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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] catadioptric lens

Expand Messages
  • Pat Swovelin
    ... Thanks. That 10 tall room looks deep enough to skydive in. Dang. ... Pat Swovelin Cool Guy @ Large
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      cyberneddy wrote:
      > Click on the button "Development History" and scroll down.

      Thanks. That 10' tall room looks deep enough to skydive in. Dang.

      > mb
      >
      > On 12/1/06, Pat Swovelin <Panoramas@...> wrote:
      >> Sacha Griffin wrote:
      >>> Couldn't anyone find the image it makes?
      >>> Wouldn't that be the thing you'd really want to see?
      >>> I checked their site and nada...
      >> I was only able to find shots OF product but nothing shot BY the
      >> product. That's not a plus advertising wise.
      >>
      >>> Sacha Griffin
      >>> Southern Digital Solutions LLC
      >>> www.southern-digital.com
      >>> www.seeit360.net
      >>> www.ezphotosafe.com
      >>> 404-551-4275
      >>> 404-731-7798
      >>>
      >>> -----Original Message-----
      >>> From: Roger Howard
      >>> [mailto:rogerhoward@...<rogerhoward%40rogerroger.org>
      >> ]
      >>> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:49 PM
      >>> To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
      >>> Subject: [PanoToolsNG] catadioptric lens
      >>>
      >>> Interesting new lens design:
      >>>
      >>>
      >> http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Inexpensive_Design_Aims_To_Improve_Indoor_
      >>> Security_Robot_Navigation_999.html
      >>>
      >>> Not going to dump my fisheye anytime soon, despite all the anti-fisheye
      >>> rhetoric, but if these are really so inexpensive it could be fun for
      >>> playing with (and based on the samples on the product web site I doubt
      >>> it'll be much good for anything beyond play!).
      >>>
      >>> Certainly interesting to see such extreme wide rectilinear images...
      >>>
      >>> -Rh




      Pat Swovelin
      Cool Guy @ Large
    • jeffrey
      This looks like a PR stunt to me. first of all, the images are all pointing down. all the lines are straight in a fisheye image too, pointing down. second,
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        This looks like a PR stunt to me. first of all, the images are all
        pointing down. all the lines are straight in a fisheye image too,
        pointing down. second, it's just a nasty mirror, not a parabolic
        mirror, but some other shape. what's the big deal?
      • rogerhoward@rogerroger.org
        ... Oh. I agree. The marketing BS in the various articles is a bit thick. This is a relatively cheap, obviously dubious quality reflector; frankly I don t find
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On Dec 1, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Roger D. Williams wrote:

          > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 06:49:02 +0900, Roger Howard
          > <rogerhoward@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Interesting new lens design:
          > >
          > >http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/
          > Inexpensive_Design_Aims_To_Improve_Indoor_Security_Robot_Navigation_99
          > 9.html
          > >
          > > Not going to dump my fisheye anytime soon, despite all the anti-
          > fisheye
          > > rhetoric, but if these are really so inexpensive it could be fun for
          > > playing with (and based on the samples on the product web site I
          > doubt
          > > it'll be much good for anything beyond play!).
          > >
          > > Certainly interesting to see such extreme wide rectilinear images...
          >
          > As you say, Roger. But it is always surprising to me how the fact that
          > straight lines remain straight in the final images is seen as implying
          > that there is no distortion. In fact there is simply a substitution of
          > one form of distortion for another. The extreme spatial distortion you
          > get in the corners of rectilinear images is quite as disturbing to me
          > as the curvilinear distortion your get from fisheyes. And at the kinds
          > of FOV they are achieving this becomes VERY pronounced.

          Oh. I agree. The marketing BS in the various articles is a bit thick.
          This is a relatively cheap, obviously dubious quality reflector;
          frankly I don't find 150 degree rectilinear images all that useful,
          I'd *rather* look at a fisheye at that FOV. And yes, distortion is
          obvious; I mean if we can expect fisheyes to be called distorted then
          I would certainly call any such wide rectilinear image distorted, as
          this is *nothing* like what my brain sees in the real world.

          Btw guys, there *are* image samples, at the manufacturers site, in
          all their glorious craptitude.

          -Rh
        • Serge Maandag (yahoo)
          I m over 400 posts behind on the list and catching up, so this is a bit of a late reply.. ... I agree to that.. ... Well, theoretically the rectilinear image
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm over 400 posts behind on the list and catching up, so this is a bit
            of a late reply..

            > frankly I don't find 150 degree rectilinear images all that useful,
            > I'd *rather* look at a fisheye at that FOV.

            I agree to that..

            > I mean if we can expect fisheyes to be called distorted then
            > I would certainly call any such wide rectilinear image distorted, as
            > this is *nothing* like what my brain sees in the real world.

            Well, theoretically the rectilinear image is undistorted if you look at it
            from a distance of 1 cm. If the viewing angle is as big as the projection
            angle, the distortion is gone..

            (just had to mention, sorry..)

            Serge.
          • Luca Vascon
            ... From: Serge Maandag (yahoo) To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:25 AM Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] catadioptric lens I m over
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 10, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              :-DDD



              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Serge Maandag (yahoo)
              To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:25 AM
              Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] catadioptric lens


              I'm over 400 posts behind on the list and catching up, so this is a bit
              of a late reply..

              > frankly I don't find 150 degree rectilinear images all that useful,
              > I'd *rather* look at a fisheye at that FOV.

              I agree to that..

              > I mean if we can expect fisheyes to be called distorted then
              > I would certainly call any such wide rectilinear image distorted, as
              > this is *nothing* like what my brain sees in the real world.

              Well, theoretically the rectilinear image is undistorted if you look at it
              from a distance of 1 cm. If the viewing angle is as big as the projection
              angle, the distortion is gone..

              (just had to mention, sorry..)

              Serge.




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