A post to Facebook I made took exactly 3 months to appear.
Snail-mail returns in digital format.
Trausti
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Ken Warner <#removed#> wrote:
>
>
> 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# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> #removed# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> > Behalf Of Mark D. Fink
> > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 11:15 AM
> > To: #removed# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
> > 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# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> #removed# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> >> Behalf Of Sacha Griffin
> >> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 11:06 AM
> >> To: #removed# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> 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# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> #removed# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> >> Behalf Of Matthew Rogers
> >> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 5:24 AM
> >> To: #removed# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> 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# <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>,
> 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]
> >
> >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--
<*> Wiki: http://wiki.panotools.org
<*> User Guidelines: http://wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines
<*> Nabble (Web) http://n4.nabble.com/PanoToolsNG-f586017.html
<*> NG Member Map http://www.panomaps.com/ng
<*> Moderators/List Admins: #removed#
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
#removed#
#removed#
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
#removed#
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message:
Previous message: