I see.

Then Roger isn't going to be able to control your deval player's choice of
projection via any embedded xml data from his jpg image.

That would be interesting though.



As to why, you'd have to contact the author of deval vr.

Fiero.



From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Briar
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:17 PM
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Learned from the List





I downloaded it to my computer, then viewed it using Deval Player just as I
would with my own pans. You are correct in that I have not tried multi-res
pans yet.

From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On
Behalf Of Sacha Griffin
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2011 8:11 a.m.
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Learned from the List

It's a JPG photo; there is no program that is performing pitch adjustment on
it when you scroll the photo to look down.

You probably have not seen an original equirectangular photo before. They
are the standard container format for all spherical panoramic images before
moving on to greener pastures as multi-resolution tiled cubical images.

From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On
Behalf Of Briar
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 3:48 PM
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Learned from the List

Amazing how quickly other peoples' situation goes to the back of our minds.
The international news no longer concentrates on the efforts of the brave
folk who still battle with the nuclear plants in your country. But thank
goodness you still have somewhere like this to "rest and renew"

My question, and admiration for your pan is how you manage to set it so
there is no distortion when moving up or down. In most pans a building will
"bend" towards the centre as you move higher up. In this everything remains
vertical. How?

Regards, Briar.

From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On
Behalf Of Roger D. Williams
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2011 10:10 p.m.
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Learned from the List

Life has been difficult in Japan recently, although mercifully my
wife and I are far enough away from the disaster area to be only
indirectly affected.

We got back today from a couple of days at Hakone, a lakeside
hot-springs resort in the caldera of a long-dead volcano. We
were blessed with one day of Japan's rare blue skies, and I took
a few panoramas. The next day we were caught in a cable car
while a gale was blowing. That was less fun!

As I was preparing one this afternoon I recalled much of what I
have learned here on the list. Using vertical line control points
to straighten the panorama. Using the panorama editor to roughly
position recalcitrant shots. Using PTgui's detail viewer to
move seams away from problem areas. Using pseudo HDR techniques
to boost shadow detail. Correctly positioning the crop circle.
Eliminating control points that are not at ground level when
using perspective correction for the nadir shot... and from clouds
in the zenith shot (and wherever else a cloud appears). The list
goes on and on. Any one of these, if ignored, could have spoiled
the panorama. So thank you, list members!

I've put a 5MB equirectangular file in my public dropbox. The
subject is a truly fascinating open-air museum that specializes
in modern sculpture. Unfortunately the statues are rather far
apart, so a panorama tends to show mostly distant views, but
if you are interested, take a look.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22568011/_Hakone_01_Compressed.jpg

Taken with my Peleng 8mm and the cute little Pentax K-x on a
monopod using a plastic ring mount made by Bo Sorensen.

Roger W.

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

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

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

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





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

On Tue, 03 May 2011 04:48:15 +0900, Briar <briar_bentley@...> wrote:

> Amazing how quickly other peoples' situation goes to the back of our
> minds.
> The international news no longer concentrates on the efforts of the brave
> folk who still battle with the nuclear plants in your country. But thank
> goodness you still have somewhere like this to "rest and renew"
>
>
> My question, and admiration for your pan is how you manage to set it so
> there is no distortion when moving up or down. In most pans a building
> will
> "bend" towards the centre as you move higher up. In this everything
> remains
> vertical. How?

Thanks for the feedback, Briar. Since I see from a later post that you use
DevalVR, as I do, I am not sure what you mean about the "bending" of
verticals. I have only ever seen this once with DevalVR, when I used it
to view a panorama taken with a rotary camera that generates cylindrical
projections by default. If you are taking cylindrical panoramas, then
DevalVR will normally default to treating them as spherical projections,
and this bends the verticals as you near the top and bottom of the image.

I haven't updated DevalVR recently, so it may well be coping properly
with cylindrical projections by now. The author kindly provided me with
a version that DID handle them properly, but I overwrote it with a later
upgrade that lacked this ability and as I no longer generate cylindrical
projections I haven't done anything about it.

Other than that I can't think what might be responsible for "bending," as
the verticals always remain straight even as they splay outwards on
looking up (and cave inwards on looking down, of course).

As a matter of interest, the vertical were very hard to get right on this
panorama, as there are very few readily identifiable true verticals...
and mostly on rather remote sculptures.

Roger W.

--
Work: www.adex-japan.com

Roger, you are exactly right.  Cylindrical images need a cylindrical
projection.  Most viewers use a gnomic projection assuming that the
image they are projecting is a spherical image.  A cylindrical image
projected gnomically will have verticals that converge toward the poles.

If DevalVR does handle cylindrical projections correctly, that would be a
very good thing for architectural scenes.

Roger D. Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2011 04:48:15 +0900, Briar <briar_bentley@...> wrote:
>
>> Amazing how quickly other peoples' situation goes to the back of our
>> minds.
>> The international news no longer concentrates on the efforts of the brave
>> folk who still battle with the nuclear plants in your country. But thank
>> goodness you still have somewhere like this to "rest and renew"
>>
>>
>> My question, and admiration for your pan is how you manage to set it so
>> there is no distortion when moving up or down. In most pans a building
>> will
>> "bend" towards the centre as you move higher up. In this everything
>> remains
>> vertical. How?
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Briar. Since I see from a later post that you use
> DevalVR, as I do, I am not sure what you mean about the "bending" of
> verticals. I have only ever seen this once with DevalVR, when I used it
> to view a panorama taken with a rotary camera that generates cylindrical
> projections by default. If you are taking cylindrical panoramas, then
> DevalVR will normally default to treating them as spherical projections,
> and this bends the verticals as you near the top and bottom of the image.
>
> I haven't updated DevalVR recently, so it may well be coping properly
> with cylindrical projections by now. The author kindly provided me with
> a version that DID handle them properly, but I overwrote it with a later
> upgrade that lacked this ability and as I no longer generate cylindrical
> projections I haven't done anything about it.
>
> Other than that I can't think what might be responsible for "bending," as
> the verticals always remain straight even as they splay outwards on
> looking up (and cave inwards on looking down, of course).
>
> As a matter of interest, the vertical were very hard to get right on this
> panorama, as there are very few readily identifiable true verticals...
> and mostly on rather remote sculptures.
>
> Roger W.
>

On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:36:33 +0900, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
wrote:

> Roger, you are exactly right.  Cylindrical images need a cylindrical
> projection.  Most viewers use a gnomic projection assuming that the
> image they are projecting is a spherical image.  A cylindrical image
> projected gnomically will have verticals that converge toward the poles.
>
> If DevalVR does handle cylindrical projections correctly, that would be a
> very good thing for architectural scenes.

Yes, and there's a fairly easy (though not universally applicable) way
of differentiating between cylindrical and spherical projections. If
the image has a width that is exactly double the height, then it is
usually safe to assume "spherical" and if not, well, not.

Roger W.

--
Work: www.adex-japan.com

US Patent 6,754,400
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=KjQSAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepag\
e&q&f=false>


Your friends perspective is very much appreciated. As is your
willingness to discuss it with him. Thanks.

Scott


On 5/2/2011 2:26 AM, Matthew Rogers - 360Precision wrote:
> Scott,
>
>  Can you please post a link to the file wrapper for the patent application.
Once I've read that I can discuss this with my friend.

--
Scott Witte

<http://www.scottwitte.com>
<http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
414.345.9660
Member, IVRPA



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

Apologies. I wasn't thinking. The "file wrapper" with all the
examination history etc. can't be posted here at this time.

Scott

On 5/2/2011 11:49 PM, Scott Witte wrote:
> US Patent 6,754,400
>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=KjQSAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepag\
e&q&f=false>
>
>
> Your friends perspective is very much appreciated. As is your
> willingness to discuss it with him. Thanks.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 5/2/2011 2:26 AM, Matthew Rogers - 360Precision wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>>  Can you please post a link to the file wrapper for the patent application.
Once I've read that I can discuss this with my friend.

--
Scott Witte

<http://www.scottwitte.com>
<http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
414.345.9660
Member, IVRPA



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

What is VERY INTERESTING from the link however is Fig1 which I've not seen. For
some reason the patent site I use didn't have these available :(

You have to remember that a patent has to be able to explain the process to an
average skilled person in the industry.  If you asked anyone what an interface
encompassing image capture means we'd all have the same conclusion. Surely
nobody would interchange capturing images with simply loading them ???

This figure is all I need to see. I've read all the posts regarding prior art
etc and they're completely useless. This patent does not claim to have invented:

1. Spherical Images
2. Using fisheye images to create spherical images.
3. Cubic images
4. Ipix images
5. ... etc etc

It's not a patent that claims an invention but a method patent that shows a
system that improves on the existing systems of the time. And to be honest it
does. For any prior art to be valid you will need to show a user interface that
encompasses:

1. Capturing the images
2. Determine the lens parameters through a user controllable interface
3. Convert the images to the two hemispheres
4. Stitch/Assemble the spherical image
5. Save the image
6. Map the spherical image as cube faces.

Unless you can find an application/interface prior to 2001 that did this then
you guys are wasting your time and everyones money. This figure makes Handals
claims even more outrageous but I'm still not sure how you’d stop them.

From my perspective the strategy needs to be changed from one of invalidating
the patent to legally stopping Handal from making false legal claims.

Now lets hypothetically say for one minute that we are infringing his patent and
he is owed licensing fees. As the patent owner is classified as a NON MARKET
PARTICIPANT the scope of his claims for licensing fees are extremely small.
These guys have NO system that they using, they've not created any application
and they're not producing content for anyone.

The only reason Ipix won such a large claim was they not only provided the
hardware and software but also had paying clients for content. The $1m figure
was also based on projected forecasts from the Infinite Pics business plan and
we all know how accurate these figures were during the dot com era. I guess the
business plan was great for conning capital for investment but not so funny when
used to settle a lawsuit. So I guess you really can’t have you cake and eat it.

Matt

On 3 May 2011, at 05:49, Scott Witte wrote:

> US Patent 6,754,400
>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=KjQSAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepag\
e&q&f=false>
>
> Your friends perspective is very much appreciated. As is your
> willingness to discuss it with him. Thanks.
>
> Scott
>
> On 5/2/2011 2:26 AM, Matthew Rogers - 360Precision wrote:
> > Scott,
> >
> > Can you please post a link to the file wrapper for the patent application.
Once I've read that I can discuss this with my friend.
>
> --
> Scott Witte
>
> <http://www.scottwitte.com>
> <http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
> 414.345.9660
> Member, IVRPA
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



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

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Rogers - 360Precision <matthew@...>
wrote:
>
>
> What is VERY INTERESTING from the link however is Fig1 which I've not seen.
For some reason the patent site I use didn't have these available :(
>
> You have to remember that a patent has to be able to explain the process to an
average skilled person in the industry.  If you asked anyone what an interface
encompassing image capture means we'd all have the same conclusion. Surely
nobody would interchange capturing images with simply loading them ???
>
> This figure is all I need to see. I've read all the posts regarding prior art
etc and they're completely useless. This patent does not claim to have invented:
>
> 1. Spherical Images
> 2. Using fisheye images to create spherical images.
> 3. Cubic images
> 4. Ipix images
> 5. ... etc etc
>
> It's not a patent that claims an invention but a method patent that shows a
system that improves on the existing systems of the time. And to be honest it
does. For any prior art to be valid you will need to show a user interface that
encompasses:
>
> 1. Capturing the images
> 2. Determine the lens parameters through a user controllable interface
> 3. Convert the images to the two hemispheres
> 4. Stitch/Assemble the spherical image
> 5. Save the image
> 6. Map the spherical image as cube faces.
>
> Unless you can find an application/interface prior to 2001 that did this then
you guys are wasting your time and everyones money. This figure makes Handals
claims even more outrageous but I'm still not sure how you'd stop them.
>
> From my perspective the strategy needs to be changed from one of invalidating
the patent to legally stopping Handal from making false legal claims.
>
> Now lets hypothetically say for one minute that we are infringing his patent
and he is owed licensing fees. As the patent owner is classified as a NON MARKET
PARTICIPANT the scope of his claims for licensing fees are extremely small.
These guys have NO system that they using, they've not created any application
and they're not producing content for anyone.
>
> The only reason Ipix won such a large claim was they not only provided the
hardware and software but also had paying clients for content. The $1m figure
was also based on projected forecasts from the Infinite Pics business plan and
we all know how accurate these >figures were during the dot com era. I guess the
business plan was great for conning >capital for investment but not so funny
when used to settle a lawsuit. So I guess you really
>can't have you cake and eat it.

You forgot to mention these claims.
A complete visualization from all directions is provided, reproducing all the
freedom degrees in a three-dimensional space.

and further on:

Therefore a need exists for a system and method, which solves the problems and
difficulties of the prior art and increases the capabilities o three dimensional
visualization of digitally rendered images


Even if there are a lot of miss use of names for what we do we do not do 3D
images.

Hans

>
> Matt
>
> On 3 May 2011, at 05:49, Scott Witte wrote:
>
> > US Patent 6,754,400
> >
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=KjQSAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepag\
e&q&f=false>
> >
> > Your friends perspective is very much appreciated. As is your
> > willingness to discuss it with him. Thanks.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On 5/2/2011 2:26 AM, Matthew Rogers - 360Precision wrote:
> > > Scott,
> > >
> > > Can you please post a link to the file wrapper for the patent application.
Once I've read that I can discuss this with my friend.
> >
> > --
> > Scott Witte
> >
> > <http://www.scottwitte.com>
> > <http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
> > 414.345.9660
> > Member, IVRPA
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

If we have some friends from Pakistan here or someone who is able to deliver
panoramic content from Abottabad please contact me off list.

Thanks
Jürgen

I love these WTC panos Mark!



--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Mark D. Fink" <markdfink@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, how quickly our technology and capability changed. Only three years
> later, I was doing this type of work:
>
> http://www.360cities.net/virtual-tour/les-olivettes-lourmarin-france?view=si
> mple
>
> I wish I had my humble 10D and Sigma 14mm three years earlier...
>
> Thanks for sharing your video!
>
> Mark
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of Willy Kaemena
> > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 9:25 AM
> > To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] OT? Marking this day
> >
> > That  are real memories !!  A pity that in 2000 our digital cams and
> > lenses  were  not so good as of today
> > I have been myself on the  WTC in April 1990  here my footage:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3Gv3TO3oHM
> >
> > Willy
> >
> >
> > On May 2, 2011, at 14:34, Mark D. Fink wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I thought I'd share with all of you how I'm choosing to mark this day.
> > >
> > > http://virtual-travels.tumblr.com/
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > www.virtual-travels.com <http://www.virtual-travels.com/>
> > >
> > > www.northernlight.net <http://www.northernlight.net/>
> > >
> > > www.pinnacle-vr.com <http://www.pinnacle-vr.com/>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>

From: Hans <hans@...> "Even if there are a lot of miss use of names for
what we do we do not do 3D images."



And that is the "dang". Very true.

Bostjan

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

Woody,

  thank you for the observation... I have forwarded it to the team that did these
work

regards



El 29/04/2011, a las 21:21, Woody Howard escribió:

> Ignacio,
>
> Beautiful work, well done.
>
> As I was exploring, I did happen upon an error that you probably will want
> to address. It is for the hotspot in the last panorama. It appears that the
> hotspot is located over the wrong item. The “onOver” hotspot describes the
> man in a green outfit holding a crate of Coca-Colas (which is above and to
> the left) while the area in which the hotspot is located is something else
> entirely. The “onClick” image also has the same description, with the close
> up image being something different.
>
> I’ve uploaded a screen shot to
> http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx21/thwohojr/CokePicture.png to better
> show the location and issue.
>
> I wasn’t looking for mistakes, I just happened upon it while exploring. My
> Grandfather had a gas service station back in the 1960’s and I saw many of
> these items. I still remember getting the 6.5 oz bottles out of the old
> vending machines.
>
> I enjoyed the tour. Again, well done.
>
> Woody
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------

Ignacio Ferrando Margelí

976 297980 / 646154023

Abaco Digital

http://www.abaco-digital.es







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

Hi Roger,

Yes, DevalVR works as you wrote, if the proportion is aproximately 2:1 the
projection used is "spherical", if not it uses "cylindrical", this is true in
99% of cases. Maybe the stitching program could add an EXIF code to solve this
ambiguity in the JPEG, I don't know.

Anyway, I added the projection options in the context menu of the player since
one year ago, so projection can be changed easily.

regards!
fiero




--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:36:33 +0900, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Roger, you are exactly right.  Cylindrical images need a cylindrical
> > projection.  Most viewers use a gnomic projection assuming that the
> > image they are projecting is a spherical image.  A cylindrical image
> > projected gnomically will have verticals that converge toward the poles.
> >
> > If DevalVR does handle cylindrical projections correctly, that would be a
> > very good thing for architectural scenes.
>
> Yes, and there's a fairly easy (though not universally applicable) way
> of differentiating between cylindrical and spherical projections. If
> the image has a width that is exactly double the height, then it is
> usually safe to assume "spherical" and if not, well, not.
>
> Roger W.
>
> --
> Work: www.adex-japan.com
>

..   just get one of these mobile visual effects supercomputers on wheels to
drive around behind you :-)
http://www.awn.com/blogs/idea-pioneers/silverdraft-mobileviz-first-look

PeterM

Hm - could be a suitable base for the NexGen GSV with Gigapixels :)

Jürgen

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <panovrx@...> wrote:
>
>  ..   just get one of these mobile visual effects supercomputers on wheels to
drive around behind you :-)
> http://www.awn.com/blogs/idea-pioneers/silverdraft-mobileviz-first-look
>
> PeterM
>

They not speciffy CA but maybe some Canon 15mm FE user can check this out.

cheers,
Dorin
www.livepanoramas.com

Oh no! this is a bad update for me, I'm no more able to correct CA of Sigma 8mm
on Canon 350D, the last update working in this respect is DPP 3.9.4.0
So I'guess I'll stick with that one and/or try to have them both somehow..

cheers,
Dorin
www.livepanoramas.com



--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "dorindxn" <Dorin@...> wrote:
>
> They not speciffy CA but maybe some Canon 15mm FE user can check this out.
>
> cheers,
> Dorin
> www.livepanoramas.com
>

Matt
If your conclusions are correct, then why is Handal claiming Henry is infringing
by using "omnidirectional images"

Maybe the Patent isn't the issue, maybe the claim of infringement is a lie

Doug Aurand

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Rogers - 360Precision <matthew@...>
wrote:

> This figure is all I need to see. I've read all the posts regarding prior art
etc and they're completely useless. This patent does not claim to have invented:
>
> 1. Spherical Images
> 2. Using fisheye images to create spherical images.
> 3. Cubic images
> 4. Ipix images
> 5. ... etc etc

Matt has another very good point...damages

If Handal & his client do have a legitimate claim that many of us have infringed
on their patent, how much damage have we caused since they have no losses and
have not been financially harmed?

An IP lawyer may see the solution as invalidating the patent (he's a hammer, to
him the world is a nail), while a trial attorney may see the problem for us from
a entirely different angle

Doug Aurand


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Rogers - 360Precision <matthew@...>
wrote:
> Now lets hypothetically say for one minute that we are infringing his patent
and he is owed licensing fees. As the patent owner is classified as a NON MARKET
PARTICIPANT the scope of his claims for licensing fees are extremely small.
These guys have NO system that they using, they've not created any application
and they're not producing content for anyone.
>
> The only reason Ipix won such a large claim was they not only provided the
hardware and software but also had paying clients for content. The $1m figure
was also based on projected forecasts from the Infinite Pics business plan and
we all know how accurate these figures were during the dot com era. I guess the
business plan was great for conning capital for investment but not so funny when
used to settle a lawsuit. So I guess you really can't have you cake and eat it.

http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2011/04/post-japan-earthquake-panoramas-in.ht\
ml

Congrats to Akila Ninomiya for making the trip and documenting these places.

And a huge thanks to sponsors Nodal Ninja, Kolor, PTGui, and Garden Gnome
Software for helping make Akila's trip possible.

You can see most (more soon) of the panos on a blog I built
http://japan.pano-journalism.com/

Jeffrey


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

Hi Doug,

	 I'm just shocked that anyone is gullible enough to believe his nonsense.
They've had the patent SEVEN YEARS, how many people have ended up in court ?
ZERO. You can draw your own conclusions.


Matt

On 4 May 2011, at 15:33, djaurand wrote:

> Matt
> If your conclusions are correct, then why is Handal claiming Henry is
infringing by using "omnidirectional images"
>
> Maybe the Patent isn't the issue, maybe the claim of infringement is a lie
>
> Doug Aurand
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Rogers - 360Precision
<matthew@...> wrote:
>
> > This figure is all I need to see. I've read all the posts regarding prior
art etc and they're completely useless. This patent does not claim to have
invented:
> >
> > 1. Spherical Images
> > 2. Using fisheye images to create spherical images.
> > 3. Cubic images
> > 4. Ipix images
> > 5. ... etc etc
>
>



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

Guys,

I suggest that this part of the discussion should be in the vr-patent
group, where it is already being explored. Please see my comment there.

Scott


On 5/4/2011 9:47 AM, djaurand wrote:
> Matt has another very good point...damages

--
Scott Witte

<http://www.scottwitte.com>
<http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
414.345.9660
Member, IVRPA



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

That's a pretty awesome truck!
We actually talked about settings up a branch on wheels like this before.
Mainly, because film production companies tend to do work in obscure states for
tax rebate reasons, but those tax rebates also require hiring someone local...
They actually mention this in the article as well.

.Blochi




On May 4, 2011, at 2:36 AM, jrgen_schrader wrote:

> Hm - could be a suitable base for the NexGen GSV with Gigapixels :)
>
> Jürgen
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <panovrx@...> wrote:
> >
> > .. just get one of these mobile visual effects supercomputers on wheels to
drive around behind you :-)
> > http://www.awn.com/blogs/idea-pioneers/silverdraft-mobileviz-first-look
> >
> > PeterM
> >
>
>



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

Hi,
I wonder, if there is anybody on this list who uses this camera. I'm thinking of
getting it and wanted an input from actual user.
I think I would like it for carry around camera and because it has Leica
Summicron lens. I read some reviews, but it's not the same as getting a first
hand opinion. Another consideration would be Fuji X100, but its cost is a little
to steep.
Thank you!

A Kielcz

Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.

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

I bought an LX5 and it's an awesome camera, great color and exposure
plus raw. I bought it over the Canon G11 and G12, much better color
IMHO. Another great feature is the adjustable aspect ratio I maily
shoot 16 x 9 but have switched for pics I wanted more squarish. Can't
say enough good things about this camera.

On May 4, 2011, at 3:45 PM, A Kielcz wrote:

> Hi,
> I wonder, if there is anybody on this list who uses this camera. I'm
> thinking of getting it and wanted an input from actual user.
> I think I would like it for carry around camera and because it has
> Leica Summicron lens. I read some reviews, but it's not the same as
> getting a first hand opinion. Another consideration would be Fuji
> X100, but its cost is a little to steep.
> Thank you!
>
> A Kielcz
>
> Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.
>
>
>

Cheers
Robert C. Fisher
VR Photography / Cinematography
bob@...
http://www.rcfisher.com
Facebook - Robert C. Fisher






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

I use an LX3 -- almost the same camera.  You can compare the LX3/5 on
dpreview.  Compare it image to image to the Sony Nex 3/5 and pick any Canon
APS-C camera
and you will be surprised at how well the LX3/5 looks in comparison.

The only little glitch with the LX3/5 is the default color settings.
But you can get close to Canon color with just a few tweeks of the
color temp and the color bias.

Here's a recent pano --- 3 rows X 8
http://pancyl.com/OwensValley.html

The other problem is that there really is no fisheye solution for the
LX3/5.  The best option is the Panasonic DMW-LW46 wide angle converter
which gives you about an 18mm wide angle.  The camera software is
designed to use that wide angle and the results are sharp corner to corner

Here's a sample pano taken with the Panasonic DMW-LW46 --- 3 rows X 6
http://pancyl.com/BackYardSnow.html



A Kielcz wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder, if there is anybody on this list who uses this camera. I'm thinking
of getting it and wanted an input from actual user.
> I think I would like it for carry around camera and because it has Leica
Summicron lens. I read some reviews, but it's not the same as getting a first
hand opinion. Another consideration would be Fuji X100, but its cost is a little
to steep.
> Thank you!
>
> A Kielcz
>
> Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Ken,
Those are nice panos.

ron rack

On May 4, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Ken Warner wrote:

> I use an LX3 -- almost the same camera. You can compare the LX3/5 on
> dpreview. Compare it image to image to the Sony Nex 3/5 and pick any Canon
APS-C camera
> and you will be surprised at how well the LX3/5 looks in comparison.
>
> The only little glitch with the LX3/5 is the default color settings.
> But you can get close to Canon color with just a few tweeks of the
> color temp and the color bias.
>
> Here's a recent pano --- 3 rows X 8
> http://pancyl.com/OwensValley.html
>
> The other problem is that there really is no fisheye solution for the
> LX3/5. The best option is the Panasonic DMW-LW46 wide angle converter
> which gives you about an 18mm wide angle. The camera software is
> designed to use that wide angle and the results are sharp corner to corner
>
> Here's a sample pano taken with the Panasonic DMW-LW46 --- 3 rows X 6
> http://pancyl.com/BackYardSnow.html
>
> A Kielcz wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I wonder, if there is anybody on this list who uses this camera. I'm
thinking of getting it and wanted an input from actual user.
> > I think I would like it for carry around camera and because it has Leica
Summicron lens. I read some reviews, but it's not the same as getting a first
hand opinion. Another consideration would be Fuji X100, but its cost is a little
to steep.
> > Thank you!
> >
> > A Kielcz
> >
> > Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>



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

I got lucky...

Ron Rack wrote:
> Ken,
> Those are nice panos.
>
> ron rack
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Ken Warner wrote:
>
>> I use an LX3 -- almost the same camera. You can compare the LX3/5 on
>> dpreview. Compare it image to image to the Sony Nex 3/5 and pick any Canon
APS-C camera
>> and you will be surprised at how well the LX3/5 looks in comparison.
>>
>> The only little glitch with the LX3/5 is the default color settings.
>> But you can get close to Canon color with just a few tweeks of the
>> color temp and the color bias.
>>
>> Here's a recent pano --- 3 rows X 8
>> http://pancyl.com/OwensValley.html
>>
>> The other problem is that there really is no fisheye solution for the
>> LX3/5. The best option is the Panasonic DMW-LW46 wide angle converter
>> which gives you about an 18mm wide angle. The camera software is
>> designed to use that wide angle and the results are sharp corner to corner
>>
>> Here's a sample pano taken with the Panasonic DMW-LW46 --- 3 rows X 6
>> http://pancyl.com/BackYardSnow.html
>>
>> A Kielcz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I wonder, if there is anybody on this list who uses this camera. I'm
thinking of getting it and wanted an input from actual user.
>>> I think I would like it for carry around camera and because it has Leica
Summicron lens. I read some reviews, but it's not the same as getting a first
hand opinion. Another consideration would be Fuji X100, but its cost is a little
to steep.
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> A Kielcz
>>>
>>> Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>

On Wed, 04 May 2011 17:55:07 +0900, panovrx <panovrx@...> wrote:

>  ..   just get one of these mobile visual effects supercomputers on
> wheels to drive around behind you :-)
> http://www.awn.com/blogs/idea-pioneers/silverdraft-mobileviz-first-look

I wonder if I will still be around when they condense this into a laptop?

Roger W.

--
Work: www.adex-japan.com

On Thu, 05 May 2011 07:45:38 +0900, A Kielcz <roblee007@...> wrote:

> Hi,
> I wonder, if there is anybody on this list who uses this camera. I'm
> thinking of getting it and wanted an input from actual user.
> I think I would like it for carry around camera and because it has Leica
> Summicron lens. I read some reviews, but it's not the same as getting a
> first hand opinion. Another consideration would be Fuji X100, but its
> cost is a little to steep.
> Thank you!

This isn't an answer to your question, I'm afraid, but a response to
the question it poses in my mind. They are two such completely different
cameras that it is hard to think why you would be considering them as
alternatives. Like you, I find the Fuji X100 very attractive but the
price a little too steep. It is a very innovative camera, with the
form factor, looks and handling of a rangefinder but with the latest
electronic enhancements cleverly crafted into a combination with an
optical finder. Very nice! So I'm with you there. But I would not even
LOOK at a Lumix LX5. Summicron lens, yes! But the Fuji lens on the X100
is no slouch according to the Japanese camera mags.

Roger

--
Work: www.adex-japan.com