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

Re: wembley gigapixel 2012

Expand Messages
  • panoramicsdk
    ... BTW if you have not upgraded to the last flash version, do it. It s a large improvement. Zooming with scroll mouse finally works on Mac. Hans
    Message 1 of 14 , May 10, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "guillaume_fulchiron" <guillaume.fulchiron@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Jeffrey,
      > >
      > > I notice that when panorama is opened fullscreen, zoom in/out keyboard shortcuts are not usable.
      > > Is it just me ?
      > > (FF 12.0)
      >
      > Thats how it's always been in flash.
      > You need to use navigation buttons or scroll on mouse in fullscreen.

      BTW if you have not upgraded to the last flash version, do it.
      It's a large improvement.
      Zooming with scroll mouse finally works on Mac.

      Hans


      >
      > Hans
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Cheers,
      > >
      > > G.
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
      > > > the equipment and planning I did.
      > > >
      > > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
      > > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
      > > >
      > > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
      > > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
      > > >
      > > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
      > > >
      > > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Peter
      So, was it worth doing? I mean, it is a very remarkable image, but what is the gratification? Were you well paid to create it or was it a labor of love?
      Message 2 of 14 , May 11, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        So, was it worth doing? I mean, it is a very remarkable image, but what is the gratification? Were you well paid to create it or was it a labor of love?

        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@...> wrote:
        >
        > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
        > the equipment and planning I did.
        >
        > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
        > process really was to get the image in this shape.
        >
        > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
        > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
        >
        > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
        >
        > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
        >
      • Luc Villeneuve
        Hi Jeffrey, So... After all that hard work. What was the main problem? The shooting? The software workflow? Could you improve the image by shooting top- down
        Message 3 of 14 , May 11, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Jeffrey,

          So... After all that hard work. What was the main problem? The shooting? The software workflow? 

          Could you improve the image by shooting top->down instead left->right?

          If you use PTGUI, couldn't you create a template prior to the event of the stadium, and just apply the template with the action shots to process the "real" images?

          Luc


          On 11 mai 2012, at 08:24, Peter wrote:

           

          So, was it worth doing? I mean, it is a very remarkable image, but what is the gratification? Were you well paid to create it or was it a labor of love?

          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@...> wrote:
          >
          > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
          > the equipment and planning I did.
          >
          > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
          > process really was to get the image in this shape.
          >
          > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
          > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
          >
          > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
          >
          > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
          >


        • prague
          we were well paid :)
          Message 4 of 14 , May 12, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            we were well paid :)

            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Peter" <peter@...> wrote:
            >
            > So, was it worth doing? I mean, it is a very remarkable image, but what is the gratification? Were you well paid to create it or was it a labor of love?
            >
            > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
            > >
            > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
            > > the equipment and planning I did.
            > >
            > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
            > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
            > >
            > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
            > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
            > >
            > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
            > >
            > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
            > >
            >
          • prague
            There were many problems. Mainly, they wanted a larger image than last year, and it was hard to do that :) and I probably didn t prepare for it quite as much
            Message 5 of 14 , May 12, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              There were many problems.

              Mainly, they wanted a larger image than last year, and it was hard to do that :) and I probably didn't prepare for it quite as much as I should have.

              However there were some really weird stitching problems that I couldn't solve even one week later. One of those mysteries that I might never solve.

              Jeff



              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Luc Villeneuve <luc_villeneuve@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Jeffrey,
              >
              > So... After all that hard work. What was the main problem? The shooting? The software workflow?
              >
              > Could you improve the image by shooting top->down instead left->right?
              >
              > If you use PTGUI, couldn't you create a template prior to the event of the stadium, and just apply the template with the action shots to process the "real" images?
              >
              > Luc
              >
              >
              > On 11 mai 2012, at 08:24, Peter wrote:
              >
              > > So, was it worth doing? I mean, it is a very remarkable image, but what is the gratification? Were you well paid to create it or was it a labor of love?
              > >
              > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
              > > > the equipment and planning I did.
              > > >
              > > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
              > > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
              > > >
              > > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
              > > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
              > > >
              > > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
              > > >
              > > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              >
            • Hans
              ... At whopping 23-gigapixels, # Well maybe your original photos are that but presented size is 90.000x180.000 = 16,2 megapixel and that includes a white
              Message 6 of 14 , May 12, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@...> wrote:
                >
                > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
                > the equipment and planning I did.
                >
                > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
                > process really was to get the image in this shape.
                >
                > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
                > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
                >
                > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
                >
                > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
                >

                "At whopping 23-gigapixels, #

                Well maybe your original photos are that but presented size is 90.000x180.000 = 16,2 megapixel and that includes a white sky and a nadir logo.

                In reality it is just around 65 degree vertical FOV which is a 30.000x180.000 useable area = 5.4 megapixel .

                Clients are easy to cheat. Photographers not.

                Good Luck next time.

                Hans
              • prague
                Hi hans, I was going to reply to your message, but it s not worth using the neurons in my brain. Anyway, you re right that it s a good thing you re not my
                Message 7 of 14 , May 14, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi hans,

                  I was going to reply to your message, but it's not worth using the neurons in my brain.

                  Anyway, you're right that it's a good thing you're not my client.

                  What makes me rather sad is the way you troll me, every step of the way, for many years now.

                  I guess everyone needs a hobby.

                  cheers,
                  Jeffrey



                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
                  > > the equipment and planning I did.
                  > >
                  > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
                  > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
                  > >
                  > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
                  > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
                  > >
                  > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
                  > >
                  > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
                  > >
                  >
                  > "At whopping 23-gigapixels, #
                  >
                  > Well maybe your original photos are that but presented size is 90.000x180.000 = 16,2 megapixel and that includes a white sky and a nadir logo.
                  >
                  > In reality it is just around 65 degree vertical FOV which is a 30.000x180.000 useable area = 5.4 megapixel .
                  >
                  > Clients are easy to cheat. Photographers not.
                  >
                  > Good Luck next time.
                  >
                  > Hans
                  >
                • Will Pearson
                  Hans raises a valid point, if I were selling my images by the pixel I d make sure they were true pixels and I d be clear about how I calculated them. I d be
                  Message 8 of 14 , May 14, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hans raises a valid point, if I were selling my images by the pixel I'd make sure they were true pixels and I'd be clear about how I calculated them. I'd be interested to read your response to the technical analysis in Hans' email.

                    Cheers

                    Will


                    On 14 May 2012, at 08:28, prague wrote:

                     


                    Hi hans,

                    I was going to reply to your message, but it's not worth using the neurons in my brain.

                    Anyway, you're right that it's a good thing you're not my client.

                    What makes me rather sad is the way you troll me, every step of the way, for many years now.

                    I guess everyone needs a hobby.

                    cheers,
                    Jeffrey

                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
                    > > the equipment and planning I did.
                    > >
                    > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
                    > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
                    > >
                    > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
                    > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
                    > >
                    > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
                    > >
                    > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
                    > >
                    >
                    > "At whopping 23-gigapixels, #
                    >
                    > Well maybe your original photos are that but presented size is 90.000x180.000 = 16,2 megapixel and that includes a white sky and a nadir logo.
                    >
                    > In reality it is just around 65 degree vertical FOV which is a 30.000x180.000 useable area = 5.4 megapixel .
                    >
                    > Clients are easy to cheat. Photographers not.
                    >
                    > Good Luck next time.
                    >
                    > Hans
                    >


                    ______________________________________________________________________
                    This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
                    For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
                    ______________________________________________________________________

                  • Ben Knill
                    It s a real shame that the work Jeffrey does to further the industry get s this kind of reaction from a community who ultimately benefits. Whatever the issues,
                    Message 9 of 14 , May 14, 2012
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It's a real shame that the work Jeffrey does to further the industry get's this kind of reaction from a community who ultimately benefits. 

                      Whatever the issues, these panoramas are being used at major global events by many thousands of people who may not have come across the technology otherwise. 

                      Congratulations Jeffrey.  I personally applaud what your doing. 

                      On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:28 PM, prague <panoramas@...> wrote:
                       


                      Hi hans,

                      I was going to reply to your message, but it's not worth using the neurons in my brain.

                      Anyway, you're right that it's a good thing you're not my client.

                      What makes me rather sad is the way you troll me, every step of the way, for many years now.

                      I guess everyone needs a hobby.

                      cheers,
                      Jeffrey



                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
                      > > the equipment and planning I did.
                      > >
                      > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
                      > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
                      > >
                      > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
                      > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
                      > >
                      > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
                      > >
                      > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
                      > >
                      >
                      > "At whopping 23-gigapixels, #
                      >
                      > Well maybe your original photos are that but presented size is 90.000x180.000 = 16,2 megapixel and that includes a white sky and a nadir logo.
                      >
                      > In reality it is just around 65 degree vertical FOV which is a 30.000x180.000 useable area = 5.4 megapixel .
                      >
                      > Clients are easy to cheat. Photographers not.
                      >
                      > Good Luck next time.
                      >
                      > Hans
                      >


                    • prague
                      Hi Will, the full image size was 340,000 pixels wide. no matter how you might want to count it, it was MORE than the 25 gigapixels stated. i made the final
                      Message 10 of 14 , May 14, 2012
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Will,

                        the full image size was 340,000 pixels wide. no matter how you might want to count it, it was MORE than the 25 gigapixels stated.

                        i made the final version 180,000 pixels as a balance between size, quality, performance, and the time needed to save, tile, and upload the final image (the clock was ticking)

                        cheers,
                        Jeffrey

                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Will Pearson <list@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hans raises a valid point, if I were selling my images by the pixel I'd make sure they were true pixels and I'd be clear about how I calculated them. I'd be interested to read your response to the technical analysis in Hans' email.
                        >
                        > Cheers
                        >
                        > Will
                        >
                        >
                        > On 14 May 2012, at 08:28, prague wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        > > Hi hans,
                        > >
                        > > I was going to reply to your message, but it's not worth using the neurons in my brain.
                        > >
                        > > Anyway, you're right that it's a good thing you're not my client.
                        > >
                        > > What makes me rather sad is the way you troll me, every step of the way, for many years now.
                        > >
                        > > I guess everyone needs a hobby.
                        > >
                        > > cheers,
                        > > Jeffrey
                        > >
                        > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours with
                        > > > > the equipment and planning I did.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly the
                        > > > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that was
                        > > > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
                        > > > >
                        > > > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > "At whopping 23-gigapixels, #
                        > > >
                        > > > Well maybe your original photos are that but presented size is 90.000x180.000 = 16,2 megapixel and that includes a white sky and a nadir logo.
                        > > >
                        > > > In reality it is just around 65 degree vertical FOV which is a 30.000x180.000 useable area = 5.4 megapixel .
                        > > >
                        > > > Clients are easy to cheat. Photographers not.
                        > > >
                        > > > Good Luck next time.
                        > > >
                        > > > Hans
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ______________________________________________________________________
                        > > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
                        > > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
                        > > ______________________________________________________________________
                        >
                      • jrgen_schrader
                        I agree with Hans and Will, these points are valid. Especially when photographer and customer are claiming in public they have created a whatsoever record .
                        Message 11 of 14 , May 14, 2012
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I agree with Hans and Will, these points are valid.

                          Especially when photographer and customer are claiming in public they have created a whatsoever "record".

                          And there is no need to disparage someone who is pointing with his fingers on this issue. Why not take this dispute serious and turn it into a fruitful discussion?

                          Where do you see a benefit? Should we all go out now and cheat on our customers with wrong numbers? Do we all have to produce an insane number of pixels with faster machines just to get next time a higher number then our neighbor, no matter what the result looks like?

                          How long do you guess those "marketing tools" will be valid?

                          How many so called "photographers" will make money from this?

                          How long will it take until someone is looking on these more seriously?

                          I really don't envy those who went into this specific business. It's full of pain, pitfalls and imponderables. And it definitely won't get any better if you start to woo your customers with supernatural tools and unhealthy records.

                          Enjoy your time
                          Jürgen


                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ben Knill <benknill@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > It's a real shame that the work Jeffrey does to further the industry get's
                          > this kind of reaction from a community who ultimately benefits.
                          >
                          > Whatever the issues, these panoramas are being used at major global events
                          > by many thousands of people who may not have come across the technology
                          > otherwise.
                          >
                          > Congratulations Jeffrey. I personally applaud what your doing.
                          >
                          > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:28 PM, prague <panoramas@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > **
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Hi hans,
                          > >
                          > > I was going to reply to your message, but it's not worth using the neurons
                          > > in my brain.
                          > >
                          > > Anyway, you're right that it's a good thing you're not my client.
                          > >
                          > > What makes me rather sad is the way you troll me, every step of the way,
                          > > for many years now.
                          > >
                          > > I guess everyone needs a hobby.
                          > >
                          > > cheers,
                          > > Jeffrey
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > a pano of this size turned out to be not entirely doable in 24 hours
                          > > with
                          > > > > the equipment and planning I did.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > people here, you might only see errors. but you have no idea how ugly
                          > > the
                          > > > > process really was to get the image in this shape.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > it is actually a miracle that anything got online at all :) and that
                          > > was
                          > > > > with a 16-core 192GB ram workstation.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > http://wembley360.wembleystadium.com
                          > > > >
                          > > > > the next one will be this size, but perfect..... :)
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > "At whopping 23-gigapixels, #
                          > > >
                          > > > Well maybe your original photos are that but presented size is
                          > > 90.000x180.000 = 16,2 megapixel and that includes a white sky and a nadir
                          > > logo.
                          > > >
                          > > > In reality it is just around 65 degree vertical FOV which is a
                          > > 30.000x180.000 useable area = 5.4 megapixel .
                          > > >
                          > > > Clients are easy to cheat. Photographers not.
                          > > >
                          > > > Good Luck next time.
                          > > >
                          > > > Hans
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.