There has a been a brillant example of these posted here a while ago. I ll try to find the link. But I still think it all depends on how one manages toMessage 1 of 33 , Aug 2, 2009View SourceThere has a been a brillant example of these posted here a while ago. I'll try to find the link.
But I still think it all depends on how one manages to "reengineer" the way the eye adapts the light in those situations. I agree that the "cafe" is just perfect and most astounding that is just as it came out of ptgui with enfuse. I can only suspect, that it is because of the large window area. Never get such a perfect look with smaller windows. For example take a look at the "Raum2" from the same series.
It was very hard to find an acceptable way of blending the window area because there was such a huge glare around the frame. But without the glare (from darker exposures) it looked way too dark.
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bjørn K Nilssen <bk@...> wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2009 at 8:58, erik leeman wrote:
> > VR-layers, that's what Spi-V already does with the dynamic lighting blend method of
> > course. But those layers are on the same 'plane'. I am thinking about concentric cubes
> > or spheres of different dimensions, what kind of an effect would that have. Would it
> > have an effect at all?
> I think it would give you a feeling of being inside a moving (actually rotating) train?
> The problem is that it would seem to move in one direction on one wall, and the other
> direction on the other wall.
> I'm afraid I don't think it would look good at all.
> I usually think it looks best if the exterior is slightly overexposed.
> Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D
Hi Jann, Indeed mixed-light colour balance issues can really ruin interior panos with (or even without) outside views, but that was not the problem I wasMessage 33 of 33 , Aug 8, 2009View SourceHi Jann,
Indeed mixed-light colour balance issues can really ruin interior panos with (or even without) outside views, but that was not the problem I was addressing in my posting.
In real life our heads and eyes do not turn in a 'no parallax point' when we look around us, therefore everything we see seems to be moving in relation to everything else in view due to parallax. Of course our brain very cleverly 'repaints' this imaging chaos, so we are not too aware of this effect.
But at the same time we do (unconsciously) use it to judge depth, especially for distant objects. This also works if you look with just one eye.
In VR imaging we do our very best to eliminate parallax, there's no way around it for obvious reasons. But eliminating parallax has a serious drawback that becomes very apparent when you try to capture a room with a view. Of course stereo panos would solve everything, but we are not there yet, so a 'make do' solution would, for the time being, be very welcome. That was why I was thinking about creating separate layers etc. to simulate parallax. All to repair the 'exterior view pasted on the window' effect.
Any suggestions on how to re-introduce depth parallax in a 360x180 degree panorama would be very welcome indeed!
(www.erikleeman.com - www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/)
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jann_lipka" wrote:
> I would like to add my 5 cent regarding exteriour views.
> Much better way to achieve correct balance would be to light the
> room you are shooting images in . ( with flash )
> ( doing that is not easy with 360 .... )
> This is pre Photoshop way of doing interiours,
> if you are shooting just available light there will always be
> something wrong with the image .
> Even in the best examples here for example light reflections in the
> floor look way too bright for the view etc .