Ha! Just as I expected someone with a good knowledge of the subject has responded as I wrote this. He has pointed out all the relevant issues and has even brought up the tutorial that inspired me to experiment (I can never find them again when I want to!) The parallax thing is the big issue, and the tutorial addresses it well. But for some applications, it's not so important. As Kay points out, many sins are forgiven if you place the camera well (see my suggestions on that below.) But I really think using a camera that can take movies might be a good way to go (see below.) The idea being, the more images you capture, the less of each one you use. Ideally you would only end up using the very center most part of each image. Being handy with scripting would help a lot here (I am definitely not!)
Your English works for me! Well, again I speak from theory rather than experience (or at least very small scale experience.) This still depends on what you want to achieve and also on the particular situation. Is this a paid job? What does the client expect? Are these row houses? In that case you might be able treat them more like a mosaic where the position and angle of the camera is not so important. If they are suburban houses separated from each other by greater distances it might be a different case. Most of my experience is with mostly flat subjects. Perhaps someone else will chime in with an informed insight. In the meantime, I'll theorize on it for you ;-) You might get the most satisfying result by taking pictures at somewhat regular intervals along a strict linear path while keeping the camera 90º to the path. It probably doesn't need to be super exact since if there is much depth variation it will not stitch together seamlessly anyway. But I would make it a goal to keep the path straight and the camera orthogonal to the line of the path. An HD movie camera (or a DSLR with movie capability) with a wide angle lens might be a good capture device, if the goal is to get a sidewalk view from every point along the street. You could turn it to a portrait orientation and just drive slowly down the street as you capture a few images a second! Perhaps a tandem bike with you on the back? With a conventional still camera and a tripod you can get greater resolution and better quality images, but you probably don't want to capture quite so many images. It might be ideal to make sure to take a picture from directly in front of each house (straight up the walkway to the door?) so that you get as flat of an elevation view for each house as possible. Between each house how many pictures you need to take will depend on the effect you want. an additional one centered half way between houses and one centered on each corner of each house? Thats four images per house. I'm a great believer in small scale trials. Do a trial run on 2 or three houses to see what works best for you. -- John On Nov 15, 11:25 pm, Syv Ritch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/15/11, JohnPW <[email protected]> wrote: > > > At the risk of sounding like a moron (as I usually do) I'll respond. > > No you are not. > > > I've only recently experimented with this myself. But my initial > > thought is, "Do you want a mosaic or a pano?" > > Actually, it really sounds like you might want a linear pano rather > > than a mosaic. Or possibly a series of partial panos joined into a > > linear pano? > > Please forgive me but English is neither my first or my second language. > > I want one photo of the whole street, what you would call a "linear > pano". Never heard of that expression before, but it makes sense. > > I want one long photo that is like standing in front of each house, > perpendicular, for the whole street. > > I used the word "mosaic" because a couple of month ago there was a > thread on how to make a mosaic, and I thought that we were talking > about the same thing. > > > Another approach (which you also touch on) is a linear > > series of conventional panoramas (like Google StreetView.) But you > > imply that you want to make partial panoramas and stitch them > > together into one large, long image like a linear panorama. > > So maybe you haven't decided for sure what your final product should > > be? What is your aim? > > I thought of doing many small panos of 2 images and each one covering > 3 to 4 houses. I was going to do the panos to simplify, there are 37 > houses on that street. > > Thanks -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
