Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich than the recent method of using a rotating head on a tripod to harvest the images to work with. I've owned fixed and swing lens panorama camera so the advise came from experience... Unlike the replies!
Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years could work!
The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason for doing so. The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working professional and the Pro produces evidence he is not just wrong but a pedantic fool as well!
It's sort of like when that Childs puppet Charles Stevens (calling himself Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation about me because I posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend to sell the photos.
He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit. Claiming also the EPA didn't issue the permits, I was a liar. Yep. One of us certainly was. and it wasn't me!
And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was... The scan of the permit and a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved him to be the liar.
Did that stop him? Nah... Weak minded morons like him and the wanker calling himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart that if they can't understand something or can't do it themselves, it can't be done.
Charles Stevens (Mark Thomas 7th) Did it long before him. and I have no doubt whatsoever, there will be idiots with hateful minds and no brains imitating these fools long after they have left the group.
That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have a digicam they have a clue!
Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to live in the sewer?
Douglas, in the two frames you presented, if you look at the pole next to the footpath (just beyond and to the right of the dark-reddish hatch) you'l notice that it lines up (*almost* exactly) with the base of the mast on the yacht in the first row of moorings.
In *both* frames.
Now there is considerable distance (range from the camera, that is) between these two objects, yet they line up identically in both frames.
This is a very simple indicator that both frames were taken from the same viewpoint. Almost exactly.
I take stereo pairs (as an indulgence) and the two cameras I use are separated by (roughly) my interocular distance of about 75mm (3" in old-speak). When I take a similar shot(s) to the one(s) you have presented, objects that are separated by so much depth are noticeably out of register with each other in the stereo pair.
This is what creates the stereo effect, as I'm sure you know very well.
There is no such change in register in the two frames you presented.
Ergo: they were taken from *exactly* the same viewpoint. To an accuracy of better than 75mm. You must take *very* small steps when you go for a walk.
I confirmed this by merging the two frames (freeform stereo viewing) and could not discern any stereo effect whatsoever.
Doug, these two shots were taken from the same place. Precisely. This somewhat invalidates your arguments regarding the "shots-taken-on-a-walk" claim.
Would you like some tomato sauce with that boot leather?
(Copyright vested in Doug, fair dealing for academic use, interest & criticism, blah blah)
What did I do to your frames?
* I laid the two frames over each other; * Adjusted the distortion differences (since they were taken at different extremes of the lens; i.e. centre and edge, and therefore exhibited different symptoms of barrel distortion; * Cropped out the non-common sections; then * Laid them side-by-side for easy stereo viewing.
...and voila!
There is indeed some stereo separation, and a stereo effect is discernable in the pair.
- but only *just* -
If I had taken a stereo shot with my setup (interocular around 75mm, remember) then the stereo effect would have been considerably more pronounced.
So, I put it to you, Doug, that the two frames you posted were taken from viewpoints roughly 25mm apart. That's *one* inch. Small steps indeed.
Dammit, Doug - line up the tree in the middle ground with the clouds. Same viewpoint!
I am happy to concede, Doug, that you have made an honest mistake here - that of the 10 or so shots you took these two happen to have been taken from the same spot, and you simply failed to notice this fact when you got back to the computer. No doubt others were indeed separated by some distance. (But did not make for an easy demonstration of the effect, yes?)
I would be much more impressed if you posted two frames which were demonstrably separated by a larger baseline, (say, 10m or more), contained foreground, midground and background information, and *then* you showed us all the resultant merged partial "panorama", sans distortion or perspective effects.
> Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he > may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich than the recent > method of using a rotating head on a tripod to harvest the images to work > with. I've owned fixed and swing lens panorama camera so the advise came > from experience... Unlike the replies!
> Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of > head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years > could work!
I'm unable to find anything I have posted that would indicate such a thing Douggie, I general stay out of the technical side of the photo discussions and stick to commenting on the actual photo's themselves. I do this for one very simple reason, I dont have a deep knowlege of a lot of the things discussed, so instead I read and learn.
> The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a > name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason > for doing so.
So your reason for using the name ".." at the moment is because?? While my online nic is in fact an oxymoron, it is no more or less appropriate that someone calling themselves Julian Abbot, or any other of a long list of aliases that you have used in the past, even to the extent of outright fabricating an identity to prop up one of your many lost arguments.
The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working
> professional and the Pro produces evidence he is not just wrong but a > pedantic fool as well!
Please show me the post I made saying that this method would not work, My records here only go back to August 2007, but I'm sure I could find all my posts on this group using google if needed as I dont use the x-no archive tag.
> It's sort of like when that Childs puppet Charles Stevens (calling himself > Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation about me because > I posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial > Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend > to sell the photos.
and now you have attacked two posters in what is supposed to be an on topic photogaphy discussion, could you in future, make your on topic post more on topic and less a platform for your cyber bullying and "I'm so persecuted" rants
> He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit. Claiming also the EPA > didn't issue the permits, I was a liar. Yep. One of us certainly was. and > it wasn't me!
> And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the > "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my > shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was... The > scan of the permit and a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved > him to be the liar.
> Did that stop him? Nah... Weak minded morons like him and the wanker > calling himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart that if they > can't understand something or can't do it themselves, it can't be done.
Again I ask for verifiable proof that I have said anything at all about this method of photography, either for or against. I will accept your appology with the same grace that you make it :-0
> Charles Stevens (Mark Thomas 7th) Did it long before him. and I have no > doubt whatsoever, there will be idiots with hateful minds and no brains > imitating these fools long after they have left the group.
> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have > a digicam they have a clue!
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid > the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to > live in the sewer?
> Douglas
I shall archive this post for later referral when you do indeed come back and abuse the members. I don't know the name of the condition you obviously have, but I bet its hard to pronounce.
-- "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg
>> Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different crops >> from one wide-angle shot.
> Highly unlikely as the road is on a different angle in the two images.
That's because (1) the camera has been tilted between the two shots, and (2) the difference in distortion(s) at the edge of the frame and the centre of the frame.
They *are* two different shots, but from the same viewpoint.
.. wrote: > Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he > may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich than the recent method > of using a rotating head on a tripod to harvest the images to work with. > I've owned fixed and swing lens panorama camera so the advise came from > experience... Unlike the replies!
> Atheist Chaplain
ATTACK #1
(amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of
> head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years > could work!
> The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a > name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason for > doing so. The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working > professional and the Pro produces evidence he is not just wrong but a > pedantic fool as well!
> It's sort of like when that Childs puppet Charles Stevens
ATTACK #2
(calling himself
> Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation about me because I > posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial > Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend > to sell the photos.
> He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit. Claiming also the EPA > didn't issue the permits, I was a liar.
I think this little gem from last week proves that
"Incidentally, anyone who now cries fowl (foul) about me "name changing to escape their "kill file" needs to recognize even the most basic newsreader filters on E-mail addresses and mine is unchanged in nearly 6 months."
> And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the > "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my > shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was... The > scan of the permit and a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved > him to be the liar.
> Did that stop him? Nah... Weak minded morons like him and the wanker calling > himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart that if they can't > understand something or can't do it themselves, it can't be done.
> Charles Stevens (Mark Thomas 7th) Did it long before him. and I have no > doubt whatsoever, there will be idiots with hateful minds and no brains > imitating these fools long after they have left the group.
> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have a > digicam they have a clue!
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid the > idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to live in > the sewer?
As one of the 'lurkers' you commented on last week I find this last comment interesting. You are done with the idiots but in 2 threads you have started in a week you have almost begged said idiots to attack you.
First with your lurker post and now with this one.
I am not sure if there are other photo forums you all post to but I haven't seen anyone mention your name is early December and the only time they do attack you is when you post posts like this. You mentioned 5 in your lurkers post, maybe you can mention the other 3 over the next few days to get them to attack you also.
> Douglas, in the two frames you presented, if you look at the pole next to > the footpath (just beyond and to the right of the dark-reddish hatch) you'l > notice that it lines up (*almost* exactly) with the base of the mast on the > yacht in the first row of moorings.
> In *both* frames.
> Now there is considerable distance (range from the camera, that is) between > these two objects, yet they line up identically in both frames.
> This is a very simple indicator that both frames were taken from the same > viewpoint. Almost exactly.
> I take stereo pairs (as an indulgence) and the two cameras I use are > separated by (roughly) my interocular distance of about 75mm (3" in > old-speak). When I take a similar shot(s) to the one(s) you have presented, > objects that are separated by so much depth are noticeably out of register > with each other in the stereo pair.
> This is what creates the stereo effect, as I'm sure you know very well.
> There is no such change in register in the two frames you presented.
> Ergo: they were taken from *exactly* the same viewpoint. To an accuracy of > better than 75mm. You must take *very* small steps when you go for a walk.
> I confirmed this by merging the two frames (freeform stereo viewing) and > could not discern any stereo effect whatsoever.
> Doug, these two shots were taken from the same place. Precisely. This > somewhat invalidates your arguments regarding the "shots-taken-on-a-walk" > claim.
> Would you like some tomato sauce with that boot leather?
> Happy Australia Day (holiday), BTW.
> -- > Jeff R. > (not flaming, just observing)
Did I not say Jeff that I had to "use software to fix the images"? The notion that they are joined in a straight line is probably what prompted your comment. They aren't!
> (Copyright vested in Doug, fair dealing for academic use, interest & > criticism, blah blah)
> What did I do to your frames?
> * I laid the two frames over each other; > * Adjusted the distortion differences > (since they were taken at different extremes of the lens; > i.e. centre and edge, and therefore exhibited different > symptoms of barrel distortion; > * Cropped out the non-common sections; then > * Laid them side-by-side for easy stereo viewing.
> ...and voila!
> There is indeed some stereo separation, and a stereo effect is discernable > in the pair.
> - but only *just* -
> If I had taken a stereo shot with my setup (interocular around 75mm, > remember) then the stereo effect would have been considerably more > pronounced.
> So, I put it to you, Doug, that the two frames you posted were taken from > viewpoints roughly 25mm apart. That's *one* inch. Small steps indeed.
> Dammit, Doug - line up the tree in the middle ground with the clouds. Same > viewpoint!
> I am happy to concede, Doug, that you have made an honest mistake here - > that of the 10 or so shots you took these two happen to have been taken from > the same spot, and you simply failed to notice this fact when you got back > to the computer. No doubt others were indeed separated by some distance. > (But did not make for an easy demonstration of the effect, yes?)
> I would be much more impressed if you posted two frames which were > demonstrably separated by a larger baseline, (say, 10m or more), contained > foreground, midground and background information, and *then* you showed us > all the resultant merged partial "panorama", sans distortion or perspective > effects.
> Can you show us that, Doug?
> -- > Jeff R.
Don't concede anything Jeff. Just consider that I altered each image individually I made no mistakes in the ones I chose. I paced my shots as I alway do. I provided two images shot at different locations which I altered the perspective of using Flo's tools. There are many perspective correcting filter around. I could have used any one of them.
The keys to comprehension are: "Dozens of images" and "Software to fix them". It's not my problem if you can't figure out the rest. I take larger steps than 1" at a time. I'm not about to divulge any information on my technique, only evidence that what I said about taking paced out shots to make a panorama is possible and I produced the evidence to substantiate my claim. Already you made a wrong presumption that because an image has a straight line boarder, I joined them in a straight line. Trying to make a stereo out of them is another mistake.
> Did I not say Jeff that I had to "use software to fix the images"? > The notion that they are joined in a straight line is probably what > prompted your comment. They aren't!
Sigghhhh.
Doug, the two pics you posted. Are they unaltered; straight from the camera? (apart from sizing, of course.)
Or have you already "used software to fix the images"?
I suspect not.
Those two photos are taken from the same location - to within an inch or so.
Unless you have divided them (or one of them) into at least a dozen expertly selected different-depth layers, (an appallingly-difficult and usually unsatisfactory operation) and moved those layers horizontally in order to artificially match the effect of having been taken at the same location.
...which of course you haven't.
Don't bother trying to explain how you need to use software to adjust the perspective at the edges. I understand that perfectly, and have done it hundreds of time on my panos. (Single location panos, I should point out.)
Doug - look at the pole! It lines up with the distant yacht *perfectly* in both shots. Are you claiming that you have already altered the pics to achieve that effect? Or are the pics "as-taken"?
They were taken from the same spot. Anybody with an elementary knowledge of perspective and/or stereo imaging can see that in an instant.
Come clean and admit you goofed here, Doug. Post two shots that *are* baseline-separated, and show us how you merge them.
> Don't concede anything Jeff. > Just consider that I altered each image individually I made no > mistakes in the ones I chose. I paced my shots as I alway do. I > provided two images shot at different locations which I altered the > perspective of using Flo's tools. There are many perspective > correcting filter around. I could have used any one of them.
Rubbish. Such filters take the overall proportions of an image and simply allow you to tweak them left and right or up and down independently. They don't allow you to "slide" different depth layers relative to each others - which you would have had to have done in this case.
Are the images you posted unaltered (the two images, not the single combined one)? If not, why bother posting them? The demonstration is an exercise in futility.
> The keys to comprehension are: "Dozens of images"
No - we're discussing just two images here. The others are irrelevant.
>...and "Software to fix > them". It's not my problem if you can't figure out the rest.
Why can't you figure out what I'm telling you? Look at the pole on the path - look at the mast on the yacht the pole lines up with. Those two shots were taken from the same spot.
> I take > larger steps than 1" at a time.
Of course you do. Its just that in this case you took two shots at one location. Between steps, if you like.
> I'm not about to divulge any > information on my technique,
Doug, Doug. There's nothing secret or mysterious about lining up a series of shots so they match. Really!
> only evidence that what I said about > taking paced out shots to make a panorama is possible and I produced > the evidence to substantiate my claim.
No you didn't. You produced two shots taken from the same spot - just as everyone does with panoramas.
Show us two shots taken on a wide baseline and I'll be impressed. (So long as you successfully merge them, that is)
> Already you made a wrong > presumption that because an image has a straight line boarder, I > joined them in a straight line.
What? I did what?
What has the border - straight line or not - got to do with anything I've said?
> Trying to make a stereo out of them is > another mistake.
Quite the contrary. The stereo pair worked *very* well, and demonstrates conclusively that the two shots were taken on a very narrow baseline. Interocular distances, or less (since the illusion of depth is quite shallow.)
How can it be a mistake? The stereo pair works! Surely you can see that!
On Jan 28, 11:02 am, ".." <n...@fake.com> wrote: (a pile of steaming ...)
Thanks to Jeff for a comprehensive expose of Doug at his worst. Nuthin much more needs to be said, except for:
1. Why do this? Even if Mr Magoo *had* shot the images from a different point (which he clearly didn't), why would an 'experienced photographer' *do* that, for a scene like this? Yes, there are ways to deal with parallax issues, and the success of that largely depends on the scene, so avoiding it by shooting from the same nodal point is best.
And there probably are situations where different/staggered viewpoints might be useful (although I am struggling to think of one right now). But this isn't an example of it. If he does this regularly, as he claims, why doesn't he show us an example where there was a *point*?
2. RAM upgrade recommended.. I think Doug may need to upgrade his computer. From that page - "And yes! My dual CPU PC with 5 Meg of RAM labors under the strain of the computations"... Mmmhmm. It probably would. (O;
But I'm sure this is all just a leg-pull, right Doug?
PS On Jan 21, 8:15 pm, Cryptopix <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Incidentally, anyone who now cries fowl (foul) about me "name changing > to escape their "kill file" needs to recognize even the most basic > newsreader filters on E-mail addresses and mine is unchanged in nearly > 6 months. Catching out the liars is more likely correct, I think.
Since then (and not counting Sarina, Susana, etc) Doug has posted as: "dreamtime" <parallel.dream...@gmail.com> ".." <n...@fake.com>
And no doubt others. Who, Douglas MacDonald, is the LIAR?
> ".." <n...@fake.com> wrote in message > news:0R9nj.7681$421.6410@news-server.bigpond.net.au... >> Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he >> may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich than the recent >> method of using a rotating head on a tripod to harvest the images to work >> with. I've owned fixed and swing lens panorama camera so the advise came >> from experience... Unlike the replies!
>> Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of >> head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years >> could work!
> I'm unable to find anything I have posted that would indicate such a > thing Douggie, I general stay out of the technical side of the photo > discussions and stick to commenting on the actual photo's themselves. I do > this for one very simple reason, I dont have a deep knowlege of a lot of > the things discussed, so instead I read and learn.
>> The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a >> name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason >> for doing so.
> So your reason for using the name ".." at the moment is because?? > While my online nic is in fact an oxymoron, it is no more or less > appropriate that someone calling themselves Julian Abbot, or any other of > a long list of aliases that you have used in the past, even to the extent > of outright fabricating an identity to prop up one of your many lost > arguments.
> The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working >> professional and the Pro produces evidence he is not just wrong but a >> pedantic fool as well!
> Please show me the post I made saying that this method would not work, My > records here only go back to August 2007, but I'm sure I could find all my > posts on this group using google if needed as I dont use the x-no archive > tag.
>> It's sort of like when that Childs puppet Charles Stevens (calling >> himself Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation about >> me because I posted some relevant information about the need to have a >> "commercial Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks >> if you intend to sell the photos.
> and now you have attacked two posters in what is supposed to be an on > topic photogaphy discussion, could you in future, make your on topic post > more on topic and less a platform for your cyber bullying and "I'm so > persecuted" rants
>> He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit. Claiming also the EPA >> didn't issue the permits, I was a liar. Yep. One of us certainly was. and >> it wasn't me!
>> And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the >> "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my >> shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was... The >> scan of the permit and a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) >> proved him to be the liar.
>> Did that stop him? Nah... Weak minded morons like him and the wanker >> calling himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart that if they >> can't understand something or can't do it themselves, it can't be done.
> Again I ask for verifiable proof that I have said anything at all about > this method of photography, either for or against. I will accept your > appology with the same grace that you make it :-0
>> Charles Stevens (Mark Thomas 7th) Did it long before him. and I have no >> doubt whatsoever, there will be idiots with hateful minds and no brains >> imitating these fools long after they have left the group.
>> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they >> have a digicam they have a clue!
>> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid >> the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to >> live in the sewer?
>> Douglas
> I shall archive this post for later referral when you do indeed come back > and abuse the members. I don't know the name of the condition you > obviously have, but I bet its hard to pronounce.
> -- > "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." > Don Hirschberg
and still the sound of crickets :-)
-- God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
>> Douglas, in the two frames you presented, if you look at the pole next to >> the footpath (just beyond and to the right of the dark-reddish hatch) >> you'l >> notice that it lines up (*almost* exactly) with the base of the mast on >> the >> yacht in the first row of moorings.
>> In *both* frames.
>> Now there is considerable distance (range from the camera, that is) >> between >> these two objects, yet they line up identically in both frames.
>> This is a very simple indicator that both frames were taken from the same >> viewpoint. Almost exactly.
>> I take stereo pairs (as an indulgence) and the two cameras I use are >> separated by (roughly) my interocular distance of about 75mm (3" in >> old-speak). When I take a similar shot(s) to the one(s) you have >> presented, >> objects that are separated by so much depth are noticeably out of >> register >> with each other in the stereo pair.
>> This is what creates the stereo effect, as I'm sure you know very well.
>> There is no such change in register in the two frames you presented.
>> Ergo: they were taken from *exactly* the same viewpoint. To an accuracy >> of >> better than 75mm. You must take *very* small steps when you go for a >> walk.
>> I confirmed this by merging the two frames (freeform stereo viewing) and >> could not discern any stereo effect whatsoever.
>> Doug, these two shots were taken from the same place. Precisely. This >> somewhat invalidates your arguments regarding the "shots-taken-on-a-walk" >> claim.
>> Would you like some tomato sauce with that boot leather?
>> Happy Australia Day (holiday), BTW.
>> -- >> Jeff R. >> (not flaming, just observing)
> Did I not say Jeff that I had to "use software to fix the images"? > The notion that they are joined in a straight line is probably what > prompted your comment. They aren't! > That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have > a digicam they have a clue!
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid > the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to > live in the sewer?
> Douglas
and yet Douggie, here you are............. -- God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
>> >>>> Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different >> >>>> crops >> >>>> from one wide-angle shot.
>> >>> Highly unlikely as the road is on a different angle in the two >> >>> images.
>> >> Oh no, It's all explained in the text - "The path has a rise in it." >> >> :-D
>> > I'm not talking about the path. The area of the road that is common to >> > both pictures has a different angle in each.
>> No it doesn't. >> Read my earlier posts.
>> -- >> Jeff R.
> You really are a bugger for punishment Jeff. Someone tells you how it > is and you argue it's not. > That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have > a digicam they have a clue!
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid > the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to > live in the sewer?
> Douglas
and yet Douggie, here you are............. -- God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
>> (Copyright vested in Doug, fair dealing for academic use, interest & >> criticism, blah blah)
>> What did I do to your frames?
>> * I laid the two frames over each other; >> * Adjusted the distortion differences >> (since they were taken at different extremes of the lens; >> i.e. centre and edge, and therefore exhibited different >> symptoms of barrel distortion; >> * Cropped out the non-common sections; then >> * Laid them side-by-side for easy stereo viewing.
>> ...and voila!
>> There is indeed some stereo separation, and a stereo effect is >> discernable >> in the pair.
>> - but only *just* -
>> If I had taken a stereo shot with my setup (interocular around 75mm, >> remember) then the stereo effect would have been considerably more >> pronounced.
>> So, I put it to you, Doug, that the two frames you posted were taken from >> viewpoints roughly 25mm apart. That's *one* inch. Small steps indeed.
>> Dammit, Doug - line up the tree in the middle ground with the clouds. >> Same >> viewpoint!
>> I am happy to concede, Doug, that you have made an honest mistake here - >> that of the 10 or so shots you took these two happen to have been taken >> from >> the same spot, and you simply failed to notice this fact when you got >> back >> to the computer. No doubt others were indeed separated by some distance. >> (But did not make for an easy demonstration of the effect, yes?)
>> I would be much more impressed if you posted two frames which were >> demonstrably separated by a larger baseline, (say, 10m or more), >> contained >> foreground, midground and background information, and *then* you showed >> us >> all the resultant merged partial "panorama", sans distortion or >> perspective >> effects.
>> Can you show us that, Doug?
>> -- >> Jeff R.
> Don't concede anything Jeff. > Just consider that I altered each image individually I made no > mistakes in the ones I chose. I paced my shots as I alway do. I > provided two images shot at different locations which I altered the > perspective of using Flo's tools. There are many perspective > correcting filter around. I could have used any one of them.
> The keys to comprehension are: "Dozens of images" and "Software to fix > them". It's not my problem if you can't figure out the rest. I take > larger steps than 1" at a time. I'm not about to divulge any > information on my technique, only evidence that what I said about > taking paced out shots to make a panorama is possible and I produced > the evidence to substantiate my claim. Already you made a wrong > presumption that because an image has a straight line boarder, I > joined them in a straight line. Trying to make a stereo out of them is > another mistake. > That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have > a digicam they have a clue!
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid > the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to > live in the sewer?
> Douglas
and yet Douggie, here you are............. -- God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
As Douglas is likely going to disappear for a week or two to let this embarrassment pass... I'll just take the opportunity to correct his lies for the umpteenth time, just in case a newbie stumbles over this...
> The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a > name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason for > doing so.
Yes, "interesting" indeed. That sentence was posted by Douglas "St James" MacDonald, who has also posted as (deep breath..): ryadia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug, douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald, an interested bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan jones, alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix on canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham hunt, healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey fong, wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC, deciple of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple, notsimple, not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, wraped in canvas, Julian Abbot, Cryptopix, Aussie Aussie Aussie, Parallel Dreaming, Sarina Sarin, Susana Jones, Prisilla...
Not to mention variations (D_Mac, D...Mac, etc) and punctuation marks... He has used well over one hundred different names and many of them have been used to deceive or pretend he has supporters.
> The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working > professional
Have you ever noticed how true 'working professionals' *never* refer to themselves like that?
> ...Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation
Douglas has never successfully quoted a single lie, and it's only defamation when not true...
> about me because I > posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial > Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend > to sell the photos.
Here's what Douglas actually said:
> I am also registered (holding the necessary permits) with the EPA, Forest and Wildlife service
Note the comma, which suggests he is talking about the EPA and the "Forests and Wildlife service" (which doesn't exist) as two separate things. The EPA issues permits through their "Qld Parks and Wildlife" department. Those permits are not any sort of badge of honour, which is what I objected to - you simply *have* to buy one to be allowed to take images in national parks for later commercial use. It's a meaningless revenue raiser.
Similar to a being a "Member of the World Institute of Photographic masters" (sic), and a "finalist in the Queensland 2007 Business achiever's awards" (sic). (O:
> and ATSIC (the native Aboriginal corporation here)as a working Photographer
ATSIC had been disbanded for about a year when he posted this claim, and then he said:
> able to enter managed and controlled areas to take photographs for sale > and conduct "Photographic expeditions" in National Parks and on some tribal lands.
There's the LIE. ATSIC would not issue such a permit, as each community/region has different rules and ATSIC would not presume to speak for all of them. He might have got a permit for/from a single community, but usually such things are dealt with verbally. Needless to say, he never posted a copy of *that* permit from ATSIC.
Back to the current post..
> He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit.
Which he had.
> Claiming also the EPA didn't issue the permits
No, I corrected the name and, more importantly, the *intent*.
> .. I was a liar.
Yes. Douglas MacDonald was/is a liar.
> One of us certainly was.
The liar is the one who can't quote evidence. This thread contains numerous *quoted* examples of lies. All the lies are from Douglas MacDonald.
> And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the > "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my > shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was...
Yes. Douglas MacDonald.
> a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved him to be the liar.
Actually, it proved Douglas was a liar again. Several folk had asked about his current shopfront (given he claims several businesses, shouldn't be difficult to show just one..) But Douglas posted an image of a small office door, with temporary looking posters adorning the glass, and a some obvious photoshopping. I'm happy to post the evidence - I even have the *original picture* to show the doctoring he did. Interestingly, I'm told that 'shopfront' has not been occupied by Doug for some *years*.
Some folk have expressed interest in testing Douglas MacDonald's claims, but Douglas always refuses to give an address of any of his alleged 'franchises'. What does that tell you?
So that, folks, is the best Douglas can come up with regarding my 'lies', and both 'examples' prove the exact reverse.
> Did that stop him? Nah...
Nah, indeed. I shall continue outing liars and fools.
> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have a > digicam they have a clue!
> > ".." <n...@fake.com> wrote in message > >news:0R9nj.7681$421.6410@news-server.bigpond.net.au... > >> Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of > >> head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years > >> could work!
> > I'm unable to find anything I have posted that would indicate such a > > thing Douggie, I general stay out of the technical side of the photo > > discussions and stick to commenting on the actual photo's themselves.
> > Please show me the post I made saying that this method would not work, My > > records here only go back to August 2007, but I'm sure I could find all my > > posts on this group using google if needed as I dont use the x-no archive > > tag. > > ... > >> Here we go: > >> Atheist puts his foot in his mouth: > >>http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm
> > Again I ask for verifiable proof that I have said anything at all about > > this method of photography, either for or against. I will accept your > > appology with the same grace that you make it :-0
> > I shall archive this post for later referral when you do indeed come back > > and abuse the members. I don't know the name of the condition you > > obviously have, but I bet its hard to pronounce.
AC, I have perused the usenet archives at reasonable length, and I can also find nothing that suggests you made any posts on this topic.
It would appear Douglas has you confused with someone else. And of course, like the miserable sewer rat he is, no apology seems to be forthcoming, as, of course, he would have to explain WHY he made this error. This is not the first or last time Douglas has completely confused the *many* people who rightly take him to task over his incompetence, false claims, and outright lies.
I've kept an archive copy of the defamatory web-page - added to a large collection that will come back to give Douglas a valuable lesson one day..
> AC, I have perused the usenet archives at reasonable length, and I can > also find nothing that suggests you made any posts on this topic.
I recall the "debate", as it is a subject which interests me, but I can say with my hand on my heart "it weren't me what had a go at him!" (I did *think* it, 'though.) I'd offer to do a Google search, but that's against my religion.
I wish Doug wouldn't go off on a sulk.
I really want to hear his explanation. (I mean: "See his genuine samples".) As a matter of fact, I do believe that panos can be made successfully in the manner he has proposed - for long, linear subjects, pref with not much variation in depth. Think of a long block of flats, f'r'instance. There could be hell to pay on the joins, however, if one is not careful about where the overlaps are.
All my panos (to date) have been taken from one spot. Now I'm motivated to go and take some "strollin' in the park" shots. I might even resurrect my Panasonic FZ30 (with the Leica lens) to take them in RAW mode... but then I'll need to get something else heavy to stop my boat from drifting away.
|
