On 21 May 2012, at 02:06, Michael Mol wrote:
...
And the final stitch is here:
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2030/brum3068brum30702.jpg
All Firefox gives me is a black window : can you check ?
Works on my system. It comes up all-black in geeqie, though; I had to
load it in
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 21 May 2012, at 02:06, Michael Mol wrote:
...
And the final stitch is here:
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2030/brum3068brum30702.jpg
All Firefox gives me is a black window : can you check ?
Works on
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I'm seriously wondering if there might not be something broken with
the .jpeg files I'm spitting out. That laptop (saffron) is in the
middle of an overdue emerge --update --deep --newuse @world, though.
(And I saw
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm seriously wondering if there might not be something broken with
the .jpeg files I'm spitting out. That laptop (saffron) is in the
middle of an overdue emerge --update --deep --newuse @world, though.
(And I saw it was
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Paul Hartman
paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm seriously wondering if there might not be something broken with
the .jpeg files I'm spitting out. That laptop (saffron) is in the
120519 Michael Mol wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Zeiss Ikon is 35mm SLR,
but that's about all you're going to get from it.
No ! -- as Stroller pointed out, zoom lenses were invented only c 1950.
My stepfather's model was made in Germany c 1939
had been mentioned to him as a good buy by a
120520 Stroller wrote:
Zoom lenses were much less common even 2 or 3 decades ago.
For a long time, a 50mm prime was the common kit lens,
rather than the 18-105mm zoom which is sold today.
This was because on a camera using 35mm film, a 50mm focal length
gives a field of view very close to
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 19 May 2012, at 20:28, Michael Mol wrote:
…
Worse, if the photographer was not using a prime lens[1], and was
instead using a lens with variable zoom, you can't easily know what
the real focal length was, as
120520 Michael Mol wrote:
as Philip later remarked, it turns out the lens was likely a 75mm prime
The picture of the camera looks exactly what I remember,
tho' there might have been different models with different lenses.
It was a very good camera for its time.
The leftmost portion will never
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
120520 Michael Mol wrote:
as Philip later remarked, it turns out the lens was likely a 75mm prime
The picture of the camera looks exactly what I remember,
tho' there might have been different models with different
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
120518 Michael Mol wrote:
Remarkably simple. Probably because I was only stitching two photos.
-- details snipped --
Thanks : that gives me a 3rd method to pursue.
NB in your result there are some badly curved lines
On 19 May 2012, at 20:28, Michael Mol wrote:
…
Worse, if the photographer was not using a prime lens[1], and was
instead using a lens with variable zoom, you can't easily know what
the real focal length was, as this will change depending on how far
the photographer has zoomed in.
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
120516 Michael Mol wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each picture,
which are 2 overlapping parts of a single original
120518 Michael Mol wrote:
Remarkably simple. Probably because I was only stitching two photos.
-- details snipped --
Thanks : that gives me a 3rd method to pursue.
NB in your result there are some badly curved lines :
bottom right, the front of the tram is badly distorted ;
centre top, the
On May 17, 2012 1:07 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 05:34, Philip Webb wrote:
...
Please do (smile) send me the result off-list
with the steps you followed to get there.
I have been really enjoying following this thread.
I felt sure from
120517 Pandu Poluan wrote:
On May 17, 2012 1:07 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 05:34, Philip Webb wrote:
Please do (smile) send me the result off-list
with the steps you followed to get there.
I have been really enjoying following this thread.
I felt
On Wed, 16 May 2012 00:12:25 -0400
Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
120515 Philip Webb wrote:
120515 Urs Schutz wrote:
I just tried with fotoxx.
This is a semi-manual process, but I liked the
resulting image.
I've installed Fotoxx it does a very good job !
The joint is
120516 Urs Schutz wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 00:12:25 -0400
Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I can't find out how to turn it into a rectangle.
Transform - Unbend Image
Play with the vertical values, this is very easy, fast and
intuitive. With brum-3.jpg the best combination was:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each picture,
which are 2 overlapping parts of a single original negative,
but all it offered was a black screen; I did follow the on-line help.
Hugin can be tricky,
120516 Michael Mol wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each picture,
which are 2 overlapping parts of a single original negative,
but all it offered was a black screen; I did follow the on-line
On 17 May 2012, at 05:34, Philip Webb wrote:
...
Please do (smile) send me the result off-list
with the steps you followed to get there.
I have been really enjoying following this thread.
I felt sure from previous reading on Hugin that it was the correct approach,
but when I tried it my
On Mon, 14 May 2012 22:50:33 -0400
Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each
picture, which are 2 overlapping parts of a single
original negative, but all it offered was a black screen;
I did follow the on-line help.
Then I tried
120515 Urs Schutz wrote:
I just tried with fotoxx.
I hadn't heard of that one : there are so many pkgs in media/gfx
that it's difficult to be sure I've checked all photo editors.
This is a semi-manual process, but I liked the resulting image.
It c~b any more manual than Imagemagick (smile).
120515 Philip Webb wrote:
120515 Urs Schutz wrote:
I just tried with fotoxx.
This is a semi-manual process, but I liked the resulting image.
I've installed Fotoxx it does a very good job !
The joint is less visible than on brum-2.jpg.
There's no sign of it on my version :
I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each picture,
which are 2 overlapping parts of a single original negative,
but all it offered was a black screen; I did follow the on-line help.
Then I tried Imagemagick got a good result after a bit of fussing.
The commands I used were
120511 Dale wrote:
The biggest things about hugin, 1) learning to use the thing
2) patience. The more control points you get, the better it will turn out.
Whatever you do, don't leave a control point that is not matched up.
Talk about a weird picture. It only takes one too.
I was careful
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote:
120511 Dale wrote:
The biggest things about hugin, 1) learning to use the thing
2) patience. The more control points you get, the better it will turn out.
Whatever you do, don't leave a control point that is not matched
120510 Dale wrote:
Philip Webb wrote:
I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
Now I want to reassemble them into the original whole
Philip Webb wrote:
120510 Dale wrote:
Philip Webb wrote:
I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
Now I want to reassemble them into
I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
Now I want to reassemble them into the original whole pictures.
There are several apps which might
Philip Webb writes:
I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
Now I want to reassemble them into the original whole pictures.
There
Philip Webb wrote:
I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
Now I want to reassemble them into the original whole pictures.
There are
32 matches
Mail list logo
