I've seen that happen to my emails every once in a while too.
Mark D. Fink wrote:
> Wow - this email got stuck in a worm hole somewhere and showed up a day
> after I sent it. The wind must have been blowing the wrong way.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> www.northernlight.net <http://www.northernlight.net/>
>
> www.pinnacle-vr.com <http://www.pinnacle-vr.com/>
>
> www.virtual-travels.com <http://www.virtual-travels.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: #removed# [mailto:#removed#] On
> Behalf Of Mark D. Fink
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 11:15 AM
> To: #removed#
> Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Re: What's a Gigapixel?
>
>
>
> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
> _____
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1144 / Virus Database: 422/3214 - Release Date: 10/23/10
>
> _____
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1144 / Virus Database: 422/3214 - Release Date: 10/23/10
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Next message:
Previous message: