Sorry to bore you Shel :-) Here's a whole bunch of something in my house (Quicktime spherical panorama ~2.7M):
<http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/VAPHT_006_3.mov> I have no pretensions that I am creating an original artwork. At present I mainly do these things to show the family overseas what it looks like where I live & as a means to learning the techniques. BTW, panos are tricky enough with moving trees/waves/the *istD's tiny buffer/cars etc. With people close in it would be an order of magnitude more difficult. I see your point, but what's wrong with photos that just document a scene? Thanks to Marks, recent shot (as an example) I now know what Pittsburgh looks like. And I find that kind of thing interesting. Cheers, Dave On 3/22/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The plethora of panoramas posted here in recent weeks is interesting from a > technical standpoint, but for the most part they are boring and > uninteresting photos - at best a documentary of some space that looks good > spread out over a wide number of pixels. I've seen nothing original, > nothing that's not been seen before, no matter how well executed or pretty > the scenes may be. Skylines and beaches seem to be a dominant theme ... > often patched together from segments that by themselves would be of little > interest on many levels. > > I liked what Bob Sullivan tried to do with his panorama of a few runners in > the park on an early morning? In some ways it wasn't as finely executed as > some of the technological tours de force others have posted, but what made > it outstanding is that Bob was working with a relatively closed and small > space, trying to capture something more intimate. > > So, here's a panorama challenge: make something different, maybe a macro > panorama, or one of some everyday object like a sofa or a car, or of > something in your house. > > Shel > > >
