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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. 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
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rita Berkowitz

    Jeff R. Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...


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

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Feb 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 :)

    --
    God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Feb 7, 2008
    #3
  4. Rita Berkowitz

    Guest

    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" <> 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.
     
    , Feb 7, 2008
    #4
  5. 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.


    And as I suspected your life is so empty that you have to be part of the
    problem. Sad thing is *YOU* have control over *YOU* and yet you only
    demonstrate you want to posture and make noise.

    > Rita likes cowards, we don't.
    > Everyone may post their opinion, and there you have it - why is Rita
    > so upset about this?.


    Upset? How do you figure? Not me. I don't have an emotional or financial
    investment in either of you. I have nothing to gain or lose except a good
    laugh.

    > 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.


    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.

    >>> (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.


    No, just waiting for you to post a picture better than Doug's. Only thing
    you're posting is jealous rants.

    >>> 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!


    And your contribution here is what, exactly? You create noise and offer
    nothing photography related. I guess your entertainment value could be
    considered a contribution. So carry on.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 2008
    #5
  6. Rita Berkowitz

    Guest

    On Feb 7, 10:44 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <> 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.
     
    , Feb 7, 2008
    #6
  7. PixelPix wrote:

    >> 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
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 2008
    #7
  8. 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;


    LOL! No, I'm just waiting for you to reduce yourself to pointing out
    spelling errors since you're one step away from that.

    >>> 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.


    What irony? You are just a play thing for my amusement.

    >> 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?


    What thread?

    >> 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?


    Oh, I thought your version of being ontopic is to bash Doug?

    > 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.


    Good for you. You get a gold star next to your name and a cookie.

    > 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.


    You have this over inflated notion of value and self worth. Hint, your
    opinion really doesn't mean anything.

    > 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.


    No, this is when I get to laugh at you yet again.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 2008
    #8
  9. Rita Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    On Feb 8, 12:28 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:
    > PixelPix wrote:
    > >> 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.
     
    PixelPix, Feb 7, 2008
    #9
  10. PixelPix wrote:

    >> I did. And the answer is to stimulate the idiots and have a good
    >> time while doing it.

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


    Hey, if you really feel that way please, by all means, feel free to killfile
    me. I won't shed a tear if you do. I'm still trying to figure out exactly
    what your contribution here is?





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 2008
    #10
  11. Rita Berkowitz

    Cryptopix Guest

    On Feb 7, 9:44 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <> 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.
     
    Cryptopix, Feb 8, 2008
    #11
  12. Rita Berkowitz

    Jeff R. Guest

    "Cryptopix" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Jeff R., Feb 8, 2008
    #12
  13. Rita Berkowitz

    Guest

    Off topic.

    On Feb 8, 5:02 pm, Cryptopix <> 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!
     
    , Feb 8, 2008
    #13
  14. Rita Berkowitz

    Guest

    She's just a jealous guy...

    Off topic.

    On Feb 8, 12:29 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <> 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.
     
    , Feb 8, 2008
    #14
  15. Re: She's just a jealous guy...Who Shattered Mark's Ego!!!

    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
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 8, 2008
    #15
  16. Rita Berkowitz

    Guest

    Re: I reserve the right to change my mind should I find out thetruth...

    On Feb 9, 8:58 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <> 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.
     
    , Feb 8, 2008
    #16
  17. Rita Berkowitz

    Rob. Guest

    Re: She's just a jealous guy...Who Shattered Mark's Ego!!!

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:

    > 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
    >


    And your pathic point was? You are full od shte, I have never been able
    to view any of your images at all- there always either pulled or never
    existed.
     
    Rob., Feb 9, 2008
    #17
  18. Rita Berkowitz

    Cryptopix Guest

    On Feb 8, 6:52 pm, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
    > "Cryptopix" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > 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 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, Feb 9, 2008
    #18
  19. Rita Berkowitz

    Cryptopix Guest

    Re: She's just a jealous guy...Who Shattered Mark's Ego!!!

    On Feb 9, 8:58 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:
    > 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!
     
    Cryptopix, Feb 9, 2008
    #19
  20. Rita Berkowitz

    Jeff R. Guest

    "Cryptopix" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Feb 8, 6:52 pm, "Jeff R." <> 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.
     
    Jeff R., Feb 9, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob

    Need stepping ring help, 46mm--->52mm

    Bob, Jun 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    509
    Bob Salomon
    Jun 18, 2004
  2. Karen  Parker
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,181
    Karen Parker
    Aug 27, 2004
  3. Karen  Parker
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    375
    JohnO
    Aug 26, 2004
  4. thingy

    AMD's new cpu with b3 stepping is out!

    thingy, Mar 18, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    336
    Gordon
    Mar 21, 2008
  5. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    402
    Jeroen Wijnands
    May 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page