- Am 22.02.2013 10:29, schrieb John Houghton:
> A really impressive result with excellent sharpness maintained evenIf you zoom in you get a good resolution until there is a step where
> when zoomed right in. However there is a disturbing abrupt change in
> image quality as you zoom out - and not a change for the better,
> either. There's a nasty heavy handed processed look - presumably an
> attempt to brighten up a dull, low contrast image.
another image is loaded. Not perfectly registered and with different
contrast. This image doesn't add more details. It only increases the image.
That's no surprise, since most likely this wasn't shot at f/4 which
would be needed to produce an effective resolution of 320 GP for a
spherical panorama. Higher aperture values cause more blurring due to
diffraction. See http://wiki.panotools.org/Diffraction#Resolution for
details. The extender doesn't increase the resolution since the
effective aperture is changed as well: The table shows the same values
for 800mm f/8 and 400mm f/4.
This is the end of the gigapixel race.
- Le 22 févr. 13 à 03:20, Jeffrey Martin a écrit :
> i stitched a new pano, shot by myself, holger schulze, and tom mills.your motivation is so small that i think this image is not worth
> we made it mostly to annoy hans nyberg but it also managed to get me
> on TV yesterday.
- Am 22.02.2013 21:06, schrieb Erik Krause:
> That's no surprise, since most likely this wasn't shot at f/4 whichI was informed that actually the panorama was shot at f/2.8 which means
> would be needed to produce an effective resolution of 320 GP for a
> spherical panorama. Higher aperture values cause more blurring due to
> diffraction. Seehttp://wiki.panotools.org/Diffraction#Resolution for
> details. The extender doesn't increase the resolution since the
> effective aperture is changed as well: The table shows the same values
> for 800mm f/8 and 400mm f/4.
effective f/5.6 at 800mm. The diffraction limit for a spherical panorama
shot with that parameters is almost 900 gigapixel. Hence the resolution
of the panorama is well within the physical limits. Sorry for false
- No need for a pole!!Only the stitch of 4 or more partial panos.2013/2/24 SKAL <sir_kalot@...>
Il 22/02/2013 11:20, panokaemena@... ha scritto:> The pole has a hight of 177m http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_TowerI was not talking about the tower itself, but the pole where you
installed the panohead ... :)
<*> Wiki: http://wiki.panotools.org
<*> User Guidelines: http://wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines
<*> Nabble (Web) http://panotoolsng.586017.n4.nabble.com/
<*> NG Member Map http://www.panomaps.com/ng
<*> Moderators/List Admins: PanoToolsNGemail@example.comYahoo! Groups Links<*> Your email settings:
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
--Questa è la mia mail privata, la guardo di tanto in tanto.Se volete parlarmi di lavoro, contattatemi attraverso i siti qui sotto.