Hans raises a valid point, if I were selling my images by the pixel I'd make sure they were true pixels and I'd be clear about how I calculated them. I'd be interested to read your response to the technical analysis in Hans' email.
Cheers
Will
On 14 May 2012, at 08:28, prague wrote:
>
> Hi hans,
>
> I was going to reply to your message, but it's not worth using the neurons in my brain.
>
> Anyway, you're right that it's a good thing you're not my client.
>
> What makes me rather sad is the way you troll me, every step of the way, for many years now.
>
> I guess everyone needs a hobby.
>
> cheers,
> Jeffrey
>
> --- In #removed#, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In #removed#, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
> > >
> > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
> > > the equipment and planning I did.
> > >
> > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
> > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
> > >
> > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
> > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
> > >
> > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
> > >
> > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
> > >
> >
> > "At whopping 23-gigapixels, #
> >
> > Well maybe your original photos are that but presented size is 90.000x180.000 = 16,2 megapixel and that includes a white sky and a nadir logo.
> >
> > In reality it is just around 65 degree vertical FOV which is a 30.000x180.000 useable area = 5.4 megapixel .
> >
> > Clients are easy to cheat. Photographers not.
> >
> > Good Luck next time.
> >
> > Hans
> >
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
Next message:
Previous message: