My 1st 3Dimensional Full 360 Panorama!

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

http://seph.ca
http://photos.seph.ca

That is indeed cool! however I have two questions!!
What programme did you use to compile the panorama and make the movie? Why do you have a carpet stuck to the ceiling!!! :o)

—
X-No-Archive: yes

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

very nicely done 🙂

I like the picture on the ceiling
the acoustic sound proving , is it egg boxes?

yes, they work great and were cheap as hell.

" banjo" wrote in message

—
X-No-Archive: yes

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

very nicely done 🙂

I like the picture on the ceiling
the acoustic sound proving , is it egg boxes?

ptgui, then pano2qtvr
~S~
I did not take pics of the complete ceiling, so I filled it in with a mandala!

"Harry Limey" wrote in message

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

http://seph.ca
http://photos.seph.ca

That is indeed cool! however I have two questions!!
What programme did you use to compile the panorama and make the movie? Why do you have a carpet stuck to the ceiling!!! :o)

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 02:01:02 -0500, "www.seph.ca" found these unused words floating about:

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

http://seph.ca
http://photos.seph.ca

What do you need to view in 3D … I see no depth in these images.

I guess 3d is stretching it, but it is reasonably close. But in answer to your question:

BC BUD

🙂

~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 02:01:02 -0500, "www.seph.ca" found
these unused words floating about:

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

http://seph.ca
http://photos.seph.ca

What do you need to view in 3D … I see no depth in these images.

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

http://seph.ca
http://photos.seph.ca

that took 52 shots??
seems like a fewer would work in such small area??
why not just take a video cam shot and pan around?? or are these kind of images usually made from stills??

nice effect though the virtual look around..would like that for my site too….
when I think studio I always think photos (hehe) wasn’t thinking music at all…………….our egg crates are Styrofoam
all that cardboard, hope you got a dust buster vac…………… and put your slippers away!!

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:11:45 -0500, "KatWoman"
found these unused words floating
about:

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

http://seph.ca
http://photos.seph.ca

that took 52 shots??
seems like a fewer would work in such small area??
why not just take a video cam shot and pan around?? or are these kind of images usually made from stills??

nice effect though the virtual look around..would like that for my site too….
when I think studio I always think photos (hehe) wasn’t thinking music at all…………….our egg crates are Styrofoam
all that cardboard, hope you got a dust buster vac…………… and put your slippers away!!

Though fewer shots would ‘cover the area’, you’d run into lens distortion because of the wider angle used. A small space takes more shots as the recommended 50-60 mm setting intends less area captured.

Case of quality vs ‘speed’.

Better than those ugly fisheye ones imo.
Tho I would only need to take 6 shots with a fisheye, would be a blessing. Think within the cube!
🙂
~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:11:45 -0500, "KatWoman"
found these unused words floating
about:

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

http://seph.ca
http://photos.seph.ca

that took 52 shots??
seems like a fewer would work in such small area??
why not just take a video cam shot and pan around?? or are these kind of images usually made from stills??

nice effect though the virtual look around..would like that for my site too….
when I think studio I always think photos (hehe) wasn’t thinking music at all…………….our egg crates are Styrofoam
all that cardboard, hope you got a dust buster vac…………… and put your slippers away!!

Though fewer shots would ‘cover the area’, you’d run into lens distortion because of the wider angle used. A small space takes more shots as the recommended 50-60 mm setting intends less area captured.
Case of quality vs ‘speed’.

What do you need to view in 3D … I see no depth in these images.

I don’t think he meant they were 3D pictures; some folks call ’em that because it’s a 360 degree image which can be panned in three dimensions, left/right, up/down, and zoom in/out. The image isn’t 3D; your "motion" through it is.

This particular one, however, does not allow zoom, as far as I can see, so it’s actually 2D.

Some of these don’t allow up/down, either, so I guess they’d be 1D.

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

d’OH … that’s why they’re ‘ugly’ … lens distortion!
SFAR

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:58:53 -0500, "www.seph.ca" found these unused words floating about:

Better than those ugly fisheye ones imo.
Tho I would only need to take 6 shots with a fisheye, would be a blessing. Think within the cube!
🙂
~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:11:45 -0500, "KatWoman"
found these unused words floating
about:

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

Been wanting to know how to do this for 5 years, finally figured it out this
week exported in quicktime format.

A fully 3d pan of my studio, comprised of 52 individual shots taken on a tripod with my Canon A620.
http://photos.seph.ca/studiopics/studioqt1.mov
Cool, n’est ce pas?

Seph

http://seph.ca
http://photos.seph.ca

that took 52 shots??
seems like a fewer would work in such small area??
why not just take a video cam shot and pan around?? or are these kind of images usually made from stills??

nice effect though the virtual look around..would like that for my site too….
when I think studio I always think photos (hehe) wasn’t thinking music at all…………….our egg crates are Styrofoam
all that cardboard, hope you got a dust buster vac…………… and put your slippers away!!

Though fewer shots would ‘cover the area’, you’d run into lens distortion because of the wider angle used. A small space takes more shots as the recommended 50-60 mm setting intends less area captured.
Case of quality vs ‘speed’.

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:44:01 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

What do you need to view in 3D … I see no depth in these images.

You need to drag it around with your mouse to get a 360X360 degree view of the room. It’s more a complete panorama rather than 3D.

Ron

it does allow zoom
your browser is set to 1024 or lower. Mine is higher.
It was exported at 1024, so you don’t see the edge at your resolution. ~S~

"Art" wrote in message

What do you need to view in 3D … I see no depth in these images.

I don’t think he meant they were 3D pictures; some folks call ’em that because it’s a 360 degree image which can be panned in three dimensions, left/right, up/down, and zoom in/out. The image isn’t 3D; your "motion" through it is.

This particular one, however, does not allow zoom, as far as I can see, so it’s actually 2D.

Some of these don’t allow up/down, either, so I guess they’d be 1D.

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

My latest new pan:
the portfolio will grow!
http://photos.seph.ca/2007/pans/ste-anne/Ste-Anne-Boardwalk- Jan-9-360.mov

~S~

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:15:03 -0500, Ron Lacey found
these unused words floating about:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:44:01 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

What do you need to view in 3D … I see no depth in these images.

You need to drag it around with your mouse to get a 360X360 degree view of the room. It’s more a complete panorama rather than 3D.

That what I see/do, so then it’s NOT 3D !!!

Kirk Splaat

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:08:06 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

That what I see/do, so then it’s NOT 3D !!!

I guess nothing on a two dimensional screen is truly 3D but the ability to move the panorama through three demensions is as much faux 3D as anything on a computer monitor. Btw your cap locks seems to be stuck on certain letters.

up the meds

"Ron Lacey" wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:08:06 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

That what I see/do, so then it’s NOT 3D !!!

I guess nothing on a two dimensional screen is truly 3D but the ability to move the panorama through three demensions is as much faux 3D as anything on a computer monitor. Btw your cap locks seems to be stuck on certain letters.

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:24:41 -0500, Ron Lacey found
these unused words floating about:

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:08:06 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

That what I see/do, so then it’s NOT 3D !!!

I guess nothing on a two dimensional screen is truly 3D but the ability to move the panorama through three demensions is as much faux 3D as anything on a computer monitor. Btw your cap locks seems to be stuck on certain letters.

Don’t GUESS !!!

There -=are=- three dimensional processes available for computer monitors and are often used. Look up "anaglyph"

No … keys are clear – it’s called "EMPHASIS for dummies".

no, its called tremendous self-importance, and its your prob, no one else’s. but thanks for the point in the right direction.
Egomaniacs never fail to impress, or at least they die trying to. Yes, I ended on a preposition.
Sue me.
😛
~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:24:41 -0500, Ron Lacey found
these unused words floating about:

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:08:06 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

That what I see/do, so then it’s NOT 3D !!!

I guess nothing on a two dimensional screen is truly 3D but the ability to move the panorama through three demensions is as much faux 3D as anything on a computer monitor. Btw your cap locks seems to be stuck on certain letters.

Don’t GUESS !!!

There -=are=- three dimensional processes available for computer monitors and are often used. Look up "anaglyph"

No … keys are clear – it’s called "EMPHASIS for dummies".

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

My latest new pan:
the portfolio will grow!
http://photos.seph.ca/2007/pans/ste-anne/Ste-Anne-Boardwalk- Jan-9-360.mov
~S~

that one is prettier
the black hole could be nicer
I want a mandala in my sky now

thank you
I agree
Workin out the kinks
Here’s the corner store..
Bookmark this page to see new ones as they go up..

http://www.3d.seph.ca

~S~

"KatWoman" wrote in message

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

My latest new pan:
the portfolio will grow!
http://photos.seph.ca/2007/pans/ste-anne/Ste-Anne-Boardwalk- Jan-9-360.mov
~S~

that one is prettier
the black hole could be nicer
I want a mandala in my sky now

OK, you’re a poy named "Sue" …

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:18:06 -0500, "www.seph.ca" found these unused words floating about:

no, its called tremendous self-importance, and its your prob, no one else’s. but thanks for the point in the right direction.
Egomaniacs never fail to impress, or at least they die trying to. Yes, I ended on a preposition.
Sue me.
😛
~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:24:41 -0500, Ron Lacey found
these unused words floating about:

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:08:06 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

That what I see/do, so then it’s NOT 3D !!!

I guess nothing on a two dimensional screen is truly 3D but the ability to move the panorama through three demensions is as much faux 3D as anything on a computer monitor. Btw your cap locks seems to be stuck on certain letters.

Don’t GUESS !!!

There -=are=- three dimensional processes available for computer monitors and are often used. Look up "anaglyph"

No … keys are clear – it’s called "EMPHASIS for dummies".

That’ll teach me to defend your proper use of ‘too many’ pictures to get a quality result, eh?

Some are born Plonkers, but you’re self maid!

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:18:06 -0500, "www.seph.ca" found these unused words floating about:

no, its called tremendous self-importance, and its your prob, no one else’s. but thanks for the point in the right direction.
Egomaniacs never fail to impress, or at least they die trying to. Yes, I ended on a preposition.
Sue me.
😛
~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:24:41 -0500, Ron Lacey found
these unused words floating about:

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:08:06 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

That what I see/do, so then it’s NOT 3D !!!

I guess nothing on a two dimensional screen is truly 3D but the ability to move the panorama through three demensions is as much faux 3D as anything on a computer monitor. Btw your cap locks seems to be stuck on certain letters.

Don’t GUESS !!!

There -=are=- three dimensional processes available for computer monitors and are often used. Look up "anaglyph"

No … keys are clear – it’s called "EMPHASIS for dummies".

you seem nice, with slight trollish sensibilities
i can relate.

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

That’ll teach me to defend your proper use of ‘too many’ pictures to get a quality result, eh?

Some are born Plonkers, but you’re self maid!

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:18:06 -0500, "www.seph.ca" found
these unused words floating about:

no, its called tremendous self-importance, and its your prob, no one else’s.
but thanks for the point in the right direction.
Egomaniacs never fail to impress, or at least they die trying to. Yes, I ended on a preposition.
Sue me.
😛
~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:24:41 -0500, Ron Lacey found
these unused words floating about:

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:08:06 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

That what I see/do, so then it’s NOT 3D !!!

I guess nothing on a two dimensional screen is truly 3D but the ability to move the panorama through three demensions is as much faux 3D as anything on a computer monitor. Btw your cap locks seems to be stuck on certain letters.

Don’t GUESS !!!

There -=are=- three dimensional processes available for computer monitors
and are often used. Look up "anaglyph"

No … keys are clear – it’s called "EMPHASIS for dummies".

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

you seem nice, with slight trollish sensibilities
i can relate.

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

That’ll teach me to defend your proper use of ‘too many’ pictures to get a
quality result, eh?

Some are born Plonkers, but you’re self maid!

You can’t go far wrong with someone who thinks you are "self maid!" I suppose!!!

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:13:02 -0000, "Harry Limey" found these unused words floating about:

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

you seem nice, with slight trollish sensibilities
i can relate.

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

That’ll teach me to defend your proper use of ‘too many’ pictures to get a quality result, eh?

Some are born Plonkers, but you’re self maid!

You can’t go far wrong with someone who thinks you are "self maid!" I suppose!!!

Guess you’ve never encountered a -=pun=- before … eh?

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

Guess you’ve never encountered a -=pun=- before … eh?

Was this a pun too? "OK, you’re a poy named "Sue""

Using wordplay as a means of scoring a point, is only successful if your spelling is normally accurate!!

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:57:20 -0000, "Harry Limey" found these unused words floating about:

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

Guess you’ve never encountered a -=pun=- before … eh?

Was this a pun too? "OK, you’re a poy named "Sue""
Using wordplay as a means of scoring a point, is only successful if your spelling is normally accurate!!

OK … I’ll Bartosh …

"So sue me!"
"OK, you’re a poy named "Sue"

poy – (n.) A ropedancer’s balancing pole.
Sue – (n.) A proper name.

bye!

Up the meds.

~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:57:20 -0000, "Harry Limey" found these unused words floating about:

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

Guess you’ve never encountered a -=pun=- before … eh?

Was this a pun too? "OK, you’re a poy named "Sue""
Using wordplay as a means of scoring a point, is only successful if your spelling is normally accurate!!

OK … I’ll Bartosh …

"So sue me!"
"OK, you’re a poy named "Sue"

poy – (n.) A ropedancer’s balancing pole.
Sue – (n.) A proper name.

bye!

guess you’ve never made one thats funny.

two cannibals are eating a clown,
one says to the other hey, does this guy taste funny to you?

we decided that you do not. you taste great.

~S~

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:13:02 -0000, "Harry Limey" found these unused words floating about:

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

you seem nice, with slight trollish sensibilities
i can relate.

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

That’ll teach me to defend your proper use of ‘too many’ pictures to get
a quality result, eh?

Some are born Plonkers, but you’re self maid!

You can’t go far wrong with someone who thinks you are "self maid!" I suppose!!!

Guess you’ve never encountered a -=pun=- before … eh?

What’s the command for zoom? I tried the + and – keys, space bar, and every other key I could think of that’s ever controlled a zoom in one of these.

And my monitor is set for 1280 wide; your image is well within my screen size, so I am seeing the edges.

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

it does allow zoom
your browser is set to 1024 or lower. Mine is higher.
It was exported at 1024, so you don’t see the edge at your resolution. ~S~

"Art" wrote in message

What do you need to view in 3D … I see no depth in these images.

I don’t think he meant they were 3D pictures; some folks call ’em that because it’s a 360 degree image which can be panned in three dimensions, left/right, up/down, and zoom in/out. The image isn’t 3D; your "motion" through it is.

This particular one, however, does not allow zoom, as far as I can see, so it’s actually 2D.

Some of these don’t allow up/down, either, so I guess they’d be 1D.

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

i should have written em sooner,
ctrl and shift keys
~S~

"Art" wrote in message

What’s the command for zoom? I tried the + and – keys, space bar, and every other key I could think of that’s ever controlled a zoom in one of these.

And my monitor is set for 1280 wide; your image is well within my screen size, so I am seeing the edges.

"www.seph.ca" wrote in message

it does allow zoom
your browser is set to 1024 or lower. Mine is higher.
It was exported at 1024, so you don’t see the edge at your resolution. ~S~

"Art" wrote in message

What do you need to view in 3D … I see no depth in these images.

I don’t think he meant they were 3D pictures; some folks call ’em that because it’s a 360 degree image which can be panned in three dimensions, left/right, up/down, and zoom in/out. The image isn’t 3D; your "motion" through it is.

This particular one, however, does not allow zoom, as far as I can see, so it’s actually 2D.

Some of these don’t allow up/down, either, so I guess they’d be 1D.

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com