Stepping out a panorama (the method that can't be done!)

3 views
Skip to first unread message

..

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 8:02:52 PM1/27/08
to
Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he
may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich than the recent method
of using a rotating head on a tripod to harvest the images to work with.
I've owned fixed and swing lens panorama camera so the advise came from
experience... Unlike the replies!

Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of
head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years
could work!

The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a
name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason for
doing so. The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working
professional and the Pro produces evidence he is not just wrong but a
pedantic fool as well!

It's sort of like when that Childs puppet Charles Stevens (calling himself
Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation about me because I
posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial
Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend
to sell the photos.

He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit. Claiming also the EPA
didn't issue the permits, I was a liar. Yep. One of us certainly was. and it
wasn't me!

And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the
"you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my
shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was... The
scan of the permit and a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved
him to be the liar.

Did that stop him? Nah... Weak minded morons like him and the wanker calling
himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart that if they can't
understand something or can't do it themselves, it can't be done.

Here we go:
Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm

Charles Stevens (Mark Thomas 7th) Did it long before him. and I have no
doubt whatsoever, there will be idiots with hateful minds and no brains
imitating these fools long after they have left the group.

That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have a
digicam they have a clue!

Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid the
idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to live in
the sewer?

Douglas


Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 8:24:55 PM1/27/08
to

".." <n...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:0R9nj.7681$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Here we go:
> Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:
> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm


Douglas, in the two frames you presented, if you look at the pole next to
the footpath (just beyond and to the right of the dark-reddish hatch) you'l
notice that it lines up (*almost* exactly) with the base of the mast on the
yacht in the first row of moorings.

In *both* frames.

Now there is considerable distance (range from the camera, that is) between
these two objects, yet they line up identically in both frames.

This is a very simple indicator that both frames were taken from the same
viewpoint. Almost exactly.

I take stereo pairs (as an indulgence) and the two cameras I use are
separated by (roughly) my interocular distance of about 75mm (3" in
old-speak). When I take a similar shot(s) to the one(s) you have presented,
objects that are separated by so much depth are noticeably out of register
with each other in the stereo pair.

This is what creates the stereo effect, as I'm sure you know very well.

There is no such change in register in the two frames you presented.

Ergo: they were taken from *exactly* the same viewpoint. To an accuracy of
better than 75mm. You must take *very* small steps when you go for a walk.

I confirmed this by merging the two frames (freeform stereo viewing) and
could not discern any stereo effect whatsoever.

Doug, these two shots were taken from the same place. Precisely. This
somewhat invalidates your arguments regarding the "shots-taken-on-a-walk"
claim.

Would you like some tomato sauce with that boot leather?

Happy Australia Day (holiday), BTW.

--
Jeff R.
(not flaming, just observing)

Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 9:16:41 PM1/27/08
to

"Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:479d2ee7$0$26204$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

(update and correction to self:)

>
> I confirmed this by merging the two frames (freeform stereo viewing) and
> could not discern any stereo effect whatsoever.

I hadn't convinced myself thoroughly, as it wasn't easy merging the two
frames differently framed shots freeform, so...

I made a stereo pair of the two frames:
http://faxmentis.org/html/jpg/walking-pano-stereo.jpg
The pair is presented here cross-eyed. Any stereo enthusiast will know how
to view it.

(Copyright vested in Doug, fair dealing for academic use, interest &
criticism, blah blah)

What did I do to your frames?

* I laid the two frames over each other;
* Adjusted the distortion differences
(since they were taken at different extremes of the lens;
i.e. centre and edge, and therefore exhibited different
symptoms of barrel distortion;
* Cropped out the non-common sections; then
* Laid them side-by-side for easy stereo viewing.

...and voila!

There is indeed some stereo separation, and a stereo effect is discernable
in the pair.

- but only *just* -

If I had taken a stereo shot with my setup (interocular around 75mm,
remember) then the stereo effect would have been considerably more
pronounced.

So, I put it to you, Doug, that the two frames you posted were taken from
viewpoints roughly 25mm apart. That's *one* inch. Small steps indeed.

Dammit, Doug - line up the tree in the middle ground with the clouds. Same
viewpoint!

I am happy to concede, Doug, that you have made an honest mistake here -
that of the 10 or so shots you took these two happen to have been taken from
the same spot, and you simply failed to notice this fact when you got back
to the computer. No doubt others were indeed separated by some distance.
(But did not make for an easy demonstration of the effect, yes?)

I would be much more impressed if you posted two frames which were
demonstrably separated by a larger baseline, (say, 10m or more), contained
foreground, midground and background information, and *then* you showed us
all the resultant merged partial "panorama", sans distortion or perspective
effects.

Can you show us that, Doug?

--
Jeff R.


Wilba

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 10:40:20 PM1/27/08
to
Jeff R. wrote:

> Jeff R. wrote:
>
> (update and correction to self:)

Congratulations, Jeff, on your observation and analysis skills.

> So, I put it to you, Doug, that the two frames you posted were taken from
> viewpoints roughly 25mm apart. That's *one* inch. Small steps indeed.

Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different crops from
one wide-angle shot.


Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 10:49:27 PM1/27/08
to
".." <n...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:0R9nj.7681$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he
> may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich than the recent
> method of using a rotating head on a tripod to harvest the images to work
> with. I've owned fixed and swing lens panorama camera so the advise came
> from experience... Unlike the replies!
>
> Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of
> head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years
> could work!
>

I'm unable to find anything I have posted that would indicate such a thing
Douggie, I general stay out of the technical side of the photo discussions
and stick to commenting on the actual photo's themselves. I do this for one
very simple reason, I dont have a deep knowlege of a lot of the things
discussed, so instead I read and learn.

> The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a
> name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason
> for doing so.

So your reason for using the name ".." at the moment is because??
While my online nic is in fact an oxymoron, it is no more or less
appropriate that someone calling themselves Julian Abbot, or any other of a
long list of aliases that you have used in the past, even to the extent of
outright fabricating an identity to prop up one of your many lost arguments.

The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working
> professional and the Pro produces evidence he is not just wrong but a
> pedantic fool as well!
>

Please show me the post I made saying that this method would not work, My
records here only go back to August 2007, but I'm sure I could find all my
posts on this group using google if needed as I dont use the x-no archive
tag.

> It's sort of like when that Childs puppet Charles Stevens (calling himself
> Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation about me because
> I posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial
> Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend
> to sell the photos.
>

and now you have attacked two posters in what is supposed to be an on topic
photogaphy discussion, could you in future, make your on topic post more on
topic and less a platform for your cyber bullying and "I'm so persecuted"
rants

> He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit. Claiming also the EPA
> didn't issue the permits, I was a liar. Yep. One of us certainly was. and
> it wasn't me!
>
> And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the
> "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my
> shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was... The
> scan of the permit and a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved
> him to be the liar.
>
> Did that stop him? Nah... Weak minded morons like him and the wanker
> calling himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart that if they
> can't understand something or can't do it themselves, it can't be done.
>
> Here we go:
> Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:
> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm
>

Again I ask for verifiable proof that I have said anything at all about this
method of photography, either for or against. I will accept your appology
with the same grace that you make it :-0

> Charles Stevens (Mark Thomas 7th) Did it long before him. and I have no
> doubt whatsoever, there will be idiots with hateful minds and no brains
> imitating these fools long after they have left the group.
>
> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have
> a digicam they have a clue!
>
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid
> the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to
> live in the sewer?
>
> Douglas


I shall archive this post for later referral when you do indeed come back
and abuse the members. I don't know the name of the condition you obviously
have, but I bet its hard to pronounce.

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg


N

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 11:39:40 PM1/27/08
to
"Wilba" <wi...@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
news:fnjir5$fj6$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...

>
> Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different crops
> from one wide-angle shot.
>

Highly unlikely as the road is on a different angle in the two images.

Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 11:59:23 PM1/27/08
to

"N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote in message
news:479d5c8e$0$9745$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...


That's because
(1) the camera has been tilted between the two shots, and
(2) the difference in distortion(s) at the edge of the frame
and the centre of the frame.

They *are* two different shots, but from the same viewpoint.

--
Jeff R.


Wilba

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 12:13:19 AM1/28/08
to
N wrote:

> Wilba wrote:
>>
>> Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different crops
>> from one wide-angle shot.
>
> Highly unlikely as the road is on a different angle in the two images.

Oh no, It's all explained in the text - "The path has a rise in it." :-D


Harold Hughes - Higglytown Hero

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 1:06:34 AM1/28/08
to
.. wrote:
> Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he
> may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich than the recent method
> of using a rotating head on a tripod to harvest the images to work with.
> I've owned fixed and swing lens panorama camera so the advise came from
> experience... Unlike the replies!
>
> Atheist Chaplain


ATTACK #1

(amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of
> head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years
> could work!
>
> The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a
> name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason for
> doing so. The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working
> professional and the Pro produces evidence he is not just wrong but a
> pedantic fool as well!
>
> It's sort of like when that Childs puppet Charles Stevens

ATTACK #2

(calling himself
> Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation about me because I
> posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial
> Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend
> to sell the photos.
>
> He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit. Claiming also the EPA
> didn't issue the permits, I was a liar.

I think this little gem from last week proves that

"Incidentally, anyone who now cries fowl (foul) about me "name changing
to escape their "kill file" needs to recognize even the most basic
newsreader filters on E-mail addresses and mine is unchanged in nearly
6 months."

Yep. One of us certainly was. and it
> wasn't me!
>
> And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the
> "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my
> shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was... The
> scan of the permit and a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved
> him to be the liar.
>
> Did that stop him? Nah... Weak minded morons like him and the wanker calling
> himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart that if they can't
> understand something or can't do it themselves, it can't be done.
>
> Here we go:
> Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:
> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm
>
> Charles Stevens (Mark Thomas 7th) Did it long before him. and I have no
> doubt whatsoever, there will be idiots with hateful minds and no brains
> imitating these fools long after they have left the group.
>
> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have a
> digicam they have a clue!
>
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid the
> idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to live in
> the sewer?

As one of the 'lurkers' you commented on last week I find this last
comment interesting. You are done with the idiots but in 2 threads you
have started in a week you have almost begged said idiots to attack you.

First with your lurker post and now with this one.

I am not sure if there are other photo forums you all post to but I
haven't seen anyone mention your name is early December and the only
time they do attack you is when you post posts like this. You mentioned
5 in your lurkers post, maybe you can mention the other 3 over the next
few days to get them to attack you also.

I believe you love the attention.
>
> Douglas
>
>

N

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 1:08:12 AM1/28/08
to
"Wilba" <wi...@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
news:fnjo9g$loc$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...

I'm not talking about the path. The area of the road that is common to both
pictures has a different angle in each.

Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 1:25:23 AM1/28/08
to

"N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote in message
news:479d714e$0$9744$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

No it doesn't.
Read my earlier posts.

--
Jeff R.

Cryptopix

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 1:35:25 AM1/28/08
to

Did I not say Jeff that I had to "use software to fix the images"?
The notion that they are joined in a straight line is probably what
prompted your comment. They aren't!

Cryptopix

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 1:45:56 AM1/28/08
to
On Jan 28, 12:16 pm, "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote:
> "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote in message

Don't concede anything Jeff.
Just consider that I altered each image individually I made no
mistakes in the ones I chose. I paced my shots as I alway do. I
provided two images shot at different locations which I altered the
perspective of using Flo's tools. There are many perspective
correcting filter around. I could have used any one of them.

The keys to comprehension are: "Dozens of images" and "Software to fix
them". It's not my problem if you can't figure out the rest. I take
larger steps than 1" at a time. I'm not about to divulge any
information on my technique, only evidence that what I said about
taking paced out shots to make a panorama is possible and I produced
the evidence to substantiate my claim. Already you made a wrong
presumption that because an image has a straight line boarder, I
joined them in a straight line. Trying to make a stereo out of them is
another mistake.

Cryptopix

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 1:48:38 AM1/28/08
to

You really are a bugger for punishment Jeff. Someone tells you how it
is and you argue it's not.

Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 2:15:27 AM1/28/08
to

"Cryptopix" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeaff53e-8d83-4f49...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> Did I not say Jeff that I had to "use software to fix the images"?
> The notion that they are joined in a straight line is probably what
> prompted your comment. They aren't!

Sigghhhh.

Doug, the two pics you posted. Are they unaltered; straight from the
camera? (apart from sizing, of course.)

Or have you already "used software to fix the images"?

I suspect not.

Those two photos are taken from the same location - to within an inch or so.

Unless you have divided them (or one of them) into at least a dozen expertly
selected different-depth layers, (an appallingly-difficult and usually
unsatisfactory operation) and moved those layers horizontally in order to
artificially match the effect of having been taken at the same location.

...which of course you haven't.

Don't bother trying to explain how you need to use software to adjust the
perspective at the edges. I understand that perfectly, and have done it
hundreds of time on my panos. (Single location panos, I should point out.)


Doug - look at the pole! It lines up with the distant yacht *perfectly* in
both shots. Are you claiming that you have already altered the pics to
achieve that effect?
Or are the pics "as-taken"?

They were taken from the same spot.
Anybody with an elementary knowledge of perspective and/or stereo imaging
can see that in an instant.

Come clean and admit you goofed here, Doug.
Post two shots that *are* baseline-separated, and show us how you merge
them.

I'd honestly like to see that.

--
Jeff R.


Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 2:31:23 AM1/28/08
to

"Cryptopix" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90d1e314-8cec-4f1a...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...

> Don't concede anything Jeff.
> Just consider that I altered each image individually I made no
> mistakes in the ones I chose. I paced my shots as I alway do. I
> provided two images shot at different locations which I altered the
> perspective of using Flo's tools. There are many perspective
> correcting filter around. I could have used any one of them.

Rubbish.
Such filters take the overall proportions of an image and simply allow you
to tweak them left and right or up and down independently. They don't allow
you to "slide" different depth layers relative to each others - which you
would have had to have done in this case.

Are the images you posted unaltered (the two images, not the single combined
one)?
If not, why bother posting them?
The demonstration is an exercise in futility.

>
> The keys to comprehension are: "Dozens of images"

No - we're discussing just two images here.
The others are irrelevant.


>...and "Software to fix


> them". It's not my problem if you can't figure out the rest.

Why can't you figure out what I'm telling you?
Look at the pole on the path - look at the mast on the yacht the pole lines
up with.
Those two shots were taken from the same spot.


> I take
> larger steps than 1" at a time.

Of course you do.
Its just that in this case you took two shots at one location. Between
steps, if you like.


> I'm not about to divulge any
> information on my technique,

Doug, Doug.
There's nothing secret or mysterious about lining up a series of shots so
they match.
Really!


> only evidence that what I said about
> taking paced out shots to make a panorama is possible and I produced
> the evidence to substantiate my claim.

No you didn't.
You produced two shots taken from the same spot - just as everyone does with
panoramas.

Show us two shots taken on a wide baseline and I'll be impressed.
(So long as you successfully merge them, that is)


> Already you made a wrong
> presumption that because an image has a straight line boarder, I
> joined them in a straight line.

What?
I did what?

What has the border - straight line or not - got to do with anything I've
said?


> Trying to make a stereo out of them is
> another mistake.

Quite the contrary.
The stereo pair worked *very* well, and demonstrates conclusively that the
two shots were taken on a very narrow baseline. Interocular distances, or
less (since the illusion of depth is quite shallow.)

How can it be a mistake?
The stereo pair works!
Surely you can see that!

OK.
Your turn.

--
Jeff R.

Mr.T

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 3:03:32 AM1/28/08
to

"Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:479d84cb$0$22095$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

> The stereo pair works!
> Surely you can see that!

You do realise you are arguing with Doug right? :-)

MrT.


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 5:01:14 AM1/28/08
to
On Jan 28, 11:02 am, ".." <n...@fake.com> wrote:
(a pile of steaming ...)

Thanks to Jeff for a comprehensive expose of Doug at his worst.
Nuthin much more needs to be said, except for:

1. Why do this?
Even if Mr Magoo *had* shot the images from a different point (which
he clearly didn't), why would an 'experienced photographer' *do* that,
for a scene like this? Yes, there are ways to deal with parallax
issues, and the success of that largely depends on the scene, so
avoiding it by shooting from the same nodal point is best.

And there probably are situations where different/staggered viewpoints
might be useful (although I am struggling to think of one right now).
But this isn't an example of it. If he does this regularly, as he
claims, why doesn't he show us an example where there was a *point*?

2. RAM upgrade recommended..
I think Doug may need to upgrade his computer. From that page - "And
yes! My dual CPU PC with 5 Meg of RAM labors under the strain of the
computations"...
Mmmhmm. It probably would. (O;


But I'm sure this is all just a leg-pull, right Doug?

PS


On Jan 21, 8:15 pm, Cryptopix <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Incidentally, anyone who now cries fowl (foul) about me "name changing
> to escape their "kill file" needs to recognize even the most basic
> newsreader filters on E-mail addresses and mine is unchanged in nearly

> 6 months. Catching out the liars is more likely correct, I think.

Since then (and not counting Sarina, Susana, etc) Doug has posted as:
"dreamtime" <parallel.dream...@gmail.com>
".." <n...@fake.com>

And no doubt others. Who, Douglas MacDonald, is the LIAR?

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 6:12:41 AM1/28/08
to
"Atheist Chaplain" <ab...@cia.gov> wrote in message
news:fnjjc9$bfd$1...@aioe.org...
and still the sound of crickets :-)

--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?


Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 6:18:00 AM1/28/08
to
"Cryptopix" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeaff53e-8d83-4f49...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have


> a digicam they have a clue!
>
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid
> the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to
> live in the sewer?
>
> Douglas

and yet Douggie, here you are.............

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 6:18:20 AM1/28/08
to
"Cryptopix" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c37394da-49ff-4027...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have


> a digicam they have a clue!
>
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid
> the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to
> live in the sewer?
>
> Douglas

and yet Douggie, here you are.............

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 6:18:41 AM1/28/08
to
"Cryptopix" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90d1e314-8cec-4f1a...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...

> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have


> a digicam they have a clue!
>
> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid
> the idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to
> live in the sewer?
>
> Douglas

and yet Douggie, here you are.............

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 6:55:39 PM1/28/08
to
Off Topic.

As Douglas is likely going to disappear for a week or two to let this
embarrassment pass... I'll just take the opportunity to correct his
lies for the umpteenth time, just in case a newbie stumbles over
this...

On Jan 28, 11:02 am, ".." <n...@fake.com> wrote:

> The interesting part of this is that when an idiot uses an oxymoron for a
> name, trying to conceal his identity, he very clearly must have a reason for
> doing so.

Yes, "interesting" indeed. That sentence was posted by Douglas "St
James" MacDonald, who has also posted as (deep breath..):
ryadia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug,
douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald, an interested
bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan jones,
alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix on
canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham hunt,
healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey fong,
wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC, deciple
of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple, notsimple,
not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, wraped in canvas, Julian
Abbot, Cryptopix, Aussie Aussie Aussie, Parallel Dreaming, Sarina
Sarin, Susana Jones, Prisilla...

Not to mention variations (D_Mac, D...Mac, etc) and punctuation
marks... He has used well over one hundred different names and many of
them have been used to deceive or pretend he has supporters.

> The reason is never more clear than when he attacks a working
> professional

Have you ever noticed how true 'working professionals' *never* refer
to themselves like that?

> ...Mark Thomas the 7th) posted a heap of lies and defamation
Douglas has never successfully quoted a single lie, and it's only
defamation when not true...

> about me because I
> posted some relevant information about the need to have a "commercial
> Photography Permit" when you take pictures in National Parks if you intend
> to sell the photos.

Here's what Douglas actually said:

> I am also registered (holding the necessary permits) with the EPA, Forest and Wildlife service
Note the comma, which suggests he is talking about the EPA and the
"Forests and Wildlife service" (which doesn't exist) as two separate
things. The EPA issues permits through their "Qld Parks and Wildlife"
department. Those permits are not any sort of badge of honour, which
is what I objected to - you simply *have* to buy one to be allowed to
take images in national parks for later commercial use. It's a
meaningless revenue raiser.

Similar to a being a "Member of the World Institute of Photographic
masters" (sic), and a "finalist in the Queensland 2007 Business
achiever's awards" (sic). (O:

> and ATSIC (the native Aboriginal corporation here)as a working Photographer
ATSIC had been disbanded for about a year when he posted this claim,
and then he said:

> able to enter managed and controlled areas to take photographs for sale
> and conduct "Photographic expeditions" in National Parks and on some tribal lands.
There's the LIE. ATSIC would not issue such a permit, as each
community/region has different rules and ATSIC would not presume to
speak for all of them. He might have got a permit for/from a single
community, but usually such things are dealt with verbally. Needless
to say, he never posted a copy of *that* permit from ATSIC.

Back to the current post..


> He claimed then that I'd posted a load of bullshit.

Which he had.

> Claiming also the EPA didn't issue the permits

No, I corrected the name and, more importantly, the *intent*.

> .. I was a liar.
Yes. Douglas MacDonald was/is a liar.

> One of us certainly was.

The liar is the one who can't quote evidence. This thread contains
numerous *quoted* examples of lies. All the lies are from Douglas
MacDonald.

> And then because of his inability to read the written word, he tried the
> "you're full of bullshit" trick again when I wrote about one of my
> shopfronts. "Liar" the idiot cried. Again one of us certainly was...

Yes. Douglas MacDonald.

> a photo of my corporate office (a shopfront) proved him to be the liar.

Actually, it proved Douglas was a liar again. Several folk had asked
about his current shopfront (given he claims several businesses,
shouldn't be difficult to show just one..) But Douglas posted an image
of a small office door, with temporary looking posters adorning the
glass, and a some obvious photoshopping. I'm happy to post the
evidence - I even have the *original picture* to show the doctoring he
did. Interestingly, I'm told that 'shopfront' has not been occupied
by Doug for some *years*.

Some folk have expressed interest in testing Douglas MacDonald's
claims, but Douglas always refuses to give an address of any of his
alleged 'franchises'. What does that tell you?

So that, folks, is the best Douglas can come up with regarding my
'lies', and both 'examples' prove the exact reverse.

> Did that stop him? Nah...

Nah, indeed. I shall continue outing liars and fools.

> That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have a
> digicam they have a clue!

And yet he immediately posts more. Another LIE.


See you soon under your new alias, Doug.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 5:23:12 AM1/29/08
to
On Jan 28, 9:12 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <ab...@cia.gov> wrote:
> > ".." <n...@fake.com> wrote in message
> >news:0R9nj.7681$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit of
> >> head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30 years
> >> could work!
>
> > I'm unable to find anything I have posted that would indicate such a
> > thing Douggie, I general stay out of the technical side of the photo
> > discussions and stick to commenting on the actual photo's themselves.
> >
> > Please show me the post I made saying that this method would not work, My
> > records here only go back to August 2007, but I'm sure I could find all my
> > posts on this group using google if needed as I dont use the x-no archive
> > tag.
> > ...

> >> Here we go:
> >> Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:
> >>http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm
>
> > Again I ask for verifiable proof that I have said anything at all about
> > this method of photography, either for or against. I will accept your
> > appology with the same grace that you make it :-0
>
> > I shall archive this post for later referral when you do indeed come back
> > and abuse the members. I don't know the name of the condition you
> > obviously have, but I bet its hard to pronounce.
>

AC, I have perused the usenet archives at reasonable length, and I can
also find nothing that suggests you made any posts on this topic.

It would appear Douglas has you confused with someone else. And of
course, like the miserable sewer rat he is, no apology seems to be
forthcoming, as, of course, he would have to explain WHY he made this
error. This is not the first or last time Douglas has completely
confused the *many* people who rightly take him to task over his
incompetence, false claims, and outright lies.

I've kept an archive copy of the defamatory web-page - added to a
large collection that will come back to give Douglas a valuable lesson
one day..

Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 6:28:49 AM1/29/08
to

<mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e253bdae-74d0-4623...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

>>
>
> AC, I have perused the usenet archives at reasonable length, and I can
> also find nothing that suggests you made any posts on this topic.

I recall the "debate", as it is a subject which interests me, but I can say
with my hand on my heart "it weren't me what had a go at him!" (I did
*think* it, 'though.) I'd offer to do a Google search, but that's against
my religion.

I wish Doug wouldn't go off on a sulk.

I really want to hear his explanation. (I mean: "See his genuine samples".)
As a matter of fact, I do believe that panos can be made successfully in the
manner he has proposed - for long, linear subjects, pref with not much
variation in depth. Think of a long block of flats, f'r'instance. There
could be hell to pay on the joins, however, if one is not careful about
where the overlaps are.

All my panos (to date) have been taken from one spot. Now I'm motivated to
go and take some "strollin' in the park" shots. I might even resurrect my
Panasonic FZ30 (with the Leica lens) to take them in RAW mode... but then
I'll need to get something else heavy to stop my boat from drifting away.

--
Jeff R.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 8:11:56 AM1/29/08
to
On Jan 29, 9:28 pm, "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote:
> <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > AC, I have perused the usenet archives at reasonable length, and I can
> > also find nothing that suggests you made any posts on this topic.
>
> I recall the "debate", as it is a subject which interests me, but I can say
> with my hand on my heart "it weren't me what had a go at him!" (I did
> *think* it, 'though.)
> I'd offer to do a Google search, but that's against
> my religion.
>
> I wish Doug wouldn't go off on a sulk.
>
> I really want to hear his explanation. (I mean: "See his genuine samples".)

The problem is, I really don't think Doug *has* an explanation or
samples. This demonstration is so fatally flawed, and obviously so,
it must be a troll, or someone who hasn't a clue. I know which one I
think it is.

> As a matter of fact, I do believe that panos can be made successfully in the
> manner he has proposed - for long, linear subjects, pref with not much
> variation in depth.

Yes, of course they could - but by restricting it to not much depth..
you are trying to exclude those parallax problems, n'est ce pas? (And
isn't this a 'mural' rather than a pano? (O:)
I'll happily concede, as I have all along, that you *can* use various
methods to cope with parallax issues (I mean, hey, I use SmartBlend
now with my PTgui!)... but there needs to be a *point*! Doug's
'example' not only completely fails to demonstrate the concept, but
also the composition seems to indicate he is heading for an absolute
disaster of an image, assuming he really is going to add 8-9 images
taken from *different* points along that road.. Apart from any nearby
objects, what do you think will happen to all those masts - do you
think he will be able to avoid repeats, halved horizontals/diagonals?
Oh, wait, Douglas often demands that we stand back far enough to see
the whole image without moving our heads. So in this case, the
messups in the masts would be less noticeable. (O;

I challenge Doug to post the completed image, made up of images taken
from the vantage points along that road (Royal Esplanade, Manly, I
believe it is, for anyone interested) and thereby demonstrate the
success of his technique. Any time, Doug. No hurry - we can see it
needs a LOT of work. And don't forget, hopefully at least *one* of
the images should be taken from a different spot.. I also challenge
him to apologise to AC and withdraw the vitriolic and insulting
remarks made here and on his website, apparently in error/stupidity.
Or he should post links showing where AC made those comments.

It's also interesting to note that here:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/531ef27d53dd36d1
Douglas MacDonald refers to the use of surveying tools:
> If you get really serious about panoramas without distortion, you'll
> learn up on simple surveyor's techniques and peg out a set of points
> then move the camera from one to the other, avoiding the classic
> distortions very clear in this picture.

I'm most interested in the logic behind this. Presumably this would
help avoid the er, 'slight alignment problems' in *his* two examples,
and the ridiculously bent horizon in the result.. (O:

<sarc>
Clearly he has a marvellous technique that we should all be highly
jealous of!
</sarc>
But, like his enlargement algorithm (which he still claims to own,
even though he sold it to Samsung..), and his chains of printing and
processing stores, and for that matter any current shopfront... we
shall never see any proof of existence, I'm betting.

And I think I know what that means. (O;

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 6:59:19 AM1/30/08
to
T'was almost on my way home and there was a brief break in the
rainstorms, so why not...

http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano_moved.jpg

Some things to note:

- look at the *instantly* obvious difference in perspective - the
angle of the car, the position of the signs and poles relative to the
tree/themselves/boats, the boats (some are now much more/less side on,
some are behind the tree etc), the change in locations of the huge
tangle of masts. Look carefully and *imagine trying to put all that
together seamlessly into a panorama*... Hey Scott W - there's a
challenge for you!
Now look again at Doug's two images - they are obviously taken from an
*identical location*, just at a slightly different zoom, and with the
camera more angled and pointed up. Anyone with even a glimmer of a
sense of perspective can see that Doug's images, in complete
contradiction to his claims, are taken from the same spot.

- if Doug seriously intended to take 8-10 face-on shots to try to
capture this string of boats, the distance between his shots would
have to be even greater than the examples I took. That was only about
15 feet. I took quite a few images, but decided to just show a couple
of quick crops to roughly match the area that Doug cheated on, and to
show the problems that parallax will cause in this sort of scene.

- I've deliberately blown the highlights slightly to make Doug feel at
home. (If anyone else asks, I'll happily provide a more sensible
rendition from the raw files. Forgive my sense of the ridiculous...)

So could you make a panorama out of images like this? No.
I knew I was wasting my time, but just out of curiosity, I threw three
of my images at PTGUI, including those two shown above and one shot
from further to the right. It calmly reported that it couldn't work
out a meaningful set of control points, and invited me to help. I
defined a few basic points, but it then (quite correctly) reported
that my control points made little sense and required an impossible
amount of warping. In other words, if I was wanting a pano out of
this, I-could-do-it-my-bloody-self...! (To be fair, ptgui did
actually have a go, but I won't embarrass the program by posting the
result! (O:)

Now I'll happily admit that I *can't* make a pano out of those images
manually, and I don't believe anyone could.. Like I said, if anyone
else wants to try, I'll send you the images or post them for
uploading. In the meantime, I await Doug to show *his* finished pano,
along with evidence of the images (*REALLY taken from different
locations*) that he used.


What's your next self-demolition going to be, Doug? Can't wait.

Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 7:24:18 AM1/30/08
to

<mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:463f994a-eaa3-498a...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> T'was almost on my way home and there was a brief break in the
> rainstorms, so why not...
>
> http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano_moved.jpg


LOL!
Comprehensively pwned.

You rat, Mark!
You beat me to it.

Anyway, it doesn't count, 'cause the car isn't red and the horizons are
level. And, ummm, the clouds are different.

Besides, don't you know you have to use special software to stitch the shots
together?
Sheesh!
Amateurs!


Silly business aside, I'm sure such a pano could be done with a subject such
as I earlier suggested - one with very little depth. Picture (as an extreme
example) a long wall in an art gallery, with dozens of paintings. Nah,
that's too contrived...

Here's a real-life idea, the Royal Crescent at Bath:
http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-142/bath-royal-crescent.jpg
You could do a good mural of the faces of those buildings by constructing a
"walking pano".

Dunno why you would, but you could.

======

C'mon Doug.

Come clean and do the right thing.
Admit you stuffed up with a bad example, and show us a good one instead.

--
Jeff R.


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 8:04:04 AM1/30/08
to
On Jan 30, 10:24 pm, "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote:
> <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > T'was almost on my way home and there was a brief break in the
> > rainstorms, so why not...
> >http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano_moved.jpg
>
> LOL!
> Comprehensively pwned.
>
> You rat, Mark!
> You beat me to it.
>
> Anyway, it doesn't count, 'cause the car isn't red and the horizons are
> level. And, ummm, the clouds are different.

Very, very true. I guess I'm just not up there with the likes of the
OP. But imagine - I walked the same steps as the master... 'twas
almost a religious experience.

> Besides, don't you know you have to use special software to stitch the shots
> together?

Yes, conceded. Although I believe the *only* software capable of
this may have been sold to Samsung, so Doug will now be unable to
demonstrate it.

> Sheesh!
> Amateurs!

That should be spelt armatures, for Doug.

> Silly business aside, I'm sure such a pano could be done with a subject such
> as I earlier suggested - one with very little depth.

Agreed...

> ...


> Dunno why you would, but you could.

And there's the rub. I just can't for the life of me think of a good
example of a 'flat' scene that would be interesting when shot like
this. Wait...maybe those beach change huts in Melbourne..?
http://www.totaltravel.com.au/guide/photos/baysidesuburbsmelbourne/brighton%20beach%20huts,%20melbourne.jpg

Beyond that, I guess we have to wait on Douglas for examples and
inspiration... (O:


> C'mon Doug.
>
> Come clean and do the right thing.
> Admit you stuffed up with a bad example, and show us a good one instead.

Don't hold your breath, Jeff. (O:

Rob.

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 8:36:38 PM1/30/08
to
mark.t...@gmail.com wrote:

I was taking images so panoramics could be compiled (2002/3). they were
streetscapes, where I was walking along the street and stepped out so
many steps, I think, 10 paces, these were stitched. Not sure which
stitching program was used by the company who were making the final
product. Shot verticals with a 28mm lens on film.

So there are situations where it is used. But don't tell the other
bloke. But picking up the name on the catamaran at the end I think its
"Ryadia" :)


r

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 9:21:51 PM1/30/08
to
On Jan 31, 11:36 am, "Rob." <m...@mine.com.> wrote:

Thanks, Rob - can you post an example? I agree that it can be done,
as long as there aren't lots of components in the fore-mid-
background. "Ryadia's" samples show just about the worst example of
where you *wouldn't* try it. (Not only that, judging by the source
images he showed - he *didn't* and *can't*... :o)

Anyway, it set off a useful discussion - thanks to Doug for
embarrassing himself in this way!

We all learned what not to do, and are now onto what *is* possible...

Rob.

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 11:00:45 PM1/30/08
to


It went into making a 3D model, which has been sold off to the council
now - they were using it for developments and how new building
applications would fit into the landscape. Virtually they mapped the
inner city streets (what a bugger of a job) about 5x5 kms. The person
who they had working on the model has now left and I not sure who to
contact plus the firm amalgamated into a engineering group. Ill try
again tomorrow, to make contact and see if anyone knows. Couldn't find
out through my contacts in council.

At the time I was surprised and stitching was in its infancy as I only
had arcsoft, which came bundled with someone's, canon or ricoh, camera.

You have me intrigued as to what program, I remember downloading some
free software which was basic and horrible to use. But they did buy a
package to use.

r

Rob.

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 11:03:29 PM1/30/08
to

Have a look at this pan (animated)

http://www.gillesvidal.com/blogpano/cockpit1.htm

PixelPix

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 11:18:44 PM1/30/08
to
On Jan 31, 2:03 pm, "Rob." <m...@mine.com.> wrote:
> Have a look at this pan (animated)
>
> http://www.gillesvidal.com/blogpano/cockpit1.htm

Was looking at that this morn. A pretty cool pano with the total
sphere covered.

What struck me most with this image though, was how even with all the
new displays used, the cockpit still looked old in design, or even a
little "Russian". I know it's the business end and perhaps it's just
me, but I expected to see something a little more stylish for the
latest & greatest.

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 2, 2008, 8:59:24 AM2/2/08
to
On Jan 29, 5:23 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I've kept an archive copy of the defamatory web-page - added to a
> large collection that will come back to give Douglas a valuable lesson
> one day

Can you send me the pics he posted? His link seems to be dead, much
like his arguments.

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 2, 2008, 9:04:11 AM2/2/08
to
On Jan 28, 6:55 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Yes, "interesting" indeed.  That sentence was posted by Douglas "St
> James" MacDonald, who has also posted as (deep breath..):
> ryadia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug,
> douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald, an interested
> bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan jones,
> alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix on
> canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham hunt,
> healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey fong,
> wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC, deciple
> of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple, notsimple,
> not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, wraped in canvas, Julian
> Abbot, Cryptopix, Aussie Aussie Aussie, Parallel Dreaming, Sarina
> Sarin, Susana Jones, Prisilla...
>

You forgot his most famous one ....George Preddy.


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 2, 2008, 8:27:05 PM2/2/08
to
Off topic.

I'm not convinced of the GP identity.. I know there are significant
coincident factors, and it is almost impossible to conceive of two
people buying a Sigma SLR and having similar er.. 'conditions'..! But
there is a certain different style to Preddy's posts that I'm not sure
D-Mac is capable of. And given that just about every other sockpuppet
of D-Mac's has been outed by his own stupid errors (signing off as
Douglas, forgetting which IP he posted from, talking in the first
person, etc), I find it hard to believe he could have carried out the
Preddy thing for so long without blowing his cover.

I'll leave it to others to do further research. (O;

As for Douglas.. What sort of coward pulls pages, rather than be a
man and apologise to Atheist Chaplain and admit to his errors?
Although.. perhaps he has received some complaints and was told to
remove the pages...?

Anyone who wants a copy of the offending pages, just let me know.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 6:07:31 AM2/7/08
to
On Jan 28, 11:02 am, ".." <n...@fake.com> wrote:
> Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he
> may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich
> Here we go:
> Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:
> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm

Not surprisingly, this page has been removed. A wild guess would
suggest that it was removed because:
1. It contained a number of lies about Atheist Chaplain.
2. It was a complete falsification of the 'technique' Douglas is
referring to, as was proven by Jeff R and others.

As Douglas (Cryptopix) has returned to post elsewhere, perhaps he
should return to this thread to defend his honour. After all, I and
others have accused him of lying. Why does he not come back and
explain why he falsely accused AC of those comments, and why his
images were clearly NOT taken from a different location?

The first step in that would be to repost the page. That being rather
unlikely, if anyone would like a copy of the offending pages, please
email me. That includes Douglas' legal representatives.

> Not see ya later but absolutely good bye! My new year resolution? Avoid the
> idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and who want's to live in
> the sewer?

It took Douglas barely two weeks to prove himself a liar on this front
as well..

Jeff R.

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 6:25:54 AM2/7/08
to

<mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a70cfaa8-cdf3-45f0...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 28, 11:02 am, ".." <n...@fake.com> wrote:
>> Recently I suggested to a poster about to launch into "panoramas" that he
>> may be better off walking and snapping shots to stich
>> Here we go:
>> Atheist puts his foot in his mouth:
>> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm

As Mark has pointed out, Doug, don't you think you should either:
(1) defend your stance, or
(2) apologise to those you insulted?

Really - common decency demands an answer here. Your web page was pretty
caustic.
(...and yes, I've got it saved, too.)

--
Jeff R.


Message has been deleted

Jeff R.

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 6:59:05 AM2/7/08
to

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13qlrqg...@news.supernews.com...


Did anybody else hear an annoying buzzing sound?
I think I might need to spray my motherboard.

--
Jeff R.


Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 7:00:25 AM2/7/08
to
<mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a70cfaa8-cdf3-45f0...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

I don't expect anything resembling an apology from Doug, after all that
would require him to have some spine and a dash of integrity, 2 things he
has shown over and over again that he lacks in the greatest measure.
Doug is big on rhetoric, but when it comes to leading by example, Douggie
runs faster than a little girl scared by her own shadow (and probably
squeals just as loudly)
I expect that our posts will be attacked by yet another Douggie sock, but
that's OK, I have broad shoulders and I think I can withstand the futile
slaps from a 3 year old girl.

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 7:03:25 AM2/7/08
to
"Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13qlrqg...@news.supernews.com...
> Jeff R. wrote:
>
>> As Mark has pointed out, Doug, don't you think you should either:
>> (1) defend your stance, or
>
> Why? What does he have to gain?

>
>> (2) apologise to those you insulted?
>
> Why? You really can't insult people that have no self-respect and are an
> insult to themselves.

>
>> Really - common decency demands an answer here. Your web page was
>> pretty caustic.
>
> God! You guys are pathetic! You really must have missed Doug? I know
> Mark's life is now complete.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
Well you just gave us all a good example of your measure :-)

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 7:22:36 AM2/7/08
to
Off topic. (Gee, this is going down sooo well for you Rita - you're
on a winner with Dougie! (O;)

On Feb 7, 9:44 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:


> Jeff R. wrote:
> > As Mark has pointed out, Doug, don't you think you should either:
> > (1) defend your stance, or
>

> Why? What does he have to gain?

Absolutely nothing - his position is indefensible.
Which is why he has run like a coward.
Rita likes cowards, we don't.
Everyone may post their opinion, and there you have it - why is Rita
so upset about this?.

Rita seems to be getting a little hot and bothered lately, with all
this cross-posting and attention seeking... You can tell when she gets
a little upset, because the insults come thick and fast.

> > (2) apologise to those you insulted?
>

> Why? You really can't insult people that have no self-respect and are an
> insult to themselves.

See - you can picture the fingers flying and spittle flying onto the
screen.

> > Really - common decency demands an answer here. Your web page was
> > pretty caustic.
>

> God! You guys are pathetic! You really must have missed Doug? I know
> Mark's life is now complete.

Actually, I pick on *all* folk who lie, and don't contribute. So
enjoy!

Anyway, for anyone new to usenet that has found this isolated thread
and is feeling a little puzzled by Rita's incompetent cross-posting,
the thread she has jumped from may be found here on GG:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/a6d1c0259d43619f
Judge for yourself. If you want to see Doug's images, you won't be
able to click on his link (mine still works however). Like I said, he
cowardly pulled them from view. If you want to see them, just ask me
or refer to Jeff R's cropped examples here:
http://faxmentis.org/html/jpg/walking-pano-stereo.jpg

Reckon they were shot from a different 'stepped out' viewpoint as Doug
suggested?

cheers, Rita/Doug.

Message has been deleted

PixelPix

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 8:08:05 AM2/7/08
to
On Feb 7, 10:44 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
> mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:

[CHOMP]

> And your contribution here is what, exactly?

Now there is a question that you should be asking yourself! lol

PixelPix

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 8:13:05 AM2/7/08
to

Sorry Mark, my bad editing made that look like a response to you, when
it was really in response to Rita.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 8:23:28 AM2/7/08
to
On Feb 7, 10:44 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
> And as I suspected your life is so empty
> Sad thing is *YOU* have control over *YOU*
Ooh, capitals. No, you're not upset... (O;

> > You can tell when she gets
> > a little upset, because the insults come thick and fast.

> It would seem you'd be happy to let everyone else have a great time laughing
> at you. Your entertainment value is priceless and shouldn't be restricted
> to one group.

Did the irony of that not strike you as you wrote it? No, I guess
not.

> And your contribution here is what, exactly?

I'll let others judge. Strangely it's only you and Doug that I seem
to get up the noses of.
That tells me I'm on the right road... Before you continue to
embarrass yourself, have you actually read this thread, by the way?

> You create noise and offer nothing photography related.
You mean like all those critiques you have supplied, and like how you
have addressed the issues in this thread?

Where *exactly* are your ontopic comments about 'stepped out
panoramas', Ms Hypocrite-I-must-cross-post-this-to-get-more-attention?

Did *you* post images showing what parallax problems would exist when
you use this approach? *I* did.
Did *you* point out what type of subjects you *could* use this
approach for? *I* did.

So when you post something ontopic here, I'll listen. You're on a
score of sub-zero to date. At least you posted a spider pic on that
other thread - now get off your lazy butt and do something useful
*here*. Otherwise, it's hypocrite (or troll) all the way, and you
know it.


Hint - now is when you say that you are deliberately trolling. That
will fit in well on a Doug thread. He always uses the "I meant to do
that" technique, as well.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 8:27:03 AM2/7/08
to
On Feb 7, 11:13 pm, PixelPix <m...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote:
>
> Sorry Mark, my bad editing made that look like a response to you, when
> it was really in response to Rita.

Don't worry, nobody but Rita and Doug will be reading this anyway..

(O:

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 10:34:20 AM2/7/08
to
On Feb 2, 8:27 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:

> You forgot his most famous one ....George Preddy.
>
> I'm not convinced of the GP identity..  I know there are significant
> coincident factors, and it is almost impossible to conceive of two
> people buying a Sigma SLR and having similar er.. 'conditions'..!  But
> there is a certain different style to Preddy's posts that I'm not sure
> D-Mac is capable of.  

Oh he's Preddy alright. Remember his famous pic of the Preddy Cat?
D-Mac has posted other pics of the same cat.
His latest revelation that he used to be a Sigma dealer simply
confirms it. Who else but D-Mac would constantly tout a crappy Smegma
unless he thought he could make a buck from it?


PixelPix

unread,
Feb 7, 2008, 3:16:24 PM2/7/08
to
On Feb 8, 12:28 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:

> PixelPix wrote:
> >> mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > [CHOMP]
>
> >> And your contribution here is what, exactly?
>
> > Now there is a question that you should be asking yourself!  lol
>
> I did.  And the answer is to stimulate the idiots and have a good time while
> doing it.
>
> Rita

In other words.... being a useless f'n TROLL who offers little value
to this photography NG, if any at all.

Message has been deleted

Cryptopix

unread,
Feb 8, 2008, 2:02:05 AM2/8/08
to
On Feb 7, 9:44 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:

> Jeff R. wrote:
> > As Mark has pointed out, Doug, don't you think you should either:
> > (1) defend your stance, or
>
> Why? What does he have to gain?
>
> > (2) apologise to those you insulted?
>
> Why? You really can't insult people that have no self-respect and are an
> insult to themselves.
>
> > Really - common decency demands an answer here. Your web page was
> > pretty caustic.
>
> God! You guys are pathetic! You really must have missed Doug? I know
> Mark's life is now complete.
>
> Rita

You know Rita...
I'm happy to let these idiots dig their own grave. Just as soon as I'm
satisfied they've dug deep enough to bury themselves I'll come clean
- so to speak! LOL.

Maybe one of them might recognize this gem from a pioneer of panorama
stitching software when discussing their stitching software that
wouldn't work on a "walked out panorama" In real life it's done on a
rail or pair of rails ...like when they shoot movies that look like
they aren't... But you get the idea by now. I'm having a bit of fun at
the idiot's expense.

" You'll probably find that it is important to keep the camera level
and in the same plane. That is, rotation of the camera between one
shot and the next is likely to cause problems. And it's also probably
important to move in a perfectly straight line."

Ha, ha, ha.
The really curious part about these couple of absolute and total fools
is they seriously believe if they don't know about it or can't do it,
it doesn't happen. Oh man... I'm loving this like never before. Bring
it on Mark - or Charles or whoever you are today.

Jeff R.

unread,
Feb 8, 2008, 3:52:51 AM2/8/08
to

"Cryptopix" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc3027dc-6385-447b...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> You know Rita...
> I'm happy to let these idiots dig their own grave. Just as soon as I'm
> satisfied they've dug deep enough to bury themselves I'll come clean
> - so to speak! LOL.

<snip>

Doug:

(1) Why did you take down your page
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm ?

(2) Were the two photos you presented on that page taken from the same
position?

--
Jeff R.


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 8, 2008, 5:07:22 AM2/8/08
to
Off topic.

On Feb 8, 5:02 pm, Cryptopix <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know Rita...
> I'm happy to let these idiots dig their own grave. Just as soon as I'm
> satisfied they've dug deep enough to bury themselves I'll come clean
> - so to speak! LOL.
>
> Maybe one of them might recognize this gem from a pioneer of panorama
> stitching software when discussing their stitching software that
> wouldn't work on a "walked out panorama"

No, Mr Magoo, we said it wouldn't work on the scene YOU posted. Read
the thread, Douggie, and you will see many folk, including me, saying
there *were* situations when you could use the technique. But we
pointed out that:
A: You lied about taking your images from different locations.
B: It was a daft thing to try for this type of scene.

Get with the program, and take a reading comprehension class.

> Ha, ha, ha.
> The really curious part about these couple of absolute and total fools
> is they seriously believe if they don't know about it or can't do it,
> it doesn't happen. Oh man... I'm loving this like never before. Bring
> it on Mark - or Charles or whoever you are today.

I certainly will.

It's a nice plan Doug. Sit there laughing hysterically, hope that
everyone forgets, and then move on to the next embarrassment..
That'll work.

I'm happy to be proven wrong about your image - just post the *result*
of your panorama stitch using the 8-10 shots you took that day.

Anytime you like. And think how much respect you would suddenly gain,
and how you could prove all these people wrong....

At the moment, the situation is as follows:
You posted a claim about making a whiz-bang pano out of several images
taken many steps apart.
The two images you gave as an example were easily shown to be taken
from an identical position. So you lied.
You could not explain the fact that the two images overlaid each other
so closely they could not have been taken more than two inches apart.
babysteps? (O;
You then pulled the page. What a surprise that was. We never saw
that coming.
(But if anyone wants a copy, let me know - it somehow got stuck in my
browser cache..)
Now you come back 'laughing'.


Really, there are just three options now left for you, Douglas.

Think about them VERY carefully.

1. You can post the final panorama, that is *the one that you created
from multiple images taken from different points along that service
road at Manly*. That way, you will be a hero in our eyes. I would
strongly suggest that you don't try to fake it - too many folk here
actually know what they are talking about. Feel free to cover it with
a big copyright message, but it must of course be clear in the
critical areas to show what happened to the boats, their masts, and
the foreground objects.
(This is the option I would like to see, even though it will mean I
will have to apologise.)

2. You can leave the thread now and disappear again, pretending to
have forgotten this thread, or that you have sooo much other work to
do.
(But you've used that one a lot of times, and people are now wise to
it. And of course annoying folk like me will bring it back up and
remind you when necessary.)

3. You can keep blustering and laughing, and then pompously refuse to
show us the no-doubt magnificent final result of your unbelievable
technique, because we are not worthy.

I'm betting on No. 3. But of course that one renders this whole
thread completely worthless. Given it's author, maybe that is quite
appropriate.

But remember, Doug. If you can pull off number ONE, the rewards will
be great... (O:

And just repeating what is a most reasonable request:

Do you still claim Atheist Chaplain made those claims?
If so, POST PROOF.
If NOT, be a man and apologise.

Just to repeat it for the record, here's what Douglas said:
"Atheist Chaplain (amongst other) took the opportunity to get in a bit
of head kicking for even suggesting the process I've been using for 30
years could work!"
"the wanker calling himself "Atheist Chaplain" all seem to be so smart
that if they can't understand something or can't do it themselves, it
can't be done."
"For those who said it can't be done! I'll call this image... Atheist
tastes his toes!"
"Maybe I should call it; The joke is on the wannabes."
"Either way this is a quick and dirty example of a Panorama made by
walking along the pathway above the road, taking shots at frequent
intervals. Dozens of them!"
"This is just two images of the final picture to demonstrate to those
poking fun at me for having suggested this method produces a "less
distorted image" and those who straight out don't believe it is
possible..."
"The notion that a few goons using stupid oxymoron names to remain
anonymous whilst posting idiotic remarks about those who make a living
doing what they can only dream about... leads me to post this example
that proves it can be done but not by the idiots who think they know
it all."
"there are another 8 or 9 images to be stitched into the picture
before I'm done with it"
"It should be no surprise - even to the blind idiots who poke fun at
me and my enlargement process - that the pictures don't line up!"
(As Jeff R expertly pointed out, they clearly DID LINE UP.)

Douglas again:
"Yes! There is a lot of work in the picture."
"Yes! There is considerable skill required to get it right."
(He's got that right!)

Douglas:
"And yes! My dual CPU PC with 5 Meg of RAM"
(Time he added a little RAM, don't your reckon?)

Douglas:
"The idiots using oxymoron names, don't have the skill level, the
knowledge, the experience or the ability"
"I might even post a snap of the wall after the decorator has finished
hanging the wallpaper..."
(Can't wait for that one!)

Overall, this thread is one of your finest efforts, Douglas. Can't
wait for the next!

Anyway, like I said, take your time putting that "Manly Marina stepped
out pano" together... We are very patient.

Have a good weekend!

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 8, 2008, 4:51:50 PM2/8/08
to
Off topic.

On Feb 8, 12:29 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> You create noise and offer nothing photography related.

> You have this over inflated notion of value and self worth.

Hi, Rita. (O;

I won't foul the other multiple threads where you brought up the
jealousy and bias issues, just this one...

Found a little quote from you, and I thought it was amusing.. Here's
something you said about a certain person - guess who?:
" I did look at his pics and I really like the theme and composition
of them, very creative."
"As for the technical side of his shots, I really don't care since the
pictures convey his creativity and artistic talents."

Wow.

Oh, wait - you were talking about.. me. Those pics are the very same
ones you are now calling crap, without specific criticism of course.
I'm sooo hurt - I shall probably never pick up a camera again...

So you seem to have changed your mind a little - but no, you're *not*
jealous or biased because of your personal feelings. Oh no. You've
clearly just.. matured.

As Doug would say "I meant to do that."

Anyway, do carry on. Don't let the past bother you. (O;

And continue to note that whenever I criticise your work, Douglas's or
anyone's, I have the intestinal fortitude to be *very specific* about
the problems, and to debate the issues. It's a learning process.

That may get thru to you one day. If it doesn't, or you simply choose
to continue along the troll path, then of course you will continue to
enjoy your current level of popularity - which is fine by me.

Here's to your next masterpiece, Rita.

Message has been deleted

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 8, 2008, 6:15:31 PM2/8/08
to
On Feb 9, 8:58 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
> GODDAMN! I MUST OF HIT AN EXPOSED NERVE!!
capitals again? (grin) And seeing you wanted the spelling/grammar
check, it should read "I must *have* hit..".


> By all means, keep digging
Actually, I was looking for some more of your spider pics - you know
how you said you would *always* leave your work up.. well, this one
seems to be gone:
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Face.jpg
"Not Found"

Would you like to repost it - I (genuinely) seem to remember it was a
good one, adn as you know, if your work is good, I will give praise
where due.. You could use some right now.

> That doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to change my mind should I find out the truth.
> That being said, his excrements are pure shit and so are yours.

Oh. Ok then. That's *perfectly* clear. Back *then* you were wrong (I
clearly fooled you into thinking what you did), and *now*, we have
your guarantee that you are right. But of course you reserve the
right to change your mind.

Yup, perfectly clear. (Do you want a bigger shovel?)

And if you wish to believe you are in my dreams and post that sort of
comment here, feel free. But you know what that sounds like...


I'm deeply sorry I embarrassed you.

Cryptopix

unread,
Feb 9, 2008, 5:27:31 AM2/9/08
to
On Feb 8, 6:52 pm, "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote:
> "Cryptopix" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:dc3027dc-6385-447b...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You know Rita...
> > I'm happy to let these idiots dig their own grave. Just as soon as I'm
> > satisfied they've dug deep enough to bury themselves I'll come clean
> > - so to speak! LOL.
>
> <snip>
>
> Doug:
>
> (1) Why did you take down your pagehttp://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm ?

>
> (2) Were the two photos you presented on that page taken from the same
> position?
>
> --
> Jeff R.

What I do with the web sites I develop, own or sell lease out is
entirely my business, Jeff. Douglasjames.com.au was never going to be
used for what a free site on flickr would do just as easily without
wasting my resources. I posted some pictures to it so I could tickle
up Google and the other search engines when I went live with it.

I have never concealed the fact I use these groups to increase a
site's ratings or prime the search engines in advance. It quite a
legitimate way to get ranking up. The3 more people who link to it, the
higher it's ranking goes.

The answer to your 2nd question is NO. I would have thought providing
full frame replicas of the originals was enough... Not for flock here
it seems.

If you'd followed my history in these groups you'd have to come to the
conclusion that those who think they are taking the mickey out of me
are basically clueless. My unfavorite troll Marles (half Charles half
Mark - I'm only ever ch...@go.com for the researchers) started out
when he didn't like the "plain English warranty" I published when I
owned a couple of computer stores.

Then Marles decided my "Techno Aussie" digital enlargement algorithm
was all bullshit too. Just because he couldn't understand the concept,
much less the execution of it he figured I couldn't possibly be
smarter than him so I must be full of bullshit. He even went as far as
to turn up at my wife's market stall where she sold my canvas rejects
and damaged stock... After waiting for her to leave the display for a
pee! All on security camera from my office above the street!

Then he got the idea my Government permits for taking photographic
expeditions and tours into National Parks and sell the resulting
photos was bullshit too. So misinformed was he, he wrote that the EPA
(who issued the permits) were not the authority who did and I was
bullshitting yet again. Even when I posted scans of the permits, it
didn't cause him to break stride as he marched forth to do battle with
yet another windmill.

The thing about this whole load issue Jeff, is that I suggested to
someone a method I use (and have for a long time) to produce really
unique, flat field panoramas and the sheep (including Marles) might
just as well have rerun the 2005 scenario when I sent example of my
enlargements to *QUALIFIED* professionals around the world who passed
judgment on them. It is only my peers I take seriously. The garbage
mouths like Mark and the Athiest are about as significant in my life
as the mozzie I just swatted.

Definitely some of my techniques are radical in the sense they are not
common knowledge, at the time the sheep discover them. That's how I
got to be as successful as I am. Thousands of people each year by my
photos. Dozens sign up for me as their wedding photographer and a few
even pay obscene amounts for my fine art photos at galleries and
auctions. It is innovators, not imitators who succeed in this world.

It is the wannabe imitators who think cutting tall poppies down to
size is a national sport in Australia. That's why the Asian and
American business operators see us as easy prey... The dickheads like
Mark Thomas and his puppets.

I use less than 15% of each image to create a stepped out panorama.
Shooting with a 150mm lens doesn't help the similarity in the images
for those who don't get to see the whole picture. I never said it was
simple to create a flat field panorama by moving the camera linear
instead of rotating it. In fact, I don't ever recall offering any
information about how to do it, just a suggestion that it produces
uniquely different images.

The joke is... Marles decided to take his toysRus camera out to play
and "prove" he couldn't do it and then bleat back at the heard that
just because he couldn't do it with his toysRus Sony, I must be (once
again) full of bullshit... ROTFL. Stay tuned for the final chapter.
Skip all the one s in between because the end result always justifies
the means!

Cryptopix

unread,
Feb 9, 2008, 5:28:59 AM2/9/08
to
On Feb 9, 8:58 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:

> mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I won't foul the other multiple threads where you brought up the
> > jealousy and bias issues, just this one...
>
> Geez, you really must be so overly obsessed with me to devote such time and
> effort? If you become a true fan I'm going to have to charge you membership
> dues. GODDAMN! I MUST OF HIT AN EXPOSED NERVE!!

>
> > Found a little quote from you, and I thought it was amusing.. Here's
> > something you said about a certain person - guess who?:
> > " I did look at his pics and I really like the theme and composition
> > of them, very creative."
> > "As for the technical side of his shots, I really don't care since the
> > pictures convey his creativity and artistic talents."
>
> By all means, keep digging and you might even dig up where I complimented
> Bret on his pictures till I found out they were overcropped Photoshop
> manipulations. That doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to change

> my mind should I find out the truth. That being said, his excrements are
> pure shit and so are yours.
>
> You don't have to hold back on my account, so please post a link so everyone
> else can see the fruits of your efforts and laugh at you. I'm so glad that
> I was able to touch you in such a way that I'm now in your dreams.
>
> Rita


I think he loves you Rita!

Harold Hughes - Higglytown Hero

unread,
Feb 9, 2008, 6:46:18 AM2/9/08
to

So why mention them in every post?


>
> Definitely some of my techniques are radical in the sense they are not
> common knowledge, at the time the sheep discover them. That's how I
> got to be as successful as I am. Thousands of people each year by my
> photos. Dozens sign up for me as their wedding photographer and a few
> even pay obscene amounts for my fine art photos at galleries and
> auctions. It is innovators, not imitators who succeed in this world.
>
> It is the wannabe imitators who think cutting tall poppies down to
> size is a national sport in Australia. That's why the Asian and
> American business operators see us as easy prey... The dickheads like
> Mark Thomas and his puppets.
>
> I use less than 15% of each image to create a stepped out panorama.
> Shooting with a 150mm lens doesn't help the similarity in the images
> for those who don't get to see the whole picture. I never said it was
> simple to create a flat field panorama by moving the camera linear
> instead of rotating it. In fact, I don't ever recall offering any
> information about how to do it, just a suggestion that it produces
> uniquely different images.
>
> The joke is... Marles decided to take his toysRus camera out to play
> and "prove" he couldn't do it and then bleat back at the heard that
> just because he couldn't do it with his toysRus Sony, I must be (once
> again) full of bullshit... ROTFL. Stay tuned for the final chapter.
> Skip all the one s in between because the end result always justifies
> the means!

And here I was thinking with the birth of CD and the death of vinyl we
wouldn't have to listen to scratched records anymore.

Jeff R.

unread,
Feb 9, 2008, 7:17:43 AM2/9/08
to

"Cryptopix" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4206aa5f-998a-4c09...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 8, 6:52 pm, "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote:
>> Doug:
>>
>> (1) Why did you take down your
>> pagehttp://www.douglasjames.com.au/walking-pano.htm ?
>>
>> (2) Were the two photos you presented on that page taken from the same
>> position?
>>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
>
> What I do with the web sites I develop, own or sell lease out is
> entirely my business, Jeff. Douglasjames.com.au was never going to be
> used for what a free site on flickr would do just as easily without
> wasting my resources. I posted some pictures to it so I could tickle
> up Google and the other search engines when I went live with it.

Of course, Doug.
I would never dispute your right to put up and/or take down pages
-but-
on the page in question you made a particular assertion about two images.
Does that assertion still stand? (more below)


> I have never concealed the fact I use these groups to increase a
> site's ratings or prime the search engines in advance. It quite a
> legitimate way to get ranking up. The3 more people who link to it, the
> higher it's ranking goes.

OK.
I don't care about search engine rankings, but I would have thought it would
be counterproductive to pull the pages down so quickly...

>
> The answer to your 2nd question is NO. I would have thought providing
> full frame replicas of the originals was enough... Not for flock here
> it seems.

Well, no, Doug.

If you look carefully at the images you will see that items in the
foreground line up with items in the background in *exactly* the same manner
and to the same degree in BOTH images. Now this is only possible if they
were taken from the same location - to within a few inches deviation at
most.

I did explain all this before, quite clearly I thought.

This is simply an observation made of the two images as posted. I presume
that as posted they were unaltered by your "merging" software.


> If you'd followed my history in these groups... <snip>

With respect, I'm not really interested in historical feuds.
I'm just concerned with the two images you posted, and the assertion made on
the now-gone page.

>
> The thing about this whole load issue Jeff, is that I suggested to
> someone a method I use (and have for a long time) to produce really
> unique, flat field panoramas

BTW, Doug, I have no problem at all with flat-field panoramas (as you call
them). I can see a number of circumstances in which they'd work very well.
I've already said as such.

I have, however, done a lot of work with single-viewpoint panoramas, often
over twenty exposures each, and sometimes up to 360 deg coverage. I have
also taken many, many stereo pairs, and have presented them as parallel,
cross-eyed, anaglyphic and cross-polarised images. I am quite familiar with
the effect of viewpoint on images, and all my experience tells me that the
two images you posted were taken from the same spot.

Is it possible that, when you took the string of "walking-pano" shots, that
these two were actually from the same spot, and you didn't notice it? Lost
track of them, so to speak?


> Definitely some of my techniques are radical in the sense they are not
> common knowledge, at the time the sheep discover them.

If you mean stitching panoramas from a changing viewpoint, and with
considerable depth to the images, then I'd *love* to see a result.

>
> I use less than 15% of each image to create a stepped out panorama.

OK. Fair enough. I often overlap mine a lot, too. It gives me much more
latitude in choosing where to make the seam. I understand all that.

> Shooting with a 150mm lens doesn't help the similarity in the images
> for those who don't get to see the whole picture.

?? I don't understand that, but please proceed...

> I never said it was
> simple to create a flat field panorama by moving the camera linear
> instead of rotating it.

Nor did I.
I understand the trials and tribulations of stitching panoramas.
It must be a real bugger getting the different perspectives to match - fancy
software notwithstanding.

> The joke is... Marles decided to take his toysRus camera out to play
> and "prove" he couldn't do it

No, I believe he was simply demonstrating (from the same spot you had
chosen) the effect of moving one's location (even slightly) when taking
adjacent shots.

Doug - I just had another look at your two demo shots. Look at the RHS of
the red parked car. You can see *exactly* the same depth and perspective of
that flat panel in both shots. If the viewpoints were indeed different, by
as little as a few feet, then that panel would look completely different
from shot to shot.


> ...ROTFL. Stay tuned for the final chapter.


> Skip all the one s in between because the end result always justifies
> the means!

You bet.
I await with genuine interest and anticipation the opportunity to see the
final "walking pano" which uses the two images which you earlier posted.

Please - let's see it!

--
Jeff R.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 9, 2008, 8:23:24 AM2/9/08
to
Only a little off topic.

On Feb 9, 9:46 pm, Harold Hughes - Higglytown Hero
<hhug...@higglytown.com> wrote:


> Cryptopix wrote:
> The3 more people who link to it, the high