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

Re: wembley gigapixel 2012

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , May 14, 2012
    • 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
      J├╝rgen


      --- 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.