 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Francois Labreque<fla### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
>> I can tell by the pixels
>
> Please elaborate.
>
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/120/117/Shoppp.jpg?1304525891
Internet meme.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-06-03 15:10, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>> Yes, but not in this case. It's stitched together from multiple images
>>>> into the appropriate projection.
>>>
>>> How is that possible, thought? How would you ever hold the camera still
>>> enough?
>>
>> A tripod.
>
> So how do you shoot 360° without the tripod in view?
If one take the ltteral interpretation of your question, then the answer
is easy: The tripod is below the field of view of the camera.
Therefore you can rotate the camera a full 360° about the z axis without
ever seeing the tripod legs.
What you meant to ask was "how do you shoot a complete spherical view
without seeing the tripod? Then the answer is two fold:
- there are tripods that allow you to also rotate the camera to point
straight up or straight down.
- the photographer can take multiple shots with the camera legs in
different spots and then overlay those shots to take out the camera legs
(just like SFX guys do in movies, for example when they rotoscope out
Gary Sinise's legs in forrest Gump)
- The photographer used the clone stamp tool to "erase" the tripod legs.
Also, in the APoD picture I linked, you can clearly see the tripod legs
in the center of the pic.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the
>>> heck is holding the camera up??
>>
>> This looks shopped. I can tell by the pixels
>
> If it was a synthetic image, would it have this much chromatic dispersion?
>
>> Also, http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100803.html
>
> I still can't figure out how they did this...
Did you read the explanation in the links below the picture?
For your Parisian dawn picture, here's what you need to do:
- Put your tripod on a bridge.
- Change lense to use a fish-eye lens. Take a picture looking straight
down from yout tripod. (You could maybe fake this in The Gimp, but
you'd need at least a wide-angle lens and a very tall tripod to be able
to get the Seine and the whole bridge in your field of view)
- Go back home.
- Load the pictures onto your computer
- In The Gimp,
- Stich the pictures into a panorama.
- use the "convert to polar cordinates" filter to bend your panorama
into a doughnut.
- stich the fish-eye picture in the doughnut hole.
The end.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/06/2012 01:25 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> What you meant to ask was "how do you shoot a complete spherical view
> without seeing the tripod? Then the answer is two fold:
> - there are tripods that allow you to also rotate the camera to point
> straight up or straight down.
Sure. But then you'd still see the legs.
> - the photographer can take multiple shots with the camera legs in
> different spots and then overlay those shots to take out the camera legs
Given that the whole point of the tripod in the first place is to solve
the problem of holding the camera perfectly stationary in space while
you shoot different angles, moving the tripod would seem to completely
defeat that objective.
> - The photographer used the clone stamp tool to "erase" the tripod legs.
...which leaves this as the only sensible option. Of course, I've yet to
discover a way of using the clone tool in a way that doesn't scream
"this image has been cloned"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:44:46 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Given that the whole point of the tripod in the first place is to solve
> the problem of holding the camera perfectly stationary in space while
> you shoot different angles, moving the tripod would seem to completely
> defeat that objective.
You don't move the tripod. You rotate the camera on the tripod so you
can see what's behind the tripod's legs in the first shot.
Then you overlay the second shot on the first shot to remove the legs
from the first shot.
Easy.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-06-04 08:44, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 04/06/2012 01:25 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> - The photographer used the clone stamp tool to "erase" the tripod legs.
>
> ...which leaves this as the only sensible option. Of course, I've yet to
> discover a way of using the clone tool in a way that doesn't scream
> "this image has been cloned"...
A soft-edge brush helps. As well as using the healing brush tool.
http://llwproductions.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/atomic-clown-explosion.jpg
Apart from the fact that actual subject of the picture is impossible, I
don't think you can tell where the clone stamp was used.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Given that the whole point of the tripod in the first place is to solve
> > the problem of holding the camera perfectly stationary in space while
> > you shoot different angles, moving the tripod would seem to completely
> > defeat that objective.
>
> You don't move the tripod. You rotate the camera on the tripod so you
> can see what's behind the tripod's legs in the first shot.
>
> Then you overlay the second shot on the first shot to remove the legs
> from the first shot.
Or you can do something like this guy did:
http://www.panoramas.dk/panorama/nadir/
Not exactly trivial, but with practice and planning I imagine it would be quick
to perform.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://llwproductions.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/atomic-clown-explosion.jpg
This is the most terrifying thing I've seen today. o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
