
Laser "lenses" are already in use, for metering/scanning.  I think it is
only a question of time before lasers will start replacing glass lenses.  Of
course there has to be some more work done before lasers can detect
colours... (if they can't already)... but it might eliminate the bulky
lenses we see as an essential part of photography.

I was laughed at back in 1981, when I stated that in 20 years it would be
possible to have whole full feature movies on devices that would be no
bigger than half a pen.  One of the comments I would get was: Why half a
pen, why not just a needle head?  ... and I was reminded of the "Fact" that
tape could not become that thin and small  :)  My response was that of
course a movie could be stored on a needle head sized media, but for
practicality, it would have to have a size that could be handled.  If it
fell to the floor, it should be visible to the naked eye.

People thought it was complete nonsense.

Flash drives and miniature memory cards can easily store several full lenght
movies.

Lasers to replace lenses.... I will probably have many a laugh on that one
:)

Let's see what the situation is in 20 years from now.

Trausti

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

>
>
> Big pocket???
>
>


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

Has anyone paired these two yet? If so, any example images? I can't locate
anything like it online.

I don't know what the image circle size is on the Sigma 4.5mm, but from looking
at APS-C & FourThirds sensor sizes, it looks as though it may give me something
comparable to what you would get using the Sigma 8mm on a DX sensor Nikon.
Meaning, full 180 from top to bottom with a slight crop of the circle on the
sides. They have adapters to put Nikon/Canon etc on MFT and I thought this might
be a nice mini VR option for my GF1.

Trausti,

I think you may be confused over what lasers do.  They emit light;
they don't sense light.  What makes them special is that they emit
coherent light (all one frequency and in phase).  [Trivia: Charles
Townes, inventor of the laser, graduated from my undergraduate (BS and
BA, summa cum laude at age 19!! Furman U.) and graduate (MA Duke)
physics programs 8-)  After that, we had divergent paths (separated by
50 years), since he finished the Ph.D. at Cal Tech, while I stayed at
Duke.  He is still kicking at age 94!!  Recently, I got to hang out
with the famous scientist Freeman Dyson during his visit to give the
annual Townes Lecture at Furman.]

You may be thinking of laser scanning objects, where the reflected
laser light is sensed by some other device.  All sorts of neat things
being done there, such as 3D scans.  Still, the lasers are sources,
not sensors.

Pedantically Yours,

John

John Riley
Associate Prof. of Physics
USC Upstate

4Pi-VR Media Solutions
http://4pi-vr.com
johnriley@...
(h)864-461-3504
(c)864-431-7075
(w)864-503-5775

On Nov 2, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:

> I expect lenses to be a thing of the past... in some years.
> Laser "lenses" are already in use, for metering/scanning. I think it
> is
> only a question of time before lasers will start replacing glass
> lenses. Of
> course there has to be some more work done before lasers can detect
> colours... (if they can't already)... but it might eliminate the bulky
> lenses we see as an essential part of photography.



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

Sometime around 2/11/09 (at 16:44 -0500) Trausti Hraunfjord said:

>I think it is
>only a question of time before lasers will start replacing glass lenses.

Interesting thought. But how can a beam of light detect available light?

k

Erik Krause wrote:

> However, the better mapping for "little planet" is stereographic, which
> stretches the outer regions. PTGui f.e. suggest 300° for "little planet"
> with about 14000px for a 6000px wide input equirect...

The formula is quite simple:

2 * equirect width * tan(FoV/4) / pi

The result is the stereographic image width and "FoV" is the angle of
the desired field of view of the stereographic image.

However, Pano2VR most likely doesn't use this mapping but the fisheye
one, where the output image width is the same as the equirect image width.

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

Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:

> Laser "lenses" are already in use, for metering/scanning.

Yes, of course. But we don't want to meter or scan a scene artificially
lit by a laser but to capture one lit by natural light. How should this
work?

There might be techniques to reduce the size of lenses. Mention the
diffraction optics introduced by canon some years ago. But unless some
very new optical principle is discovered, we are constrained to lenses
that concentrate the light emitted by the real world onto a sensor -
with all their problems

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

uhhh... I can't help myself.  These kinds of questions are too
seductive.

If you had an absolute reference for the reflectivity of a laser
of a given color, you might be able to detect and quantify the
luminosity of the return.

If you had three different color lasers calibrated at different
wavelengths then maybe you could composite the return.  You could
even add in ultra high frequency radar (T-waves -- look it up)
and/or UV/IR lasers and really get multi-band composite picture.

And NO CA!!!

Keith Martin wrote:
> Sometime around 2/11/09 (at 16:44 -0500) Trausti Hraunfjord said:
>
>> I think it is
>> only a question of time before lasers will start replacing glass lenses.
>
> Interesting thought. But how can a beam of light detect available light?
>
> k
>

Not trying to teach the teacher... but I am sure there will be discoveries
that make it possible for lasers to detect colours... I think Ken Warner is
sharing my wavelength on this:

> uhhh... I can't help myself. These kinds of questions are too
> seductive.
>
> If you had an absolute reference for the reflectivity of a laser
> of a given color, you might be able to detect and quantify the
> luminosity of the return.

> If you had three different color lasers calibrated at different
> wavelengths then maybe you could composite the return. You could
> even add in ultra high frequency radar (T-waves -- look it up)
> and/or UV/IR lasers and really get multi-band composite picture.

> And NO CA!!!



On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:17 PM, John Riley <johnriley@...> wrote:

>
>
> John Riley
> Associate Prof. of Physics
> USC Upstate
>


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

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:05:34 +0900, bohonus <bradford@...> wrote:

> Has anyone paired these two yet? If so, any example images? I can't
> locate anything like it online.
>
> I don't know what the image circle size is on the Sigma 4.5mm, but from
> looking at APS-C & FourThirds sensor sizes, it looks as though it may
> give me something comparable to what you would get using the Sigma 8mm
> on a DX sensor Nikon. Meaning, full 180 from top to bottom with a slight
> crop of the circle on the sides. They have adapters to put Nikon/Canon
> etc on MFT and I thought this might be a nice mini VR option for my GF1.

I had this thought when the GF1 and "PEN" came out. But the Sigma 4.5mm
is a rather expensive lens for my budget, I don't want a third camera as
well as my Fuji S5 and Nikon D300, and would be reluctant to dump either
of them. If I were starting over again, I might go for it.

However, I have an "early adopter" friend who bought the PEN and he
found it had a noticeably narrower dynamic range, which is less than
ideal for panoramas. So if you are thinking of getting the PEN + Sigma
4.5mm lens, it would be worth trying it out first.

Roger

--
Business: www.adex-japan.com
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "bohonus" <bradford@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone paired these two yet? If so, any example images? I can't locate
anything like it online.
>
> I don't know what the image circle size is on the Sigma 4.5mm, but from
looking at APS-C & FourThirds sensor sizes, it looks as though it may give me
something comparable to what you would get using the Sigma 8mm on a DX sensor
Nikon. Meaning, full 180 from top to bottom with a slight crop of the circle on
the sides. They have adapters to put Nikon/Canon etc on MFT and I thought this
might be a nice mini VR option for my GF1.
>

Have also been looking at the GF for a light weight VR solution
BUT

Sigma 4.5
Dimensions Diameter 76.2mm X Length 77.8mm
3.0 in. X 3.1 in.
Weight 470g/16.6 oz.
GF1  285 g+battery
119 mm x 71 mm x 36.3 mm (4.69 x 2.8 x 1.43 inches)

That makes around 800 gr
Price $899 +999 + adapter

Pentax K-x  512 g + battery 122.5mm x 91.5mm x 67.5mm (4.8 x 3.6 x 2.7 in)
Pentax 10-17 Weight: 11.3 oz. (320g)
Thats around 880 g with battery
Price $649 +525

Pentax with built in 3 shot HDR from 3 bracketed images
Quality superior to the GF1 for sure.

What would you choose.?

Hans

I've read that the Pen is basically an Olympus e620 --
for whatever that's worth...

Roger D. Williams wrote:

> However, I have an "early adopter" friend who bought the PEN and he
> found it had a noticeably narrower dynamic range, which is less than
> ideal for panoramas. So if you are thinking of getting the PEN + Sigma
> 4.5mm lens, it would be worth trying it out first.
>
> Roger
>

> If you had an absolute reference for the reflectivity of a laser
> of a given color, you might be able to detect and quantify the
> luminosity of the return.

If you already know the reflectance of every object in a scene, at any
chosen angle, you do not need natural light, (much less a camera) to
make pictures.
-dr

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:24:17 +0900, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
wrote:

> I've read that the Pen is basically an Olympus e620 --
> for whatever that's worth...
>
> Roger D. Williams wrote:
>
>> However, I have an "early adopter" friend who bought the PEN and he
>> found it had a noticeably narrower dynamic range, which is less than
>> ideal for panoramas. So if you are thinking of getting the PEN + Sigma
>> 4.5mm lens, it would be worth trying it out first.

Hmmm. Not worth much, I feel. They might well have used some of the same
working parts (foolish not to) but the form factor and user
experience are quite dissimilar.

Roger W.

--
Business: www.adex-japan.com
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
> Have also been looking at the GF for a light weight VR solution
> BUT
>
> Sigma 4.5
> Dimensions Diameter 76.2mm X Length 77.8mm
> 3.0 in. X 3.1 in.
> Weight 470g/16.6 oz.
> GF1  285 g+battery
> 119 mm x 71 mm x 36.3 mm (4.69 x 2.8 x 1.43 inches)
>
> That makes around 800 gr
> Price $899 +999 + adapter
>
> Pentax K-x  512 g + battery 122.5mm x 91.5mm x 67.5mm (4.8 x 3.6 x 2.7 in)
> Pentax 10-17 Weight: 11.3 oz. (320g)
> Thats around 880 g with battery
> Price $649 +525
>
> Pentax with built in 3 shot HDR from 3 bracketed images
> Quality superior to the GF1 for sure.
>
> What would you choose.?
>
> Hans

Don't forget to consider the nice lenses (e.g. Leica etc) that you can now use
with the GF1.

Not quite what I meant.  The luminosity of the return is the thing
measured.  The luminosity of the return should (might possibly?)
also have a component of the value of the ambient luminosity of
the object (I don't know how to say that right).

The difference between reading the return from the laser and just
metering the scene is positional.  You know where the laser is pointing
and where the return is coming from.

These are just off the top of my head.  Nobody is going to do their
thesis with these ideas.

Daniel Reetz wrote:
>> If you had an absolute reference for the reflectivity of a laser
>> of a given color, you might be able to detect and quantify the
>> luminosity of the return.
>
> If you already know the reflectance of every object in a scene, at any
> chosen angle, you do not need natural light, (much less a camera) to
> make pictures.
> -dr
>

You mentioned dynamic range as your concern.  Wouldn't the dynamic
range be the same as the e620?

Roger D. Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:24:17 +0900, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
> wrote:
>
>> I've read that the Pen is basically an Olympus e620 --
>> for whatever that's worth...
>>
>> Roger D. Williams wrote:
>>
>>> However, I have an "early adopter" friend who bought the PEN and he
>>> found it had a noticeably narrower dynamic range, which is less than
>>> ideal for panoramas. So if you are thinking of getting the PEN + Sigma
>>> 4.5mm lens, it would be worth trying it out first.
>
> Hmmm. Not worth much, I feel. They might well have used some of the same
> working parts (foolish not to) but the form factor and user
> experience are quite dissimilar.
>
> Roger W.
>

No prob Trausti, but lasers don't "detect" any more than a flashlight
could detect.  They only emit electromagnetic radiation that can be
over a wide range frequencies, depending on the lasing material.  Some
can be tuned to over a range of frequencies.  The free-electron laser
can be tuned to emit anything from microwaves to x-rays.  [More
trivia: While I was in grad school at Duke, John Madey, inventor of
the free-electron laser, was recruited to move his FEL lab from
Stanford to Duke.  Mega$$ research grants!  After being forced out as
director, there were huge patent lawsuits between Madey and Duke that
went all the way to the Supreme Court of the US.]

You can think of lasers as a kind of very, very special flashlight 8-)


John

John Riley
johnriley@...
(h)864-461-3504
(c)864-431-7075
(w)864-503-5775

On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:

> Not trying to teach the teacher... but I am sure there will be
> discoveries
> that make it possible for lasers to detect colours...



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

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...> wrote:

> However, I have an "early adopter" friend who bought the PEN and he
> found it had a noticeably narrower dynamic range, which is less than
> ideal for panoramas. So if you are thinking of getting the PEN + Sigma
> 4.5mm lens, it would be worth trying it out first.
>
> Roger

I got the GF1 as a carry-around camera and also to use on a Gigapan unit. I
thought it could be nice if I could also use it to knock off a quick handheld or
monopod pano when I don't have my "regular" vr gear with me.

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "bohonus" <bradford@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@> wrote:
> > Have also been looking at the GF for a light weight VR solution
> > BUT
> >
> > Sigma 4.5
> > Dimensions Diameter 76.2mm X Length 77.8mm
> > 3.0 in. X 3.1 in.
> > Weight 470g/16.6 oz.
> > GF1  285 g+battery
> > 119 mm x 71 mm x 36.3 mm (4.69 x 2.8 x 1.43 inches)
> >
> > That makes around 800 gr
> > Price $899 +999 + adapter
> >
> > Pentax K-x  512 g + battery 122.5mm x 91.5mm x 67.5mm (4.8 x 3.6 x 2.7 in)
> > Pentax 10-17 Weight: 11.3 oz. (320g)
> > Thats around 880 g with battery
> > Price $649 +525
> >
> > Pentax with built in 3 shot HDR from 3 bracketed images
> > Quality superior to the GF1 for sure.
> >
> > What would you choose.?
> >
> > Hans
>
> Don't forget to consider the nice lenses (e.g. Leica etc) that you can now use
with the GF1.
>

Leitz on Pentax
http://www.leitax.com/

Hans

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:13:57 +0900, bohonus <bradford@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...>
> wrote:
>
>> However, I have an "early adopter" friend who bought the PEN and he
>> found it had a noticeably narrower dynamic range, which is less than
>> ideal for panoramas. So if you are thinking of getting the PEN + Sigma
>> 4.5mm lens, it would be worth trying it out first.
>>
>> Roger
>
> I got the GF1 as a carry-around camera and also to use on a Gigapan
> unit. I thought it could be nice if I could also use it to knock off a
> quick handheld or monopod pano when I don't have my "regular" vr gear
> with me.

That makes sense. The FL 2x multiplier is actually a help when it comes
to making Gigapanoramas. I am more tempted by the higher-end P&S cameras
for a carry-around camera. I used to use my Sharp mobile camera which
was quite adequate for the job; it had a 28mm equivalent lens and let
me tweak exposures, etc. But the iPhone (which I love for different
reasons) just isn't up to it.

Do you find that the GF1 has a narrow dynamic range, as my friend did
with the PEN?

Roger W

--
Business: www.adex-japan.com
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:41 +0900, bohonus <bradford@...> wrote:

> Don't forget to consider the nice lenses (e.g. Leica etc) that you can
> now use with the GF1.

Now there's a point I'd forgotten! I have several very nice Leica-mount
Cosina lenses, astonishingly good value and beautiful image quality
that worked well for me when I used only rangefinder/film cameras. It
would be nice to give them a second lease of life. But my favourite
21mm would become a 42mm equivalent, and that's way up in the telephoto
range for me. <grin>

But the adapters cost as much as I used to pay for lenses... <sad smile>

Roger W.


--
Business: www.adex-japan.com
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger