Margus Ramst wrote:

> David Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > How can the program get smooth pictures of any angle from two fisheye views?
> >
>
> The views cover all areas visible from the current viewpoint. For a fixed
> viewpoint, that's all the information you need.

I imagine it could eaisly find the location in the image for a specific pixel in a
specific viewpoint, but I thought there would be a lot more artifacts than it
showed. They were only rendered at 700x700, and the view appears to be
320x240(?)... (Although there is some bad distortion if you look straight up or
down, it's probably because of the 6 degree overlap the person used. I'm just
talking about general loss of quality when distorting a bitmap.)

--
___     _______________________________________________
 | \     |_          <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine        http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali

Post a reply to this message

Actually, I checked and it looks like this technique will allow you to have
hotspots to go onto the next item. I prefer QTVR as well,but I haven't
gotten a hold of the Quicktime Authoring Studio so I can only make single
node scenes

Josh

Chris Huff wrote:

> In article <38C9252D.C14F0AC9@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
> wrote:
>
> > Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
>
> Personally, I like QTVR better. It does some kind of smoothing so
> zooming looks better, and allows you to move around to different "nodes"
> within the scene. But it doesn't seem to get used very much, and there
> aren't many tools for it...
>
> And anyway, this is Java, so it runs on nearly any machine. That is
> quite a big advantage...
>
> --
> Chris Huff
> e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:27:34 -0800, "Jon A. Cruz"
<jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:
>
>By any chance can you get free AOL CD's where you are? That's a quick way
>over here to get MSIE 5.0 and I think it includes their VM.

I had a friend screw-up another friend's machine by installing AOL's
software. He already had an internet provider (ATT WorldNet) and
already had a browser installed. After the AOL install, almost all his
settings regarding the internet were automatically changed without
asking him first. He could no longer access his email or much else. It
took me a good deal of effort to reset everything for him again. 

Of course the person who tried to install AOL could have always made
some sort of mistake, I guess. Neither one of these fellows was
extremely computer litterate, but I thought the first fellow could
have handled an AOL install.

Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:12:56 -0500, Glen Berry wrote:
>Of course the person who tried to install AOL could have always made
>some sort of mistake, I guess. Neither one of these fellows was
>extremely computer litterate, but I thought the first fellow could
>have handled an AOL install.

I think AOL is currently being sued for the changes their install makes
to the existing configuration, apparently without asking (or if it does
ask, it's in such a way that it's easy to miss.)  I could be wrong, of
course.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:12:56 -0500, Glen Berry wrote:
> >Of course the person who tried to install AOL could have always made
> >some sort of mistake, I guess. Neither one of these fellows was
> >extremely computer litterate, but I thought the first fellow could
> >have handled an AOL install.
>
> I think AOL is currently being sued for the changes their install makes
> to the existing configuration, apparently without asking (or if it does
> ask, it's in such a way that it's easy to miss.)  I could be wrong, of
> course.

Actually, it does ask up front, and it seemed fairly clear to me. (I said
no when I installed it last few times). I forget the exact message, but
they do only ask once. They didn't go "are you reaaaaaaly sure you want to
do this?", "again, are you sure"...

I think it's very amusing, since if AOL didn't install the way that they
do, they'd have an even larger number of people upset with them.

Yes, they are being sued, but I personally feel it's a very frivolous
lawsuit. Even worse than them getting sued by a large disabled-people's
rights group for not having accessable software when they're in the middle
of working with another large disabled-people's rights group to address
that exact issue. Deep pockets are so tempting.

There have been things in the past that they've been sued for that have
seemed to have good grounds (remember their switch to flat-rate?), but
this does not seem like one of them.

--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:36:44 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>Yes, they are being sued, but I personally feel it's a very frivolous
>lawsuit. Even worse than them getting sued by a large disabled-people's
>rights group for not having accessable software when they're in the middle
>of working with another large disabled-people's rights group to address
>that exact issue. Deep pockets are so tempting.

I can't comment much on this, but I'm reliably informed that the "working
with another large disabled-people's rights group" part started happening
just a couple days before the news of the NFB suit broke.  I suspect they
were closing the barn door after the horse had left.

Hey, whaddayaknow, now I have to disclaim even more than usual.  Any lawyers
who might be sniffing around, please check the .sig.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
I'm not speaking for my employer, either.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:36:44 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> >Yes, they are being sued, but I personally feel it's a very frivolous
> >lawsuit. Even worse than them getting sued by a large disabled-people's
> >rights group for not having accessable software when they're in the middle
> >of working with another large disabled-people's rights group to address
> >that exact issue. Deep pockets are so tempting.
>
> I can't comment much on this, but I'm reliably informed that the "working
> with another large disabled-people's rights group" part started happening
> just a couple days before the news of the NFB suit broke.  I suspect they
> were closing the barn door after the horse had left.

National Federation of the Blind

http://www.sptimes.com/News/111499/Perspective/Blind_group_s_suit_ag.shtml

http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,1087,8_232881,00.html
(see the last few paragraphs)

I can't find the name of the other organization(s) off hand, but the main point
is that AOL's software is a bit large and takes time to address, and this had
probably been in the works for a while. I had first heard things about the
other group a while before the suit broke, and had the impression that they had
been working with them since maybe last spring. Of course, I'd need to find
some PR releases or at least some organizations names to be sure.


--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:14:25 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>I can't find the name of the other organization(s) off hand, but the main point
>is that AOL's software is a bit large and takes time to address, and this had
>probably been in the works for a while. I had first heard things about the

Jon, you're forgetting what I do for a living.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:14:25 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> >I can't find the name of the other organization(s) off hand, but the main point
> >is that AOL's software is a bit large and takes time to address, and this had
> >probably been in the works for a while. I had first heard things about the
>
> Jon, you're forgetting what I do for a living.

And you I.

If I can locate any public info, I'll be sure to follow up.


--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:40:40 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>> Jon, you're forgetting what I do for a living.
>
>And you I.

I thought you wrote change management software.  Is that no longer the case?

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message