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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Budapest 70 Gigapixel

Expand Messages
  • mrjimbo
    I wasn t that crazy about the 70 version.. and it wasn t actually about the trees for me.. Agreeably they didn t do much for the image however. I just feel
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I wasn't that crazy about the 70 version.. and it wasn't actually about the trees for me.. Agreeably they didn't do much for the image however.
      I just feel that if your going to ask or offer to a viewer the capability to zoom at that level then the image quality needs to be there. Why would one take a viewer to a place where the image quality falls off.. that would cause one to quickly loose interest. If one is not able to maintain quality then just don't go that far with the image and the over all appreciation would probably be improved. In reality it takes the effort backwards I feel.. I feel one could have appreciated the image better by just not zooming in as much.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: prague
      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:17 AM
      Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Budapest 70 Gigapixel




      I personally had no issues with the budapest 70 gigapixel - i wrote my objections which were directed at the Rio 67 gigapixel but can be applied to many others. IMO the budapest 70 gigapixel was technically a very fine job. Although yes, it's a lot of trees ;-)

      I am becoming more interested with the idea of indoor gigapixels. I think this image could be valuable from more than just an entertainment perspective for example (say restoration...) even if it was shot at 300mm, not "just" 70mm as this one was.

      http://www.360cities.net/image/fantova-kavarna-gigapixel-prague

      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "pepoloe" <pepoloe@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hey Carlos,
      > some people like me make such panoramas just for fun, I don't earn any money with them, I don't have to care about any client and I'm only interested in the technology.
      >
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Carlos Chegado - carloschegado.com" <mail@> wrote:
      > >
      > > If you thought that reading the comments about the 70 Gigapixel panorama
      > > was fun, check this making off video.
      > >
      > > They sure go to great lengths to shoot trees don't they ;-)
      > >
      > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXyEMAwWOdk
      > >
      > > BTW: I don't see the point of shooting multi-gigapixel panoramas, other
      > > than to demonstrate a technical achievement, which makes it irrelevant
      > > to most of the comments.
      > > I am the owner of a gigapixel capable robotic head myself and I never
      > > used it, not even once for a job!
      > > I have a friend who keeps asking me if I had shot one already and I keep
      > > saying no. Well, none of my clients as ordered a gigapixel from me and I
      > > never saw the need to shoot one. Usually files up to 300 or 400MB are
      > > enough for my printing needs.
      > > Never had a request for more than that.
      > >
      > > Jeffrey is right about how worthless these images shot with long tele
      > > lenses are, I don't shoot with more than 50 or 135mm, I also don't climb
      > > to great heights to shoot roof tops ;-)
      > >
      > >
      > > Os melhores cumprimentos,
      > > Best regards,
      > >
      > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      > >
      > > Carlos Chegado
      > >
      > > Olho de Peixe Lda
      > > Rua Miguel Pais, 48 - B, 2830-356 Barreiro, Portugal
      > > Tel: (+351) 210 88 91 92, Fax: (+351) 210 88 91 99
      > >
      > > || Skype: carloschegado || facebook.com/carloschegado ||
      > > twitter.com/carloschegado ||
      > >
      > > || Fotografia 360º »» www.carloschegado.com || www.olhodepeixe.pt ||
      > > www.xprints.com ||
      > >
      > > || 360cities.net/profile/carlos-chegado || ivrpa.org/user/2153 ||
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On 27-07-2010 19:05, Carlos Chegado - carloschegado.com wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Check the new entry in the gigapixel race, the 70 gigapixel fom Budapest!
      > > >
      > > > http://70gigapixel.cloudapp.net/
      > > >
      > > > Any comments?
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • robert
      ... Boring, just boring. Don t care how many pixels there are in this image, it s BORING. One pixel is really too many in this case. Why would anyone consider
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 30, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        > Check the new entry in the gigapixel race, the 70 gigapixel fom Budapest!
        >
        > http://70gigapixel.cloudapp.net/
        >
        > Any comments?
        >
        Boring, just boring. Don't care how many pixels there are in this image, it's BORING. One pixel is really too many in this case.

        Why would anyone consider this worth the time and effort?

        Talk about trees, yes there are a lot of trees. So. There are a lot of trees.

        Just like 360's, it's a rare location/time that makes an image worthwhile. Adding more pixels to nothing, gets you nothing. Thats what this is. I don't care about the lens used or amount of moisture in the air or how close you can zoom in, the image is B.S. Not worth the time of day to consider than anything more than a flicker set of snaps presented via MS silverfish and a lot of other big corporate know nothings that think size somehow trumps all. It does not, never has, nor will.

        Image matters first, always will. Bad photography is just that, bad photography, does not matter about the size. This is simply bad photography. Works as a technical document, nothing else.

        And of course the gigapixel wars will continue forever, big is big, bigger is better? I guess it's always been a bit of photography bragging rights. O, I shoot with an 8 by 10, not a wippy 4 by 5 or only medium format will work for me and my clients. 35mm, ha... thats for Sunday photographers and on and on.

        While I don't prescribe to any kind of dogma that one pixel is worth more than another - a giga or tera pixel image of blue sky with a few interesting clouds and a tree could be wonderful, I do know if an image works for me regardless of pixel numbers.

        This image just plain sucks.

        Regards,

        Robert
      • Joost Nieuwenhuijse
        Or this one by Luca: http://www.ptgui.com/gallery/teatro_la_fenice_di_venezia_italy_panorama.html Joost
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Or this one by Luca:

          http://www.ptgui.com/gallery/teatro_la_fenice_di_venezia_italy_panorama.html

          Joost

          On 30-7-2010 18:17, prague wrote:
          >
          > I personally had no issues with the budapest 70 gigapixel - i wrote my objections which were directed at the Rio 67 gigapixel but can be applied to many others. IMO the budapest 70 gigapixel was technically a very fine job. Although yes, it's a lot of trees ;-)
          >
          > I am becoming more interested with the idea of indoor gigapixels. I think this image could be valuable from more than just an entertainment perspective for example (say restoration...) even if it was shot at 300mm, not "just" 70mm as this one was.
          >
          > http://www.360cities.net/image/fantova-kavarna-gigapixel-prague
        • Carlos Chegado - carloschegado.com
          Exactly, you have a valid point that you are trying to make a technical achievement, even if it is just for fun and that s what I said that it was obvious to
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Exactly, you have a valid point that you are trying to make a technical
            achievement, even if it is just for fun and that's what I said that it
            was obvious to me that people where doing it to extend the technical
            possibilities and possible also have fun which is good for you ;-)

            The video was even fun to watch ;-)

            What I don't get is why are people criticizing this technical
            achievement and making comments like they where expecting the supreme
            piece of modern art out of it!

            Although I am not a Gigapixel aficionado, and this one has many many
            trees, I do appreciate what you and all the others are trying to do by
            getting ahead of the curve and expanding what is possible to do with
            panoramas.

            I am sure some very beautiful art pieces will come later and people will
            look at you all, intrepid Gigapixel shooters, as pioneers.

            Greetings from Portugal.


            Os melhores cumprimentos,
            Best regards,

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Carlos Chegado

            Olho de Peixe Lda
            Rua Miguel Pais, 48 - B, 2830-356 Barreiro, Portugal
            Tel: (+351) 210 88 91 92, Fax: (+351) 210 88 91 99

            || Skype: carloschegado || facebook.com/carloschegado ||
            twitter.com/carloschegado ||

            || Fotografia 360º »» www.carloschegado.com || www.olhodepeixe.pt ||
            www.xprints.com ||

            || 360cities.net/profile/carlos-chegado || ivrpa.org/user/2153 ||




            On 30-07-2010 9:39, pepoloe wrote:
            >
            > Hey Carlos,
            > some people like me make such panoramas just for fun, I don't earn any
            > money with them, I don't have to care about any client and I'm only
            > interested in the technology.
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Carlos Chegado - carloschegado.com
            Jeff, ... Who cares about 67 Gigapixels when we have a 70 Gigapixels one??? Look, be cool, people need to make mistakes in order to fix them ;-) Os melhores
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeff,

              > i wrote my objections which were directed at the Rio 67 gigapixel

              Who cares about 67 Gigapixels when we have a 70 Gigapixels one???

              Look, be cool, people need to make mistakes in order to fix them ;-)


              Os melhores cumprimentos,
              Best regards,

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

              Carlos Chegado

              Olho de Peixe Lda
              Rua Miguel Pais, 48 - B, 2830-356 Barreiro, Portugal
              Tel: (+351) 210 88 91 92, Fax: (+351) 210 88 91 99

              || Skype: carloschegado || facebook.com/carloschegado ||
              twitter.com/carloschegado ||

              || Fotografia 360º »» www.carloschegado.com || www.olhodepeixe.pt ||
              www.xprints.com ||

              || 360cities.net/profile/carlos-chegado || ivrpa.org/user/2153 ||



              On 30-07-2010 17:17, prague wrote:
              >
              >
              > I personally had no issues with the budapest 70 gigapixel - i wrote my
              > objections which were directed at the Rio 67 gigapixel but can be
              > applied to many others. IMO the budapest 70 gigapixel was technically
              > a very fine job. Although yes, it's a lot of trees ;-)
              >
              > I am becoming more interested with the idea of indoor gigapixels. I
              > think this image could be valuable from more than just an
              > entertainment perspective for example (say restoration...) even if it
              > was shot at 300mm, not "just" 70mm as this one was.
              >
              > http://www.360cities.net/image/fantova-kavarna-gigapixel-prague
              >
              >


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