--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "ahoeben41" <aldo@...> wrote:

> Ofcourse this is on the assumption that you are focussing at infinity; if you
focus closer than infinity you may get stereo-separation again on distant
objects because your eyes are slightly crosseyed. Objects further away than the
focuspoint will separate in the other direction than objects nearer than the
focuspoint. Or am I mistaken? >

no that is right

Stereo games drivers have an autoconvergence feature so that the bulk of the
scene is always behind the "window" -- ie. the apparent plane of the screen --
but not too far behind.  This would be a handy feature for stereo pano viewers
too but it would need a depth map to work I think. You can generate a depth map
from the parallax information in a stereo view but I dont know how well depth
map generation can be done in real time. If you have a depth map anyway like
StreetView would have if they started shooting stereo panos then it would not be
an issue.

  There is the concept of the depth budget of stereo displays too viz. the range
of reproducible depth impression of a particular display technology. Projection
3d has a large depth budget, lenticular and autostereoscopic displays generally
small. Subject depth must be matched to the depth budget of the targeted display
otherwise the depth impression will be too small or large. If too small things
look flat, if too large your brain wont resolve the parallax. In real world
situations when we look at something close we ignore the image doubling in the
background but not so much with displays.

With stereo panoramas you will often have a difficult situation for depth
budgets. The nearest thing to the camera will often be 2m away at ground level
around the camera, and the furthest infinity. Which is a big range if the main
interest is more than a few meters away. The screen depth will have to placed at
2m which means the depth budget for the more distant background is meagre. So
there is a big argument for pole panoramas for hyperstereoscopic outdooor
scenes.

Peter M

I haven't been using Quicktime for so long and completely switched to Flash
viewers. Installed Version 7.6.5 a week or so ago top see if they've made any
effort to get it supported in 64. Still nothing so left it.

Saw this post this morning and now have V7.6.6 working on Win 7 Pro 64.

Does this mean the PTGui preview will now work? Cool :-)

Andrew

Gravedigging that results in shovelling up rotten corpses is not that nice.

I will happily let QTVR rest in peace.

Trausti

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:43 PM, conan <conanthedestroya222@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> I haven't been using Quicktime for so long and completely switched to Flash
> viewers. Installed Version 7.6.5 a week or so ago top see if they've made
> any effort to get it supported in 64. Still nothing so left it.
>
> Saw this post this morning and now have V7.6.6 working on Win 7 Pro 64.
>
> Does this mean the PTGui preview will now work? Cool :-)
>
> Andrew
>
>
>


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

Hi Trausti!

2010/4/1 Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>

> Gravedigging that results in shovelling up rotten corpses is not that nice.
>
> I will happily let QTVR rest in peace.
>

So do I. But it's coll to use QT to preview panos in PTGui.

--
L.D.I. Felipe B. González C.
felipe@...
1998-5246
www.fpk.com.mx
http://recorridosvirtualesmexico.blogspot.com/

Socio Director Maquetas Virtuales www.maquetasvirtuales.com
Socio Director Recorridos Virtuales www.recorridosvirtuales.com


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

>
> With stereo panoramas you will often have a difficult situation for depth
budgets. The nearest thing to the camera will often be 2m away at ground level
around the camera, and the furthest infinity. Which is a big range if the main
interest is more than a few meters away. The screen depth will have to placed at
2m which means the depth budget for the more distant background is meagre. So
there is a big argument for pole panoramas for hyperstereoscopic outdooor
scenes.
>
> Peter M
>

apropos which
http://www.mediavr.com/rocksana4.jpg
.. another one of my experiments with rapid video capture of stereo panos. I
think I am going to give up on this btw (video stereo pano capture with the 5D)
as the compression artefacts are so strong. A pity as it is nice to be able to
make a stereo spherical 360 record in 4 sec. I need two Scarlets or similar I
guess.

This is with the cameras quite far apart ~ 20cm with them on a pole 3m from the
ground. You can see the wharf edges are a little behind the stereo window and
most of the foreground is in front of the window -- but it is not too intrusive
here as the contrast is so low there -- but if the contrast/definition was
higher there it would look wrong.
If the camera separation was any less the depth of the buildings would be
minimal.



Peter M

I never ever use that option in PTGui... the first times I tried to use the
preview in PTGui, I was horrified at the bad quality (did I do something
wrong?) and in any case it is only a few seconds of my time to get a perfect
flash panorama view after rendering the pano from PTGui, using
Flashificator... and that is a perfect solution, since it is the next step
in the progress, to get the projects towards publishing.

No QTVR for me again, and I will be less grumpy :)

Saludos y cuidate bien.

Trausti

2010/4/1 L.D.I. Felipe B. González <felipe@...>

>
>
> Hi Trausti!
>
> 2010/4/1 Trausti Hraunfjord
<trausti.hraunfjord@...<trausti.hraunfjord%40gmail.com>
> >
>
>
> > Gravedigging that results in shovelling up rotten corpses is not that
> nice.
> >
> > I will happily let QTVR rest in peace.
> >
>
> So do I. But it's coll to use QT to preview panos in PTGui.
>
> --
> L.D.I. Felipe B. González C.
> felipe@... <felipe%40fpk.com.mx>
> 1998-5246
> www.fpk.com.mx
> http://recorridosvirtualesmexico.blogspot.com/
>
> Socio Director Maquetas Virtuales www.maquetasvirtuales.com
> Socio Director Recorridos Virtuales www.recorridosvirtuales.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Hi Trausti!

2010/4/1 Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>

>
> No QTVR for me again, and I will be less grumpy :)
>
> I don't think you'll be less grumpy ;-) Anyway, I like a preview image
before creating my final panoramas. On a few ocassions previews have helped
me detect stitching or leveling issues that would have passed unnoticed.


> Saludos y cuidate bien.
>
> Saludos desde las regiones subtropicales de México.

--
L.D.I. Felipe B. González C.
felipe@...
1998-5246
www.fpk.com.mx
http://recorridosvirtualesmexico.blogspot.com/

Socio Director Maquetas Virtuales www.maquetasvirtuales.com
Socio Director Recorridos Virtuales www.recorridosvirtuales.com


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

BTW:qtvr is now working on my Wintel Vista64!
Weird.

2010/4/1, L.D.I. Felipe B. González <felipe@...>:
> Hi Trausti!
>
> 2010/4/1 Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>
>
>> Gravedigging that results in shovelling up rotten corpses is not that
>> nice.
>>
>> I will happily let QTVR rest in peace.
>>
>
> So do I. But it's coll to use QT to preview panos in PTGui.
>
> --
> L.D.I. Felipe B. González C.
> felipe@...
> 1998-5246
> www.fpk.com.mx
> http://recorridosvirtualesmexico.blogspot.com/
>
> Socio Director Maquetas Virtuales www.maquetasvirtuales.com
> Socio Director Recorridos Virtuales www.recorridosvirtuales.com
>


--
L.D.I. Felipe B. González C.
felipe@...
1998-5246
www.fpk.com.mx
http://recorridosvirtualesmexico.blogspot.com/

Socio Director Maquetas Virtuales www.maquetasvirtuales.com
Socio Director Recorridos Virtuales www.recorridosvirtuales.com

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:01:25 +0900, panovrx <panovrx@...> wrote:

> With stereo panoramas you will often have a difficult situation for
> depth budgets. The nearest thing to the camera will often be 2m away at
> ground level around the camera, and the furthest infinity. Which is a
> big range if the main interest is more than a few meters away. The
> screen depth will have to placed at 2m which means the depth budget for
> the more distant background is meagre. So there is a big argument for
> pole panoramas for hyperstereoscopic outdooor scenes.

I appreciate and agree with all that you wrote earlier in your message
but I wonder how you consider zooming in and out should affect things?
I was very surprised and impressed recently to see that when I zoomed
into a stereo panorama to focus on some background buildings, the
apparent stereo effect was enhanced so that the buildings looked
really solid rather than flat, as they did when I was zoomed fully
out. This made the whole experience very "real" in the sense that I got
the impression I really was zooming closer to the more remote objects
of interest, rather than just enlarging a picture of them.

Roger W.

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

It works!!! (W7 ... I didn't install to Vista U64). This is a very good news but
unfortunately too late from the Apple...they missed the chance... we are now
with flash...sorry!

Bostjan

--- On Thu, 4/1/10, Sam Cuttriss <cuttriss@...> wrote:

> From: Sam Cuttriss <cuttriss@...>
> Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: QTVR 7.6.6 working on Windows 7 64 bit
> To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 10:42 PM
> this will be the cruelest april fools
> joke ever if this is not the case.
> installing now.
>
> _sam
>
> Erik Krause wrote:
> > Am 01.04.2010 19:29, schrieb Ken Warner:
> >   
> >> Did you check the compatibility setting?  Did
> it hold over from
> >> the previous version?
> >>     
> >
> > I didn't use compatibility setting. I use Deval stand
> alone for local
> > viewing anyway, but unfortunately this wasn't possible
> for web pages
> > (since I didn't want to have Deval process all MOVs).
> >
> >   
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     PanoToolsNG-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

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

> but I wonder how you consider zooming in and out should affect things?
> I was very surprised and impressed recently to see that when I zoomed
> into a stereo panorama to focus on some background buildings, the
> apparent stereo effect was enhanced so that the buildings looked
> really solid rather than flat, as they did when I was zoomed fully
> out. This made the whole experience very "real" in the sense that I got
> the impression I really was zooming closer to the more remote objects
> of interest, rather than just enlarging a picture of them.


Depth realism and stereoscopy is a vexed question which I havent got my head
around really. And zoomable interactive stereo viewing imagery is not
widespread. The idea of a gigapixel stereo panorama where you kept seeing clear
depth as you zoomed is very appealing certainly. You could do it with a
multicamera array for still or panorama photography I guess where you kept
widening the camera separation as you zoomed. In the case of my pano perhaps it
was that the anaglyphic depth fringes became more visible as you zoomed.

  There is the notion of orthoscopy
http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/ireal.html
where you match the lens optical arrangement with the viewing optics so you
reproduce the depth impression of reality but this doesnt have much relevance to
macro or telephoto stereo. Fuji W owners debate the wisdom of it having wider
than eye separation leading to distortions and it certainly does if you get
close enough with the camera.

Peter M

Hello Aldo,

In his reply Peter perfectly explained about the depth parallax budget (in
short budget) that a 3D image should have and the relation of it to the
distance between the viewer and the screen or print. The depth budget can be
set totally to the foreground, the background or in between.

When you take a look (without a viewer) at Peter's example you see that the
budget is set between foreground and background objects.
You can see that the position of the cyan and red image edges of the
foreground and the background is different and just below the center of the
scene the red and cyan edges are merging, this is the zero parallax point.

The advantage of this is that parts on the foreground (with a viewer) are
"coming out of the screen" so it is just if a part of the scene is floating
in front of your monitor, this enhances the 3D experience.
If you put all of the budget to front object, like GSV did, you get severe
stereo window violation because your left and right eye are seeing more then
they should be at the edges of the window.

To avoid a long explanation what stereo window violation is and why you
should avoid it it is best to take a look here:
http://www.vmresource.com/camera/stereowindow.htm

As long as the objects in the scene with stereo window violation are not
touching a left or right edge in the window and when the violation is not to
severe all is fine, but in a 360 pano you turn around and then the violation
will kick in as soon as the object hit a window edge and when that happen it
will spoil or even ruin the 3D effect and when you are viewing such panos
for a longer period of time I can image you will get a headache.
For that reason I always set the zero parallax point on close by objects in
the scene to avoid any stereo window violation issue.

You are right in thinking that it isn't possible to create a perfect 360x180
degree spherical 3D pano.
The 3D pano that I will show in the dome theatre at the PanoTools Meeting in
Plymouth (I will bring ColorCode3D viewers with me) is definitely not a
perfect 3D pano as this is impossible by the nature of seeing 3D.
It is possible to create a pano with a perfect 3D around the horizon of the
scene but definitely not in nadir or zenith because objects in the left and
right images are flipping when the pano is rotated 180 degree.

When I think about how it is possible that our visual system is so forgiving
for those big errors and how it is possible to get a reasonable 3D
experience when viewing down in the pano then I get a headiche, I can't
understand how it is possible that our visual system is capable of making a
3D experience out of this mess.

BTW, I have no idea what we will get on the screen of the dome theatre, I
will use a anaglyph that will be projected on a large surface.
The 3D experience is based on the different colors for our left and right
eye and as you know the colors are fading and loosing contrast when
projected on large surfaces.
I don't have any experience in projecting a 3D pano on a large screen so it
can be that the 3D experience will be fine but it can also be a flop.
The proof is in the pudding so we have to wait a few more month to find out
;-)

Wim


ahoeben wrote:
>
>
>> With a red/cyan anaglyph viewer I noticed that the stereo separation,
>> which
>> should be applied to far objects, was set to close by objects resulting
>> in a
>> severe stereo window violation (I know this because I made the same huge
>> mistake when I started making 3D panos).
>
> I already had a headache before I read your message and started thinking
> about it, so please forgive me if I say something stupid.
>
> The stereo separation is basically the same thing as parallax "error"
> between your two eyes, right? And we all know that the closer objects are
> to the lens, the more parallax errors are an issue. Parallax issues are
> far less of a problem with far away objects (ie: mountain views are easy
> to stitch).
>
> So... shouldn't far away objects have little separation in stereo
> panoramas? Just like Google does it now?
>
> Ofcourse this is on the assumption that you are focussing at infinity; if
> you focus closer than infinity you may get stereo-separation again on
> distant objects because your eyes are slightly crosseyed. Objects further
> away than the focuspoint will separate in the other direction than objects
> nearer than the focuspoint. Or am I mistaken?
>
> Ouch, headache...
>
> PS: I am still convinced there is no such thing as a fully "correct"
> 360x180 spherical stereo panorama. I guess I may have to wait until
> Plymouth to be really convinced.
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://n4.nabble.com/GSV-in-3D-tp1747596p1748892.html
Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:06:53 +0900, panovrx <panovrx@...> wrote:

>  There is the notion of orthoscopy
> http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/ireal.html
> where you match the lens optical arrangement with the viewing optics so
> you reproduce the depth impression of reality but this doesnt have much
> relevance to macro or telephoto stereo. Fuji W owners debate the wisdom
> of it having wider than eye separation leading to distortions and it
> certainly does if you get close enough with the camera.

Thank you, Peter. I am familiar with the concept of orthoscopy, and think
that the Fuji W has got it about right provided you don't try to take
closeups that are TOO close. It is fine for street scenes and even most
kinds of scenery, where it suffers proportionately less from the "flat
backdrop" effect. The reverse case is seen with the very expensive
3D modification of the Hasselblad/Fuji TX-1, where the two lenses are so
close together that the stereo effect is quite lost on more distant
objects or indeed anything more than 20 or 30 meters away. Still, I am
not buying a Fuji W; I am waiting for them to produce a Mk II with some
of the more annoying "features" removed.

I was cleaning out the room where I have been storing my library and my
negatives/slides/prints taken over the last 50 years and came across lots
taken with the Pentax mirrored stereo adapter. I also found the viewer
(a minor miracle among all the accumulated junk of half a century)
although alas the adapter itself is lost. The stereo effect is generally
quite satisfactory, although limited to portrait orientation, of course.

I have decided to take up the challenge of stereo panoramic photography.
Japan is going crazy over 3D TV, and I am sure that there will be plenty
of people wanting to look at 3D panoramas. My own best bet is that a
single lens rotated about a point deliberately displaced from the NPP,
and stereo images formed from thin slices of multiple images taken at
very narrow angular separations, will provide the most realistic results.
I do have concerns over orthoscopy and the window-edge effect, though.

I am thinking that a video camera may be better than a DSLR that takes
video, not least because I do not possess one of the latter, and an HD
video camera would be less expensive than an upgrade. I know that in
this case the quality will be lower but perhaps good enough for
web-based presentations of tourist attractions, accommodations and
restaurants, which I see as my best market. I do have some fears that
a budget-minded customer may opt for simple video sequences rather than
the expense of pan- and zoomable stereo panoramas. <sigh>

Roger W.

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

Am 02.04.2010 03:56, schrieb L.D.I. Felipe B. González:

> But it's cool to use QT to preview panos in PTGui.

To preview Panos in PTGui it was always better to use DevalVR...

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

FSPViewer seems to be very fast to start and gives good
enough image quality to see stitch errors.

Erik Krause wrote:
> Am 02.04.2010 03:56, schrieb L.D.I. Felipe B. González:
>
>> But it's cool to use QT to preview panos in PTGui.
>
> To preview Panos in PTGui it was always better to use DevalVR...
>

Hello Roger,

I think your idea of using a small HD videocam instead of a DSLR is very
appealing.
With a relatively cheap fisheye adapter lens (Nikon FC-E8) it will be
possible to capture the footage needed for 3D.
There is just one major drawback of using such a setup and that is the fact
that a one camera system is not suited to shoot in a dynamic scene, even a
fast rotation of 4 seconds is way to much to avoid huge errors.
From experience I can tell that you really need a "frozen" scene.
So I think a dual HD videocam solution is needed in  most scenes but even
with twice the costs it will be still a lot less expensive then 2 video
capable DSLR's with fisheye lenses.
The good part is that you can start with a single videocam and single
fisheye adapter lens and upgrade when needed ;-)
Please keep us informed about any progress.

Best,
Wim
--
View this message in context:
http://n4.nabble.com/GSV-in-3D-tp1747596p1749001.html
Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Has any of you iPhone users tried this one?
http://tourwrist.com/
Looks like you can also get a snap-on fisheye for your iPhone there ;)

--
Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D

Why not use FSPviewer?

It’s much faster.





Sacha Griffin

Southern Digital Solutions LLC

http://www.seeit360.net

http://www.southern-digital.com

GMAIL IM: sachagriffin007@...

404-551-4275







From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of L.D.I. Felipe B. González
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:56 PM
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: QTVR 7.6.6 working on Windows 7 64 bit





Hi Trausti!

2010/4/1 Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...
<mailto:trausti.hraunfjord%40gmail.com> >

> Gravedigging that results in shovelling up rotten corpses is not that
nice.
>
> I will happily let QTVR rest in peace.
>

So do I. But it's coll to use QT to preview panos in PTGui.



.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=18227848/grpspId=1705006496/msgI
d=40312/stime=1270173376/nc1=3848643/nc2=4025321/nc3=5741398>





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

On 2 Apr 2010 at 8:08, Sacha Griffin wrote:

> Why not use FSPviewer?
>
> It´s much faster.

But DevalVR is so smooth and nice :)

--
Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D

Sure. And that has a real potential to boost panoramic imaging.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF_HGIzxtYk

Charles Armstrong will introduce Tourwrist at the Tucson conference and I guess
a lot of people are really curious about this whole thing.

Jürgen


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bjørn K Nilssen <bk@...> wrote:
>
> Has any of you iPhone users tried this one?
> http://tourwrist.com/
> Looks like you can also get a snap-on fisheye for your iPhone there ;)
>
> --
> Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
>

True...but the stiching process of example 12 images takes only few seconds and
you can see the stiching errors in real ;)

:) Bostjan

--- On Fri, 4/2/10, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

> From: Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
> Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: QTVR 7.6.6 working on Windows 7 64 bit
> To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, April 2, 2010, 12:28 PM
> FSPViewer seems to be very fast to
> start and gives good
> enough image quality to see stitch errors.
>
> Erik Krause wrote:
> > Am 02.04.2010 03:56, schrieb L.D.I. Felipe B.
> González:
> >
> >> But it's cool to use QT to preview panos in
> PTGui.
> >
> > To preview Panos in PTGui it was always better to use
> DevalVR...
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     PanoToolsNG-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

This seems good for automated setups where you don't need a hand patched in
area etc.

The content aware seam, seems to be just fine as well.

I'm a little curious as to how it is handling areas with head artifacts. I
haven't seen any issues.

Before I would ensure any head piece was alpha masked.



For non-completely automated stitches, using an input mask doesn't seem to
be as good a work flow as the content aware mode.

Would it be any help to specify per-image masks in conjunction with the
content aware mode or does this mode handle such issues with no problems?



It's a little tough to understand how to set the right seam using your
noblend version overlayed with the indexed mask.. perhaps a better method in
the tutorial would be to use a layered output and go old school with
photoshop masks.

Then it becomes crystal clear how each seam works with each image since you
can see the result or maybe it leads to further confusion since the masks
aren't a precise analog since they overlap.





Sacha Griffin

Southern Digital Solutions LLC

http://www.seeit360.net

http://www.southern-digital.com

GMAIL IM: sachagriffin007@...

404-551-4275









From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of hd_de_2000
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:01 AM
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] PTStitcherNG new feature: editing seams





Besides the usual alpha channel methods, PTStitcherNG
offers yet another mode for editing seams. The main advantages are
(a) Seam placement masks may be saved and reused for repeated stitching or
for other projects.
(b) Seams are edited in an intuitive way using almost any graphics editor.
Article at
<http://www.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch/seam/s0.html>

Helmut Dersch



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

This is really cool technology.
This works with most phones and also on the computer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GcEE2dD4GI&feature=related


http://icandy.ricohinnovations.com/rocket2/

Happy Easter Egg

it appears to be one of many iphone pano viewers available via the app store or
the mobile safari web browser (panos on the browser are compatible with all
versions of firware and doesn't require the user to install anything).


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jrgen_schrader" <panorama@...> wrote:
>
> Sure. And that has a real potential to boost panoramic imaging.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF_HGIzxtYk
>
> Charles Armstrong will introduce Tourwrist at the Tucson conference and I
guess a lot of people are really curious about this whole thing.
>
> J�rgen
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bj�rn K Nilssen <bk@> wrote:
> >
> > Has any of you iPhone users tried this one?
> > http://tourwrist.com/
> > Looks like you can also get a snap-on fisheye for your iPhone there ;)
> >
> > --
> > Bj�rn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
> >
>

Hi,

I'm not the brightest person when it comes to DIY things :-(

I've recently shaved the 10.5mm lens which to my amazement went really well. I
am however a little unclear as to how to adapt the original lens cap so it
doesn't push down too far and hit the glass?

My obvious method would be to make a thin lip further down the lens with strong
tape going around  so the lens cap can't go any further but I know it's going to
look like a 'Sunday afternoon' bodge job.

Any ideas to make it more professional looking?

Thanks,

Andrew

Seems a bit OCD.

The plastic cap isn't going to scratch the lens. Mohs scale. And with the
cap on, it's usually going to be stored away.



If you add a stop lip, it's most likely just going to look worse.



Sacha Griffin

Southern Digital Solutions LLC

http://www.seeit360.net

http://www.southern-digital.com

GMAIL IM: sachagriffin007@...

404-551-4275





From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of conan
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:32 PM
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Lens cap for shaved 10.5mm lens



Hi,

I'm not the brightest person when it comes to DIY things :-(

I've recently shaved the 10.5mm lens which to my amazement went really well.
I am however a little unclear as to how to adapt the original lens cap so it
doesn't push down too far and hit the glass?

My obvious method would be to make a thin lip further down the lens with
strong tape going around so the lens cap can't go any further but I know
it's going to look like a 'Sunday afternoon' bodge job.

Any ideas to make it more professional looking?

Thanks,

Andrew





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

No, but  overtime it will scratch the coating on the lens.

Matt

On 2 Apr 2010, at 18:52, Sacha Griffin wrote:

> Seems a bit OCD.
>
> The plastic cap isn't going to scratch the lens. Mohs scale. And with the
> cap on, it's usually going to be stored away.
>
> If you add a stop lip, it's most likely just going to look worse.
>
> Sacha Griffin
>
> Southern Digital Solutions LLC
>
> http://www.seeit360.net
>
> http://www.southern-digital.com
>
> GMAIL IM: sachagriffin007@...
>
> 404-551-4275
>
> From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of conan
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:32 PM
> To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Lens cap for shaved 10.5mm lens
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not the brightest person when it comes to DIY things :-(
>
> I've recently shaved the 10.5mm lens which to my amazement went really well.
> I am however a little unclear as to how to adapt the original lens cap so it
> doesn't push down too far and hit the glass?
>
> My obvious method would be to make a thin lip further down the lens with
> strong tape going around so the lens cap can't go any further but I know
> it's going to look like a 'Sunday afternoon' bodge job.
>
> Any ideas to make it more professional looking?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



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

Don Bain wrote:
> It has been a wet winter in the Sonoran Desert, and there is a good
> chance for extensive displays of wildflowers in the Tucson area when we
> are there. There is still snow on the mountains, but the temperatures
> are rising day by day, and it should be just about perfect by the time
> we are there.

There are currently some nice wildflower displays not too far from
Tucson.  The are very localized and, as always, fragile.

I was out near Surprise (a little North and West of Tucson) about a week
ago and, there were a lot of wildflowers, including Mexican gold
poppies, desert lupine and, the ever-present brittlebush.

I was in Tucson about a week before that.  Tucson has had a bit less
rain than some of the areas a little to the North.  So, you might have
to drive a bit out of Tucson to get to a good display.

I'm not sure how long the current flowers will hold out.  It has been
windy the last few days and, stuff is drying out quite a bit.  There was
a small brush fire a few days ago between Surprise and Phoenix.

A friend of mine was up in the Superstitions (West of Phoenix, about 1.5
hours North of Tucson) last weekend and, reported seeing a lot of
budding brittlebush.  That and, some of the stuff closer to Tucson is
likely to be good in a couple weeks, if we get a little more rain.  So,
keep your fingers crossed.

This site tends to have a few, erratic, anecdotal reports of the current
status:

   http://www.desertusa.com/wildflo/az.html

Just to bring this back more on-topic: the first two panoramas on this
(ancient, awful) page are from the nice 2001 wildflower display (back in
the days when the Nikon CP 990 ruled the panoramic roost, so be gentle):

   http://www.evermore.com/qtvr/

The Golden Dutchman (5th down) shows what you can expect from poppies
and brittlebush, if the buds in the Superstitions bloom well.

--
Andrew Crawford

Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:
> Looks like you can also get a snap-on fisheye for your iPhone there ;)

There are a number of other options for adding a fisheye converter to
your iPhone, including the very inexpensive ($3 - $5 USD) iPhone fisheye
stick-on lens called a "Jelly Lens" (search Amazon or your favorite
search engine).

At the high end, there is the Owle Bubo, which, I believe, has the same
thread as the Nikon Coolpix cameras.  So, you might be able to
re-purpose your old Coolpix FC-E8 fisheye.

   http://www.wantowle.com/

--
Andrew Crawford

Yes, this lens gets used 'a lot' and is in and out of the bag/case. Quite often
I need to replace it with a regular lens during the same shoot and when rushing
that coating is going to get wasted in no time.

Just thought someone may have come up with a simple yet ingenious solution that
my lack of DIY skills wouldn't have come close to  ;-)