Go to page:
-
Shanghai, one of the most populous cities in the world, has never been pictured in such enormous detail. Let the world experience this fast growing city and understand China is always my dream. Through my telephoto lens, I wish you, the viewer, can blend into the daily life in Shanghai and enjoy your virtual visit. ...
-
-
Stats
- Favorites
- 41
- Comments
- 84
- Snapshots
- 836
- Total Views
- 323150
- Explore Score
- 176
GigaPan Comments (84)
Toggle Minimize gigapan_commentSui xuming (January 09, 2011, 04:15AM )
我也曾使用Manfrotto 303SPH手动云台＋长焦镜头来拍摄全景，但是后期制作很困难，我使用PTGui pro软件来合成，但是在没有反差的图片中，如大面积的蓝天、水、雾等完全没有参照点的情况下，拼接就非常 困难，希望像你和Giagpan user学习！也希望能有您(Alfred Zhao) 的联系方式。 My email:sxmtv@126.com My TeL:13941613144
Sui xuming (January 09, 2011, 04:04AM )
看了你的图心潮澎湃！
Alfred Zhao (January 07, 2011, 08:33PM )
Hi, Taaplari, You raised a very interesting question, I think the resolution of a gigapan is a multivariate problem. It is determined by the original image quality, image dimension, distance from the camera to the object, Often, it is not very comparable or even very subjective.
Taaplari (January 07, 2011, 03:55AM )
It's a bit hard to explain this with my English, but what I mean is that if I look at Gigapan pictures at zoom level which is 1/3 of maximum zoom (about 10 mousewheel moves), precision is very different between pictures. That rises the question: Are resolution of all pictures here calculated in the same precision level, so they are in the same line when we compare their resolutions.
Chusak Voraphitak (January 05, 2011, 02:57PM )
Wow, Amazing and Congratulation. Keep working your great work.
Alfred Zhao (January 05, 2011, 06:33AM )
For English viewers, the question from "abalone" was, "why the map location is a bit off". I did a careful analysis and found the location searched based on address is different than the satellite view. The location seems to be off by several blocks. I guess Google does not have very accurate Chinese map. I do not know if the map view is more accurate or the satellite view is more accurate. To remain consistent, you just have to stick to one view.
Alfred Zhao (January 05, 2011, 06:27AM )
地图标注的问题，我看了一下，发现谷歌的卫星图和地图之间有相当大的差别，看来谷歌中国地图的精度不是太理 想。也就是说，如果按地址找到的位置与按卫星图找到的位置是不同的。
abalone (January 04, 2011, 05:02PM )
Alrfed, 看了你的图片，觉得非常震撼，你是怎么拍出来的？我们用傻瓜相机也能拍吗？还有就是，你在地图上的标注好像 与图片对不太上，我英语能看懂，但是写不好，就直接用中文了。
Alfred Zhao (January 03, 2011, 05:57AM )
Taaplari, to answer your question regarding the zoom level. I think Gigapan's max zoom level is 1:9, meaning, a pixel is zoomed to 3x3. It is easy to setup a simple experiment. Open up your gigapan image side by side with your source image. Zoom your source image to 1:1 in your preferred image viewer and then zoom gigapan to its max level, measure the difference. You should be able to find out the max zoom level.
Karim Saad (January 03, 2011, 12:28AM )
Since all the Gurus are here, I would like to share with you my latest Gigapan of my beloved city and Hometown Beirut. Awaiting for your comments also! www.gigapan.org/gigapans/67894/
Taaplari (January 02, 2011, 10:48PM )
Almost every picture here is "too near" when zoomed to maximum. So in that level there is usually 5-10 times too many pixels in the pictures, because there is no added informarion after certain zoom level. I'm interested to hear in what zoom level is pixels calculated? If resolution is calculated in maximum zoom level, this picture would be near correct: www.gigapan.org/gigapans/50243/ Sorry my bad English.
Alfred Zhao (January 02, 2011, 04:22PM )
This is the 360 degree panorama ( www.gigapan.org/gigapans/68015/ ) of my office. I focused on the screen, therefore, the bookshelf is slightly out of focus. For higher quality large interior panorama, focus stacking became a must. Does anyone know how to automatically shoot panorama with focus stacking.
Alfred Zhao (December 29, 2010, 12:09PM )
Dave, it will be a fun project for you. According to my calculation, with your telescope lens and a Hasselblad H3DII 50, you will get around 700G optical pixel for the same field of view as in this picture. The total amount of image pixels will definitely into the Terapixel range. However, there will be other constraints, with the same shooting speed, 2.4 seconds per picture, you will need 16 hours to complete a similar fov. Even 1.6 seconds per picture, you will need 11 hours. I won't recommend any speed faster than 2 seconds per picture. Another constraint is the robotic head, will it be able to handle the weight? Also, DOF will be very short for a telescope. You can try, I will be eager to see a sample image set. This is about exploring the limit, right? Should be very fun!
Dave Belcher (December 29, 2010, 04:32AM )
Congratulations, Alfred. A mighty accomplishment. I'm having thoughts of creating an image of around 1 terapixel or even larger. I have an optical instrument of 2540mm focal length @ f/14 (Questar Seven) which when mounted on it's altazimuth/equatorial mount can be coupled to a medium format camera such as a Phase One, Pentax or Hasselblad. Field of view is 1.2 degrees with an image circle of nearly 75mm. I shall be running tests in the spring. Nice thing about the Questar is it's very hi resolving power of less than .2 arc seconds and flat field with no vignetting.
Raymond Goldfield (December 26, 2010, 08:28PM )
Funny emperor analogy, when emperors find out they don't have cloth, for sure, they are going chase after you.
Alfred Zhao (December 26, 2010, 12:03PM )
It is a scalar in vector space, not a direction in vector space. These are different.
Ronnie Miranda (December 26, 2010, 11:58AM )
Alfred, I'm not arguing but rather seeking clarification. And I think you made it clear. Using your very own logic and argument: if a compass, for example, is giving us a wrong reading, then "no one should alter the instrument they use if that's the only instrument they have" in order to remain consistent and loyal to the incorrect data even if the compass is pointing us in the wrong direction.
Alfred Zhao (December 26, 2010, 07:28AM )
One more comment, I only stated the fact on the wikipedia entry, the image size in terms of pixel count is accurate, I also stated the optical pixel count, it is to the best understanding of the estimation model. Therefore, the entry is listed according to fact, no imagination, no data manipulation. It is the world record in terms of both image size as well as optical size estimation, there is no dispute at all. I think someone early in the thread has already acknowledge that.
Alfred Zhao (December 26, 2010, 07:16AM )
Ronmir, the threads conversation is very clear. The reasoning is very simple. No one should alter the instrument they use. Otherwise, how does people know if this person is loyal to the data or not? Technology discussion trying to find out why the instrument does not produce data accurately is a completely separate issue. What's the model used to estimate the theoretical result is yet another topic. Do not mix the concepts together. When all the "emperors" do not wear cloth, why someone wear cloth (clearly state the fact) becomes the target? Now, every "emperor" should dress up, tell the world how much data they have manipulated. Regarding the wikipedia entry, I do not know about anything before 2007, but after 2007, every single one are produced by Autopano. Go ahead argue with all those guys now.
Ronnie Miranda (December 26, 2010, 06:40AM )
The Google PTGUI group thread on this topic is here groups.google.com/group/ptgui/brow se_thread/thread/67924e4e4a3373d4