Do a search for (or ask) Bjørn Kåre Nilssen, member of this list, most likely it
was his work.

Cheers,

Erik Leeman

<http://www.erikleeman.com> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jeffreycb2000" wrote:
>
> Many many years ago there was a post to a web site that was researching how to
recreate a plaza from 3 spherical panoramas from differing positions.  The
output model re-created the plaza space and had the photographic imagery
attached to the various surfaces and objects within the model.  This allowed the
viewer to then walk through the model anywhere (within the limits of the
panorama coverage).
> Testing peoples memory - but would anyone know of the site or
> something similar.
> I've a friend who is investigating from the laser scanning and pano
> overlay side and I thought this would be interesting to show them.
> Thanks
> Jeffrey

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jeffreycb2000" <jeffreycb@...> wrote:
>
> Many many years ago there was a post to a web site that was researching how to
recreate a plaza from 3 spherical panoramas from differing positions.  The
output model re-created the plaza space and had the photographic imagery
attached to the various surfaces and objects within the model.  This allowed the
viewer to then walk through the model anywhere (within the limits of the
panorama coverage).
> Testing peoples memory - but would anyone know of the site or something
similar.
> I've a friend who is investigating from the laser scanning and pano overlay
side and I thought this would be interesting to show them.

I guess you talk about Greg Downings Notre Dam
http://www.gregdowning.com/3dqtvr/index.html
http://www.vrmag.org/vartist/guest_artist/A_CONVERSATION_WITH_GREG_DOWNING_TRAVE\
L_PANORAMAS_3D_TECHNOLOGY_AND_HDRI.html

Or the original  Campanile movie, by Paul Debevec
http://ict.debevec.org/~debevec/Campanile/

Hans

Guys. And Girls. With all due respect....and excuse my occasionally foul
language:

It's these universally negative responses that really gets me down about this
community, and convinces me nearly completely that there will be NO great
community of 360 photographers, NO great standards of data portability, NO great
aggregator, NO central place for all things panoramic - there will be nothing
like that. We are a bunch of perfectionist, bickering, jealous elitists who are
digging our own grave with respect to this medium that deserves so much more
(and which I have actually been devoting my entire working life to for the last
6 years)

Now, do you remember 5 or 6 years ago when you'd try to sell your services to
someone, and they don't know what the fuck a QTVR or panoramic photo is (or
whatever it is we call it, we can't even agree on that) ?

Nowadays, most web-using humans DO know what it is. Do you know why? It's
because Google has made it *extremely* widespread. Yeah, they made images with
some stitching errors in them. But you know what? They made something like 100
MILLION of these panoramas (total guess). Unless you are living under a rock,
you HAVE seen these images, there is probably one of your house. Unless you are
a great troll in total denial, these are images that are just like the ones you
make (except they have additional 3d depth data as well as extremely precise
georeferencing)

Yeah, and now they are trying to make panoramas inside. From what it looks like
to me, they're using automatic exposure, bracketing, and some kind of exposure
fusion to make the capture process entirely automatic. And you know what? Ask 50
NORMAL PEOPLE if they can tell the difference, and probably 45 of them won't be
able to tell the difference between this low-cost version, and your
painstakingly hand-made, retouched version. People just don't care about that.
Admit it! Am I saying that you as a photographer should only produce
lower-quality content? Of course not.

I think comparing one of these Google-produced panoramas with your own is
completely missing the point. Everything Google does has the idea of massive
scale behind it. The kind of scale that most people have simply never even
thought about. How do you get to the hundreds of millions? The mind boggles.
What if it results in a bit of ghosting from the automatic exposure bracketing?
Who really gives a shit? We're talking about covering the ENTIRE WORLD, people.

Did you ever think about how maybe our medium (360 photography) might benefit if
you lowered your standards a bit, and shot 100x more panoramas than you do now?
And if the bar was lowered enough that "non photographers" could also make
spherical panoramas without any trouble? This is the kind of stuff that will
take this medium to the mainstream, and not make it get lost in geek obscurity.
The great stuff will float to the top - it always does. (And these google
interior panos, just like streetview, are only going to get better and better)

Make no mistake: the sentiments expressed so far in this thread (and many
others) are not going to push this medium forward into further familiarity and
popularity. Quite the opposite.

Now, I'm going to continue to help as many clueless people as possible learn how
to make shitty panos. Because that's what we were all doing once, until we
became good at it. And that's what is going to turn our tiny niche into
something significant.

Sorry for the rant but seriously guys, I don't want to be alone making some
obscure art with a tiny audience, patching nadirs that no one is going to see.
But I have a feeling that many of you will do exactly that.

Roger
  > It's going to probably come down to
> timing more than anything - how quickly do we capture to minimize light
> changes, how quickly can we move the rig and shoot and repeat...

Is it possible to shoot a reference item (e.g. colorchecker)
in each frame to allow for post-production
lighting correction.

This is a compromise with shooting speed of course.

It's a playoff of images-under-constant-light versus
images-correctible-for-light

   BugBear

På Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:15:21 +0100, skrev erik_leeman <erik.leeman@...>:

> Do a search for (or ask) Bjørn Kåre Nilssen, member of this list, most likely
it was his work.

I wish it was ;)

Like Hans, I think it was Greg Downing?
Or Blochi?


> Cheers,
>
> Erik Leeman
>
> <http://www.erikleeman.com> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jeffreycb2000" wrote:
>>
>> Many many years ago there was a post to a web site that was researching how
to recreate a plaza from 3 spherical panoramas from differing positions.  The
output model re-created the plaza space and had the photographic imagery
attached to the various surfaces and objects within the model.  This allowed the
viewer to then walk through the model anywhere (within the limits of the
panorama coverage).
>> Testing peoples memory - but would anyone know of the site or
>> something similar.
>> I've a friend who is investigating from the laser scanning and pano
>> overlay side and I thought this would be interesting to show them.
>> Thanks
>> Jeffrey


--
Bjørn K Nilssen - bk@... - 3D and panoramas

By the way, I can confirm that it's indeed perfectly possible to reconstruct an
interior's 3D geometry from the cube faces of three 360x180 degree panoramas
using Google's SketchUp and its Photo Match module. I'm still learning to work
with SketchUp, so I didn't try the texture-pasting bit yet. Would be nice if
that worked for this too : )

Cheers,

Erik Leeman

<http://www.erikleeman.com> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:
> I wish it was ;)
>
> Like Hans, I think it was Greg Downing?
> Or Blochi?

Jeffrey

I could comment on  this with just one word.
Rubbish.

However I want to ask you if you ever seen any one in forums or other comments
besides Panorama photographers who does associate street view with what we do.

Street view is a  navigation tool and most people does not at all think of them
as interactive panoramas.

You may need to be logged in at Stumbleupon to read this.
Here are 175 reviews on Panoramas.dk
http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.panoramas.dk/

Is anyone talking about street view.  No
I have other pages with 400 to 600 reviews and I never seen a comment comparing
them to street view.
The same with comment from other forums.
And I also never heard a customer mentioning street view.

I never even seen anyone comment about the difference in navigation besides one
you posted at some time.

Some of us just imagine that street view has an impact on our work
Do a search for panoramas in Google and you have to browse down to page 17
before you find the first one mentioning street view.

Hans


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "prague" <panoramas@...> wrote:
>
> Guys. And Girls. With all due respect....and excuse my occasionally foul
language:
>
> It's these universally negative responses that really gets me down about this
community, and convinces me nearly completely that there will be NO great
community of 360 photographers, NO great standards of data portability, NO great
aggregator, NO central place for all things panoramic - there will be nothing
like that. We are a bunch of perfectionist, bickering, jealous elitists who are
digging our own grave with respect to this medium that deserves so much more
(and which I have actually been devoting my entire working life to for the last
6 years)
>
> Now, do you remember 5 or 6 years ago when you'd try to sell your services to
someone, and they don't know what the fuck a QTVR or panoramic photo is (or
whatever it is we call it, we can't even agree on that) ?
>
> Nowadays, most web-using humans DO know what it is. Do you know why? It's
because Google has made it *extremely* widespread. Yeah, they made images with
some stitching errors in them. But you know what? They made something like 100
MILLION of these panoramas (total guess). Unless you are living under a rock,
you HAVE seen these images, there is probably one of your house. Unless you are
a great troll in total denial, these are images that are just like the ones you
make (except they have additional 3d depth data as well as extremely precise
georeferencing)
>
> Yeah, and now they are trying to make panoramas inside. From what it looks
like to me, they're using automatic exposure, bracketing, and some kind of
exposure fusion to make the capture process entirely automatic. And you know
what? Ask 50 NORMAL PEOPLE if they can tell the difference, and probably 45 of
them won't be able to tell the difference between this low-cost version, and
your painstakingly hand-made, retouched version. People just don't care about
that. Admit it! Am I saying that you as a photographer should only produce
lower-quality content? Of course not.
>
> I think comparing one of these Google-produced panoramas with your own is
completely missing the point. Everything Google does has the idea of massive
scale behind it. The kind of scale that most people have simply never even
thought about. How do you get to the hundreds of millions? The mind boggles.
What if it results in a bit of ghosting from the automatic exposure bracketing?
Who really gives a shit? We're talking about covering the ENTIRE WORLD, people.
>
> Did you ever think about how maybe our medium (360 photography) might benefit
if you lowered your standards a bit, and shot 100x more panoramas than you do
now? And if the bar was lowered enough that "non photographers" could also make
spherical panoramas without any trouble? This is the kind of stuff that will
take this medium to the mainstream, and not make it get lost in geek obscurity.
The great stuff will float to the top - it always does. (And these google
interior panos, just like streetview, are only going to get better and better)
>
> Make no mistake: the sentiments expressed so far in this thread (and many
others) are not going to push this medium forward into further familiarity and
popularity. Quite the opposite.
>
> Now, I'm going to continue to help as many clueless people as possible learn
how to make shitty panos. Because that's what we were all doing once, until we
became good at it. And that's what is going to turn our tiny niche into
something significant.
>
> Sorry for the rant but seriously guys, I don't want to be alone making some
obscure art with a tiny audience, patching nadirs that no one is going to see.
But I have a feeling that many of you will do exactly that.
>

Ok, here's my two cents -- the best panographers among you all are
perfectionists and should remain so.  Those people and the complete arrogance
and self-confidence in their own work and their opinion that their aesthetic
standards are the benchmark for all others is what drives the leading edge of
panoramic photography forward.  Is what drives the development of new and better
pano heads, cameras, lenses and shooting styles.

Imagine if the standard for panography was Google's work.  Suitable for web
journalism and not for recording history or art or science for posterity. 
Suitable for car navigation not archives of important historical achievements.

Someday, all those panoramas of cathedral interiors will be the only record of
those structures.  They need to be recorded with as great craft as possible. 
Google won't do that -- can't do that -- now.  The best of you can and should.

But Google is -- as you say -- bringing panography to the masses.  And
eventually those masses will demand better quality.  It's an ongoing evolution. 
At any stage, a snapshot of that evolution will show ragged flaws.  Let it
happen...

prague wrote:
> Guys. And Girls. With all due respect....

Robert, Uri Thank you very much for your insight. Will keep looking to put up a
website with my QTVR. Really appreciate, thanks again. Dana

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Uri" <uri@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "robert" <image360@> wrote:
> >
> > dana, today you pretty much have to create your own web site, not one of the
photo portfolio sites supports 360 or even panorama's yet, believe me I've tried
for quite a few years to a few of them to notice this, but they just don't seem
to care about this form of Photography.
>
> Another issue, Dana: I notice you refer to QTVR. If it's so I have to tell you
this format is obsolete since Apple dropped Quicktime support for panoramas on
several platforms, including Windows.
>
> Today, the common standard for panorama viewers is Flash, but even that is
going to change since Apple dropped support for Flash in its iPad, iPhone, etc.
and other platforms that use iOS.
>
> The best way for you may be to use a viewer that supports HTML5/CSS3 like
Pano2VR or KRpano. These will create panoramas that work with both Flash and iOS
devices.
>

So, it's a great lens, not really much of a surprise since Canon seems to be
finally hitting all gears on super wides. I mean what could you expect after the
17mm TS lens?

But is there any perfect lens for 360's?

Peter's example is filled with errors if you look a bit too close. Are all
fish-eye lens's just problematic from a NPP?

Robert




--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Michel Thoby <thobymichel@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly one year after the new 8-15 mm zoom lens announcement by Canon, it
landed at last on the shelf of my local store about two months ago...
>
> Here is a review with my point of view as a panorama photographer:
> http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Canon_8-15mm/8-15mm_review.html
>
>
> Michel Thoby
>

 

So, it's a great lens, not really much of a surprise since Canon seems to be finally hitting all gears on super wides. I mean what could you expect after the 17mm TS lens?

But is there any perfect lens for 360's?

Peter's example is filled with errors if you look a bit too close. Are all fish-eye lens's just problematic from a NPP?

Robert

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Michel Thoby <thobymichel@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly one year after the new 8-15 mm zoom lens announcement by Canon, it landed at last on the shelf of my local store about two months ago...
>
> Here is a review with my point of view as a panorama photographer:
> http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Canon_8-15mm/8-15mm_review.html
>
>
> Michel Thoby
>

There are errors, insignificant, for all but the purest in just about every 360
shot with a fisheye since any fisheye lens does not have a single NPP point. You
can optimize or minimize the issue, but it still exists simply because a fisheye
has no single NPP. Post is almost always required if you care about absolute
image fidelity.

I'm not trying to knock the new Canon 8-15, on the contrary it seems like a
great lens and I plan to get one or two next year. It does seem to be better
than the Canon 15 at the edges and perhaps in contrast, color through out the
FOV.

But the Canon 15 at 2.8, verses the 8-15 at 4.0 seems like the 15 still has a
place at the table. If I was Canon I would not discontinue the 15.

And believe me, I'm not in anyway trying to knock Peter. I know how challenging
a non-stable platform can be to work with, I've been stitching aerial 360's for
a few years now. Talk about a drunken sailor. It can make handheld seem easy. :)

cheers,

Robert

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Sacha Griffin <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
>
> I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don't think any
> fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a
> matter of knowing how to optimize for your rotation and proper stitching.
> From all reports the 8-15 is the perfect vt lens beating even the prime 15.
>
> Sacha Griffin

 

There are errors, insignificant, for all but the purest in just about every 360 shot with a fisheye since any fisheye lens does not have a single NPP point. You can optimize or minimize the issue, but it still exists simply because a fisheye has no single NPP. Post is almost always required if you care about absolute image fidelity.

I'm not trying to knock the new Canon 8-15, on the contrary it seems like a great lens and I plan to get one or two next year. It does seem to be better than the Canon 15 at the edges and perhaps in contrast, color through out the FOV.

But the Canon 15 at 2.8, verses the 8-15 at 4.0 seems like the 15 still has a place at the table. If I was Canon I would not discontinue the 15.

And believe me, I'm not in anyway trying to knock Peter. I know how challenging a non-stable platform can be to work with, I've been stitching aerial 360's for a few years now. Talk about a drunken sailor. It can make handheld seem easy. :)

cheers,

Robert

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Sacha Griffin <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
>
> I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don't think any
> fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a
> matter of knowing how to optimize for your rotation and proper stitching.
> From all reports the 8-15 is the perfect vt lens beating even the prime 15.
>
> Sacha Griffin

hi daniela

you can use wordpress & panopress to easily build your own website for
displaying 360° panoramas

panopress supports most 360 pano formats, swf & html5 output from krpano,
pano2vr, also flashificator and panotour pro - even displays qtvr files as flash
w aldo hoeben's cuty player :)

http://www.panopress.org

to use panopress, you need to use the self hosted version of wordpress from
wordpress.org, not the wordpress.com hosted sites, you need to find a hosting
service like hostgator.com - most web hosting services these days have an easy
way to install wp automatically, in the end you would have to register a domain
name for like $10 dollars a year and get a hosting plan for like $5 dollars a
month

sam

- - - - -
Sam Rohn :: New York City
Panoramic Photography :: http://www.samrohn.com
Location Scout :: http://www.nylocations.com



--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "dana.petresq@..." <dana.petresq@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, this is DanielaI'm new here, I apologies in advance if
> this topic is already here somewhere,but I didn't find it.
> I will so appreciate your kindly advice. I just start to play with 360
> panoramas/mov. I have a EyeSee360 lens; I know it doesn't do a great
> job, I saw that everyone here are doing such a great job without a 360
> lens. My panoramas are without nadir and zenith,which is something that
> I guess won't be ever able to create with my 360 lens.
> My 1st question here is:In order to show my little work here I need to
> upload some sample in a portfolio or website that supports this type of
> files, can anyone advice me where to upload? I looked online and can't
> figure out a place. I'm willing to make a website too even if my work is
> not exceptional.
> Thank you very much all. Hope my question is not confusing.
>

Sacha,

You are barking up the wrong tree if you want to sell high end 360's to a
museum. Museum's have no money, it's the big money supporters. A event space
salesperson has no budget, waste of time, sell to the top or money support
stream.

Know your target, selling to middle management for high end products has no
chance.

Cheers,

Robert



--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin" <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
>
> I just had a related experience. Museum event space salesperson..
>
> "Oh I'm sorry we just had our museum done for free by google sometime back"
>
> No results yet if ever, and they didn't have a very good opinion of the
> professionalism of the sub-contractor.

 

Sacha,

You are barking up the wrong tree if you want to sell high end 360's to a museum. Museum's have no money, it's the big money supporters. A event space salesperson has no budget, waste of time, sell to the top or money support stream.

Know your target, selling to middle management for high end products has no chance.

Cheers,

Robert

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin" <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
>
> I just had a related experience. Museum event space salesperson..
>
> "Oh I'm sorry we just had our museum done for free by google sometime back"
>
> No results yet if ever, and they didn't have a very good opinion of the
> professionalism of the sub-contractor.

Ha, I had to look that term up, for those of you like me, unfamiliar with that
term;

mayhap [ˈmeɪˌhæp]
adv
an archaic word for perhaps
[shortened from it may hap]

Good Luck!

Robert

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Sacha Griffin <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
>
> Mayhap mayhap.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Sacha Griffin
> Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia
> http://www.seeit360.net
> http://twitter.com/SeeIt360
> http://www.facebook.com/panoramas/
> IM: sachagriffin007@...
> Office: 404-551-4275
> GV: 404-665-9990
>
>
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:56 PM, robert <image360@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sacha,
>
> You are barking up the wrong tree if you want to sell high end 360's to a
> museum. Museum's have no money, it's the big money supporters. A event
> space salesperson has no budget, waste of time, sell to the top or money
> support stream.
>
> Know your target, selling to middle management for high end products has no
> chance.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin" <sachagriffin@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I just had a related experience. Museum event space salesperson..
> >
> > "Oh I'm sorry we just had our museum done for free by google sometime
> back"
> >
> > No results yet if ever, and they didn't have a very good opinion of the
> > professionalism of the sub-contractor.
>

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "prague" <panoramas@...> wrote:
>
>Guys. And Girls. With all due respect... Quite the opposite.
>
>I'm going to continue to help as many...learn how to make shitty panos.

>... I have a feeling that many of you will do exactly that.
>

Time to give Bruce the wheel dude, move on, let it go.

Completely out of control.

Robert

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Christian Bloch <Blochi@...> wrote:
>
> I strongly suggest getting back to your museum contact with a portfolio, once
the Google results are done. My suspicion is that all faces on all paintings
will be blurred, and with an automated system (and legal department with a stick
in their ass) they can't do anything about it. So chances are your museum will
feel a need to "upgrade" when the Mona Lisa is just a splotchy blur.
>
>

Here is their latest gallery
http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/gallery.html#world-landmarks

I gave up after a couple. Do you all have the same problem navigating this as I
have.
The standard street view is horrible, this is 5 times worse.
Same in all browsers, maybe it is  flash 11 problem.

Hans

>
>
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Sacha Griffin wrote:
>
> > I just had a related experience. Museum event space salesperson..
> >
> > "Oh I'm sorry we just had our museum done for free by google sometime back"
> >
> > No results yet if ever, and they didn't have a very good opinion of the
professionalism of the sub-contractor.
> >
> >
>

På Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:31:45 +0100, skrev Peter Stephens - PanoTools NG list
<panotoolsng@...>:

> Hi Guys,
>I have been asked to produce a panoramic image of a drum, as if the drum was
> sliced down on side and flattened.  The idea is to produce a printable image
> showing all areas of the cylinder at the same time.
>I have been experimenting with on of my own drums on an object turntable.
> I've taken 16 images around it and have been playing around trying to
> stitching it together.  This particular drum hasn't a huge amount of detail
> on it making it nearly impossible to generate control points in PTGui, so
> not a great one to experiment with really.  I suppose I could put some small
> stickers around the outside of it which would help with stitching, might try
> that later.
>I'm just wandering if any of you have done this before and have any advise
> you can share with me?  Cropping the 16 images into a thin strip and
> manually stitching it with Photoshop has given me the best results so far,
> though not of a quality high enough that I'm happy with.  PTGui couldn't
> generate control points, so didn't get anywhere with that.   Expect I will
> get better results with more images taken from different angles, but it's
> going to take forever to process by hand.  Would be great if I could do this
> in PTGui.
>Any help would be appreciated.

Often called slit-scan (you'll find lots of links on that with Google)
Traditionally it was made with a camera with a narrow vertical slit, and film
passing slowly past that slit while the rotation was synchronized with the
turntable with the object on.
I've tried to find an automated solution too, but with no success.
Manual in PS works, but is tedious.
Here's a small album I posted after a discussion on another forum:
http://bknilssen.no/album/SlitScan/
For that can of beans the easiest would've been to just tear off the label and
scan it flat, but as this was a test...
I only used 12 photos there.
The less flat the object is the more shots you'll need, maybe 36-72 for a drum?
A few "rules":
Use as long focal length as possible (I didn't)
Use flat lighting (I didn't)
Make sure your object/drum is exactly in the middle of the screen.
Shoot one shot directly at the middle of each part that protrudes from the base
surfcae.
Make PS actions for cropping/undistorting/unwrapping
Use layer masks for blending layers
Use FreeTransform/Warp tool if needed
Use Offset filter to adjust seam.
Use HighPass filter to even out uneven lighting

If you find a tool for doing this kind of work I'd love to hear about it !

--
Bjørn K Nilssen - bk@... - 3D and panoramas

hi Ignacio,

While we discuss this off-list, I should probably reply on-list to your message.

You definitely misunderstood me if you think I have a problem with
perfectionists. I mean, seriously, come on man - how on earth could you possibly
think that I think badly of people who make perfect panos? Come on :-)))

I have a problem with perfectionists who speak badly of things that aren't
perfect. That, to me, will not encourage innovation, or help us grow the medium
of 360 photography.

"A rising tide lifts all boats."

Sorry that you took my statements the wrong way. Even after we have met in
person, in Portugal, I am really surprised you'd interpret my statements in such
a way that I'd be insulting the work of people like you. I ask you to please
read it again with this in mind and understand that what you think I said, is
not what I was saying.

cheers,
Jeffrey
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Ferrando Margel� <fotografia@...>
wrote:
>
> Jeffrey,
>
>  Yes, I'm a perfectionist, and what?? it's that bad??
>
>  You think that the way is to lower the quality of the panos?, I'm sorry but
it's not my way... in the last 15 years I have worked hard to make my work as
best as possible and to find the clients that could pay for that.  I understand
that will be a low cost / low quality market on panoramic photography as that
happens in almost every aspect of our economy, but for now I'm not really
interested on play in these league. And as you think that I do "some obscure art
with tiny audience" I have just decided to not more contribute with my "obscure
art" in your 360Cities business and just deleted all my photos and asked to
delete my account.
>
>  regards
>
>
>
>
> El 01/11/2011, a las 10:43, prague escribi�:
>
> > Guys. And Girls. With all due respect....and excuse my occasionally foul
language:
> >
> > It's these universally negative responses that really gets me down about
this community, and convinces me nearly completely that there will be NO great
community of 360 photographers, NO great standards of data portability, NO great
aggregator, NO central place for all things panoramic - there will be nothing
like that. We are a bunch of perfectionist, bickering, jealous elitists who are
digging our own grave with respect to this medium that deserves so much more
(and which I have actually been devoting my entire working life to for the last
6 years)
> >
> > Now, do you remember 5 or 6 years ago when you'd try to sell your services
to someone, and they don't know what the fuck a QTVR or panoramic photo is (or
whatever it is we call it, we can't even agree on that) ?
> >
> > Nowadays, most web-using humans DO know what it is. Do you know why? It's
because Google has made it *extremely* widespread. Yeah, they made images with
some stitching errors in them. But you know what? They made something like 100
MILLION of these panoramas (total guess). Unless you are living under a rock,
you HAVE seen these images, there is probably one of your house. Unless you are
a great troll in total denial, these are images that are just like the ones you
make (except they have additional 3d depth data as well as extremely precise
georeferencing)
> >
> > Yeah, and now they are trying to make panoramas inside. From what it looks
like to me, they're using automatic exposure, bracketing, and some kind of
exposure fusion to make the capture process entirely automatic. And you know
what? Ask 50 NORMAL PEOPLE if they can tell the difference, and probably 45 of
them won't be able to tell the difference between this low-cost version, and
your painstakingly hand-made, retouched version. People just don't care about
that. Admit it! Am I saying that you as a photographer should only produce
lower-quality content? Of course not.
> >
> > I think comparing one of these Google-produced panoramas with your own is
completely missing the point. Everything Google does has the idea of massive
scale behind it. The kind of scale that most people have simply never even
thought about. How do you get to the hundreds of millions? The mind boggles.
What if it results in a bit of ghosting from the automatic exposure bracketing?
Who really gives a shit? We're talking about covering the ENTIRE WORLD, people.
> >
> > Did you ever think about how maybe our medium (360 photography) might
benefit if you lowered your standards a bit, and shot 100x more panoramas than
you do now? And if the bar was lowered enough that "non photographers" could
also make spherical panoramas without any trouble? This is the kind of stuff
that will take this medium to the mainstream, and not make it get lost in geek
obscurity. The great stuff will float to the top - it always does. (And these
google interior panos, just like streetview, are only going to get better and
better)
> >
> > Make no mistake: the sentiments expressed so far in this thread (and many
others) are not going to push this medium forward into further familiarity and
popularity. Quite the opposite.
> >
> > Now, I'm going to continue to help as many clueless people as possible learn
how to make shitty panos. Because that's what we were all doing once, until we
became good at it. And that's what is going to turn our tiny niche into
something significant.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant but seriously guys, I don't want to be alone making some
obscure art with a tiny audience, patching nadirs that no one is going to see.
But I have a feeling that many of you will do exactly that.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ignacio Ferrando Margel�
>
> 976 297980 / 646154023
>
> Abaco Digital
>
> http://www.abaco-digital.es
>
>
>
> En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el art�culo 5 de la Ley Org�nica
15/19999, de 13 de diciembre, de Protecci�n de Datos de Car�cter Personal,
le informamos de la existencia de un fichero de datos de car�cter personal
cuyo titular y responsable es ABACO DIGITAL S.L. La recogida y tratamiento de
sus datos tiene como finalidad gestionar las relaciones comerciales, jur�dicas
o contractuales que le vinculen con esta entidad.
> Usted podr� en todo momento ejercitar sus derechos de acceso,
rectificaci�n, cancelaci�n y oposici�n al tratamiento de datos personales,
en la forma legalmente prevista, mediante comunicaci�n firmada y remitida a
ABACO DIGITAL, S.L., sito en M�ndez N��ez 31, 3� dcha, C.P. 50003 de
Zaragoza.
>

Hi Robert,

Your strangely provocative and insulting statements are a bit baffling to me.
I'm not sure what it is you have against me.

Why don't you give me a call when I'm in Chicago next week because conversations
like this shouldn't take place online but rather in person. You can reach me at
847.219.5454 from november 8-13...

If you don't want to discuss your hostilities towards me in person, I ask you to
please stop writing insults about other people on a public forum. It's not
really that polite.

Jeffrey

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "robert" <image360@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "prague" <panoramas@> wrote:
> >
> >Guys. And Girls. With all due respect... Quite the opposite.
> >
> >I'm going to continue to help as many...learn how to make shitty panos.
>
> >... I have a feeling that many of you will do exactly that.
> >
>
> Time to give Bruce the wheel dude, move on, let it go.
>
> Completely out of control.
>
> Robert
>

On a lighter note (...), I just read about this today:
http://createdigitalmotion.com/2011/11/360-leds-made-with-cardboard-paper-and-ne\
edles-in-action/
Would have been nice to experience it in person, let alone make some
panoramas/panoramic video there

'do