 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / May 2008Stepping out a panorama (the method that can't be done!)
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 w.nker 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 > 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) (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. > (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. > 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. >> 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. 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. >> 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 >>> 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 I'm not talking about the path. The area of the road that is common to both pictures has a different angle in each. >>>> Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different crops >>>> from one wide-angle shot. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm not talking about the path. The area of the road that is common to > both pictures has a different angle in each. No it doesn't. Read my earlier posts. -- Jeff R. > >>>> Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different crops > >>>> from one wide-angle shot. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > Jeff R. You really are a bugger for punishment Jeff. Someone tells you how it is and you argue it's not. >> >>>> Up to this point, I suspected that the two images were different >> >>>> crops [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You really are a bugger for punishment Jeff. Someone tells you how it > is and you argue it's not. > That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have > a digicam they have a clue! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Douglas and yet Douggie, here you are.............  SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? > (update and correction to self:) > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > -- > Jeff R. 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. > 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. > The stereo pair works! > Surely you can see that! You do realise you are arguing with Doug right? :-) MrT. >> (update and correction to self:) >> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > joined them in a straight line. Trying to make a stereo out of them is > another mistake. > That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have > a digicam they have a clue! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Douglas and yet Douggie, here you are............. SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? > > Here we go: > > Atheist puts his foot in his mouth: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Jeff R. > (not flaming, just observing) 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! > 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. >> > Here we go: >> > Atheist puts his foot in his mouth: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > The notion that they are joined in a straight line is probably what > prompted your comment. They aren't! > That's it for me. I'm done with the fools who think just because they have > a digicam they have a clue! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Douglas and yet Douggie, here you are............. SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 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. Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > and abuse the members. I don't know the name of the condition you > obviously have, but I bet its hard to pronounce. and still the sound of crickets :-) SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > 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.. > 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.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > AC, I have perused the usenet archives at reasonable length, and I can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 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; 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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! > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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 (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 > 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? 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... > 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. 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..): [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Abbot, Cryptopix, Aussie Aussie Aussie, Parallel Dreaming, Sarina > Sarin, Susana Jones, Prisilla... You forgot his most famous one ....George Preddy. Off topic. > On Jan 28, 6:55 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 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. 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. On Feb 2, 8:27 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > You forgot his most famous one ....George Preddy. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? 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. > 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-cre scent.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.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > T'was almost on my way home and there was a brief break in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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%20be ach%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: 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.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > r 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... >>mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > We all learned what not to do, and are now onto what *is* possible... 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 Have a look at this pan (animated) http://www.gillesvidal.com/blogpano/cockpit1.htm > 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. > 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.. >> 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. > 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 Did anybody else hear an annoying buzzing sound? I think I might need to spray my motherboard. -- Jeff R. >> As Mark has pointed out, Doug, don't you think you should either: >> (1) defend your stance, or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Rita Well you just gave us all a good example of your measure :-) SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? Off topic. (Gee, this is going down sooo well for you Rita - you're on a winner with Dougie! (O;) > > 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. >>> As Mark has pointed out, Doug, don't you think you should either: >>> (1) defend your stance, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 > 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 > > mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now there is a question that you should be asking yourself! lol Sorry Mark, my bad editing made that look like a response to you, when it was really in response to Rita. > 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: >> mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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 > >> mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rita In other words.... being a useless f'n TROLL who offers little value to this photography NG, if any at all. >> 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 > 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. >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 Off topic. > >> 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. > 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 sh.t 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 > 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 sh.t 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. >> 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..". That's the way we say it in Tennessee. >> 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" It was migrated a while back to one of the 2006, 2007, or 2008 sites and reposted to the Usenet groups. Just keep digging and you will find it. > I'm deeply sorry I embarrassed you. Not at all. You seem to be overestimating your value and self importance again. Again, I'll give you a hint, I don't take you or anything else on the net seriously so I don't get embarrassed. The groups are here to have fun with, and I'm enjoying myself. How about you? Rita "Re: I reserve the right to watch a fool fall on his face!" You're certainly in the right place. Maybe you have the wrong fool... > >http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Face.jpg > > "Not Found" > > Just keep digging and you will find it. No thanks. Your image. You said you always left them up. I'm pointing out that this isn't the case, and you have now shown you won't retrieve them. So, readers will now know *not* to bother clicking on your old links. > The groups are here to have > fun with.. Are they? Oh. I thought that they might be to foster community spirit and help folk learn. > I'm enjoying myself. How about you? Yep, I'm fine. But as you seem to have nothing ontopic to add here about panoramas... Bye. >> Just keep digging and you will find it. > > No thanks. Your image. You said you always left them up. I'm > pointing out that this isn't the case, and you have now shown you > won't retrieve them. So, readers will now know *not* to bother > clicking on your old links. Not all of my fans are as overly obsessed as you that they would be looking for old links. Again, since you are always looking for a hair to split, it was migrated to one of my other sites for space reasons. The *new* link was reposted here for all to see. So, no, I don't remove pictures. >> The groups are here to have >> fun with.. > > Are they? Oh. I thought that they might be to foster community > spirit and help folk learn. Yep! And you foster neither with your constant attempts to antagonize D-Mac. >> I'm enjoying myself. How about you? > > Bye. If only... I got a good laugh when "Helen" fell and I'll get a good laugh when you fall. It's just a matter of time. Rita Off topic. Just reposting - Rita wants the post to expire so she won't be embarrassed later... Sorry, Rita. > mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Just keep digging and you will find it. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Rita > mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > > I won't foul the other multiple threads where you brought up the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Rita I think he loves you Rita! >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I think he loves you Rita! I guess that is a good thing? He's been a blast to play with, but I hope he's not taking any of this seriously since I don't want to see him come down hard when he finally figures out that he's nothing more than my plaything. Rita > > As Mark has pointed out, Doug, don't you think you should either: > > (1) defend your stance, or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 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. > 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. > > You know Rita... > > I'm happy to let these idiots dig their own grave. Just as soon as I'm [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > 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 chrlz@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! >>> You know Rita... >>> I'm happy to let these idiots dig their own grave. Just as soon as I'm [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > mouths like Mark and the Athiest are about as significant in my life > as the mozzie I just swatted. 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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. Only a little off topic. On Feb 9, 9:46 pm, Harold Hughes - Higglytown Hero <hhug...@higglytown.com> wrote: > The3 more people who link to it, the higher it's ranking goes. To Doug - Freudian slip? 3 more people would probably have more than tripled his normal monthly viewing figures... > It is only my peers I take seriously. To Doug - do you mean liars and pretenders? That'd be why Rita and you get on famously. Is there anyone else here you call a peer? If not, why do you post here? > The garbage > > mouths like Mark and the Athiest are about as significant in my life > > as the mozzie I just swatted. > > So why mention them in every post? A very good question, HHHH. The matters raised by Doug have been demolished on numerous occasions, but he keeps repeating them in a sad attempt to convince someone (anyone?).. If anyone *is* actually interested, refer to my post of Jul 30 2007, 8:39 pm in this thread begun by 'Julian', the infamously exposed Douglas sockpuppet: http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/6bf4b5dd0761caf1 Strangely, Doug doesn't like to talk about Julian much anymore... By t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message