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.

Here we go:
Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm

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?

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.

(update and correction to self:)

I made a stereo pair of the two frames:
http://faxmentis.org/html/jpg/walking-pano-stereo.jpg
The pair is presented here cross-eyed. Any stereo enthusiast will know how
to view it.

(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?

They *are* two different shots, but from the same viewpoint.