Re: [PanoToolsNG] angle of view ???
- On 11/1/07, Milko Amorth <panotools@...> wrote:
> Hi Michel,Milko that's exactly that
> > I am not sure that this is perfectly accurate as my assumptions may
> > be wrong. But it looks good;-)
> Interesting forensic.
> I would have guessed over 180° fov. To me it does not look like a
> cylindrical projection at all. It looks more like an array of horizontal
> rectlinear tiles fudged together, rather unsuccessfully in the ceiling
> area. Again, pure speculation, but fun.
Not a cylindrical projection
The client told me that the photographer took the photos on his hands
just turning aroound on a normal tripod and at the client's agency
some young designer put all the shots together ...
But he can not remember if the photographer turn 180º or more, or even less ...
> Cheers, Milko
> Milko K. Amorth
> 360° Immersive Imaging Productions
> fx: 604.909.5125
> Skype: VRdundee
> Adobe Photographers Directory: tinyurl.com/2e3tnq
> Flickr: flickr.com/photos/vrdundee/
> Youtube: youtube.com/user/VRDundee Member of IVRPA.org (International VR
> Photography Association): ivrpa.org/user/1133
> Member of the Panorama Tools Meeting Group Europe : panotools-meeting.com/
> Contributor to the WorldWidePanorama.com Project ( University of
> California Berkeley) : tinyurl.com/233lkg
> Member of 360cities.net network VR portal
> Yahoo! Groups Links
AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com
Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101 www.vrfolio.com
Outeiro da Glória - RJ - 22211-100 - Brasil www.vr-images.com
Panoramas do Rio de Janeiro www.rio360.com.br
- --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, michel thoby <thobymichel@...> wrote:
>That guess looks about right. The earlier guess of 130 degrees seemed
> Hi Ayrton,
> I think the answer is about 167 degrees.
> As you requested it, I have tried to develop a technique to address
> this unusual specific problem.
to be too narrow. I came to my own "back-of-the-envelope" guess from
the square ceiling and floor tiles. Barring a major interruption in
the square grid, the angle is definitely fairly close to 180 degrees
but isn't quite there. It is then a matter of estimating how many
squares' depth correspond to one squares' width at the edges, then
calculating the arctangent of the width-to-depth ratio to get the
angle at each edge compared to the depth. It is clear that the view
isn't quite 180 degrees at each side, so you subtract the sum of these
calculated angles from 180 degrees to get the horizontal angle of view.
- On Thursday, November 01, 2007 at 18:41, michel thoby wrote:
> I am not sure that this is perfectly accurate as my assumptions mayThat reminds me of my experiments how to achieve the orientation
> be wrong. But it looks good;-)
plate (arc) projection. Rik Littlefield helped me then to undestand
Perhaps you could use it to verify your assumption: