|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 1/14/2006
|
Interesting experiment, Jim. My original suggestion for the panorama display on Usefilm (I've been pushing for it for over two years) was to allow any pixel product up to the maximum, so 1200 x 600 or (extreme case, and useful here) 2400 x 300. That would work pretty well... Have you tried the PTGui stitching software? It has some very sophisticated features for fine tuning but can also be used almost entirely automatically for really fast stitching. I use it for stitching circular fisheye shots into immersive panoramas, another feature I'd like to see implemented here.
|
|
|
|
Bill Morgenstern
{K:7157} 12/29/2005
|
Excellent w i d e angle shot. I would also like it larger to get the full effect and detail.
Cheers and thanks for comment on my image.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Darlene Boucher
{K:15739} 12/28/2005
|
Great job on the testing Jim! Hope your New Year is wonderful, take care my friend! Darlene
|
|
|
|
Cássia Rabetti
{K:480} 12/28/2005
|
Oi Jim!
Lindíssima sua foto panorâmica!
Gostei muito!
Belo trabalho!
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Goldstein
{K:21230} 12/22/2005
|
Hugo... I think this was made from 8-10 images. The full size version looks more seemless than the smaller version, but it is not perfect by any means. This was just a first attempt to see how the changes here handle my panoramics. The full version shows great detail in Mendocino's Main street. The small version I wanted to upload is 6674x925... but that in itself isn't so small for forums like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Goldstein
{K:21230} 12/22/2005
|
Hugo... I think this was made from 8-10 images. The full size version looks more seemless than the smaller version, but it is not perfect by any means. This was just a first attempt to see how the changes here handle my panoramics. The full version shows great detail in Mendocino's Main street. The small version I wanted to upload is 6674x925... but that in itself isn't so small for forums like this.
|
|
|
|
Ann Nida
{K:45248} 12/22/2005
|
I'm still only viewing panos at 750 X 104. Seems to be a lot of wasted space with the grey sides. Shame the photos can't go the full width of the screen now although I see some people have managed to do away with the grey sides. I'm sure this is a beautiful panorama Jim. I'll have to go check out your own website to see more of your work.
I hope you ahve a Merry Christmas and best wishes for a Happy New Year.
Cheers - Ann :)
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 12/22/2005
|
Hi Jim,
Your comments to me made me visit your portfolio, and I'm rather taken aback by your bio; you do take things seriously, and it seems we share a few common interests that go beyond photography alone.
The first thought I had when I looked at the thumbnail is that it was slightly tilted counter clockwise; but then I noticed I was looking at the top of the cliff, and not the horizon; the obvious trouble with such a wide panorama.
Continuing nitpicking, I think a bit of dodging in the sea would remove the last remainders of stitching marks, but that's barely worht mentioning.
What I like best about this shot is that the gradually diminishing slip of land is very well countered by the inclusion of the trees on the right. It balances the composition perfectly, and closes the composition vertically.
1200px wide is not nearly enough for this image ratio; A 7 shot stitch? I'd love to see the details in this one in print...:)
Cheers,
hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Goldstein
{K:21230} 12/22/2005
|
Thanks Michael I'm not really satisfied with the display but I wanted to try. This is a gigantic image and is super detailed it just doesn't come across anywhere close in the large version :(
This is one of the smaller panoramics I have too. Looks like they may remain unposted for a while longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Wagner
{K:5896} 12/22/2005
|
Superb and super wide!
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Goldstein
{K:21230} 12/22/2005
|
Just testing out the new panoramic functionality... still not enough room for my panoramics :(
|
|
0 
