How about this: measure the size of a pano based on the total number of
pixels from the source images less the overlap? If I shoot four 3000x2000
fisheye images where the top and bottom show 180 degrees and left to right
is 120 degrees, I'll have almost 24 megapixels of original image data going
into it.
Since there is a 33% overlap, (120 degrees x 4 = 480 which is 360*1.333, I'm
only using just below 18 megapixels of original data going into the image.
This is assuming that I stitch to maximum detail as per PTGui and don't push
beyond that.
Does this make sense?
Mark
www.northernlight.net
www.virtual-travels.com
www.pinnacle-vr.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: #removed# [mailto:#removed#] On
> Behalf Of Sacha Griffin
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 11:06 AM
> To: #removed#
> Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Re: What's a Gigapixel?
>
> I think what you fail to see is that you consider 6000x3000 to BE the
> image
> when in fact it's a representation of the image instead.. The projection
> if
> you will.
> If you change projections, these numbers "6000x3000" will become a new set
> of numbers based on a nearly arbitrary decision about how are you trying
> to
> preserve the original detail.
> For example, take your gigpixel image set with 180 fov... and try to
> output
> your projection to rectilinear while trying to keep every possible
> detail...
> Based on some thoughts about it, you might end up with 1000 gigapixel
> image
> instead.
>
> Whether or not a gigapixel image is a gigapixel image is more or less up
> to
> the creator of the image and any attempts to validate it based on the
> dimensions of the final image is silly.
> Or you can simply call it a gigapixel image based on the output
> dimensions,
> but the actual detail resolution between different "gigapixel" images will
> still be comparing apples to oranges.
> A .5 gigapixel image may be far superior to a 2 gigapixel image in cases.
>
> s
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: #removed# [mailto:#removed#] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Rogers
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 5:24 AM
> To: #removed#
> Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: What's a Gigapixel?
>
> But the projection is irrelevant and YES a 6000 x 3000 images regardless
> of
> it's projection or content IS 18 megapixels. Stop trying to make issues
> where none exist.
>
> It's the same as a megapixel, these terms are simply units that represent
> a
> quantity just like a litre, gallon, mile, kilometre etc.
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gigapixel
>
> It's like trying to argue how long a mile is based on the type of car and
> speed I'm driving to cover it.
>
> On 22 Oct 2010, at 09:33, prague wrote:
>
> > in that logic, a 6000x3000 equirect panorama is 18 megapixels.
> >
> > even though the top and bottom row of pixels (that's 18000 pixels) is
> > in reality TWO pixels in a spherhical projection)
> >
> > So sorry matt, everything is really not so simple, even if you would
> like
> it to be.
> >
> > --- In #removed#, Matthew Rogers <matthew@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > No it simply is not, a 6mp camera like the D70 has images which are
> 3000px x 2000px or 6 million pixels hence 6 megapixels. You can look at it
> anyway you want but a gigapixel image has to be 1,000,000,000 pixels
> regardless of the projection, crop etc. If the final image doesn't have a
> billion pixels then it aint a gigapixel image.
> > >
> > > I do love how panoramic photographers seem to be addicted to making
> things more convoluted and more difficult then necessary.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > >
> > > On 19 Oct 2010, at 20:39, Christian Bloch wrote:
> > >
> > > > Right.
> > > >
> > > > Elaborating my the chain of thought from last night, we could say
> that
> a panorama that matches the human visual field with 4 times the resolution
> of the human eye, is in fact a Gigapixel panorama.
> > > >
> > > > (200 hFOV x 135 vFOV) x (200 pixels per degree)^2 = 1,080,000,000
> pixels.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, that relies on the fact that Wikipedia is right about the
> numbers....
> > > >
> > > > Blochi
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Bernhard Vogl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm also using the term "pixels per degree" to explain people
> > > > > how detailed a panorama actually is. You still can cheat by
> > > > > using another projection but it is very useful to explain the
> > > > > difference between a large and a small FOV image...
> > > > >
> > > > > Bernhard
> > > >
> > > > [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]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
Next message:
Previous message: