Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gigapan & Canon G9 examples

Expand Messages
  • pepoloe
    I guess the calibration is needed to set up the movement of the servo. You would need to calibrate first for maximum possible movement. Gentled should work as
    Message 1 of 61 , Sep 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I guess the calibration is needed to set up the movement of the servo.
      You would need to calibrate first for maximum possible movement.
      Gentled should work as soon it recognizes a big enough change in the
      signal modulation of the servo channel.
      I used Gentled already with the panobot and the Minolta A-200. It
      worked well, but IR shooter in general has some limitations compared
      with the cable release.
      Bernhard, sorry for messing up this thread, maybe we should open a new
      discussion on the technical details ...

      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jo4mail" <jo4mail@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Traugott,
      >
      > the gentleds are fine, but the GP does an initial calibrating on the
      > servo, I dont know how this could be done with gent360.
      >
      > I totally agree that an opensource/openhardware-concept needs
      > dedicated admin and is not a side job.
      >
      > cheers
      > Paul
      >
    • Sacha Griffin
      That should be obvious.. heh. Prime versus zoom. The problem, is 28 isn t really wide enough to be really useful for a lot of interior work, and composition
      Message 61 of 61 , Sep 23, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        That should be obvious.. heh.

        Prime versus zoom.

        The problem, is 28 isn't really wide enough to be really useful for a lot of
        interior work, and composition without zoom and difficult to say the least,
        since you often don't have placement luxury.

        As an exterior lens, I'm sure it's a great lens to have.

        I've always wondered how the MK2 stacks up against, the 10-22, since you
        aren't using the outer parts of the lens with the 10-22.





        Sacha Griffin

        Southern Digital Solutions LLC

        http://www.southern-digital.com

        http://www.seeit360.net

        404-551-4275







        From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Matthew Rogers
        Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:05 PM
        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Visible image degadation



        Well I've tested the 28 f1.8 and 28 f2.8 against the 16-35 MKI/MK2 and
        even the 28 f2.8 easily beats the 16-35 @28 for resolution and
        sharpness. The 28mm f1.8 kills it.

        Matt

        On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:50, Sacha Griffin wrote:

        > I thought the resolution displayed on the landscape was "decent".
        > The shot
        > was just a little fuzzy, most likely due to the obvious aberration
        > evident
        > all over the image.
        >
        > From what I've heard the 16-35 canon zoom, (canon, zoom, even wider)
        > is a
        > real hummer of a lens and a different beast altogether than this
        > cheapo
        > lens.
        >
        > The portrait was a good display of the highlight priority perhaps.
        >
        > The landscape wasn't a good example of anything really.
        >
        > Sacha Griffin
        >
        > Southern Digital Solutions LLC
        >
        > http://www.southern-digital.com
        >
        > http://www.seeit360.net
        >
        > 404-551-4275





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.