The point is very clear to me.
Web is not the only one target possible.
In gigapixel imaging, clouds and waves move fast, as sunlight, and are
not the main subjects of the whole thing.
Hans Nyberg ha scritto:
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>, Jook Leung <jook360@...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Is anyone using PTGui or AutoPano Pro to merge/stitch images shot at
> > different focal lengths together? I've always had the notion of
> > putting higher res detail (regions of interest) into a lower res base
> > panorama that has been sized-up to the same pixel density.
> > For example, quickly shoot the scene at 8-10mm to establish a base
> > panorama (like the sky and ground) and then zoom in to 17-20mm) and
> > shoot the horizon of the panorama at higher resolution and combining/
> > stitching the two.
> I have to say that I can not see the idea.
> Not today.
> Back in 2002 I had the same idea, it did make sense to me then as
> doing a large high
> resolution panorama was a lot of work then. I wanted to combine a
> Sigma 8mm from my
> D60 and a cylindric high resolution to get better result.
> It worked but I never really used it.
> Today I can not see why I should use it. I can make a 13000x6500 with
> the Tokina at
> 17mm and I only need 6 +3 images. Multirow is almost as easy.
> You gain very little in download making a sort of multiresolution,
> If you want to do it you can use the full resolution and make one in a
> few minutes.
> I have done one based on a 10000x5000 combined with a 3000x1500
> The downsampled pano was blurred slightly before interpolating it back
> to 10000x5000
> As you can see from this screenshot only a narrow band at the center
> was left in the
> original full resolution
> The resulting panorama is 5179 kb at 3108x3108 cubefaces
> The original full resolution made with exactly the same compression
> and cubefaces is
> I have done another pano with the same result. 20% saved in compressed