Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"

http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw

How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the 
heck is holding the camera up??

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-06-01 08:47, Invisible a écrit :
> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
>
> 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 and from having seen 
quiate a few shopped images in my days.

Also, http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100803.html


-- 
/*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...

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> This looks shopped.

  That word is almost meaningless because everybody uses it with a different
meaning.

  If it's a composite of several images, I would definitely categorize it
differently than something that has outright image manipulation. A composite
contains solely original image information which has not been manipulated;
it's just that different images have been stiched together (and possibly
blended) in order to form a contiguous whole.

  Of course if the original images were not in that fisheye perspective
shape but in a more regular perspective and were then distorted in
post-production to get that image, then it becomes a case of being
slightly heavier image manipulation than a mere composite. However, even
in this case I wouldn't classify it as outright fakery (which is what
"photoshopped" usually means).

>  I can tell by the pixels

  Please elaborate.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
>
> How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the
> heck is holding the camera up??

Something has been done to it, since the image claims it has been taken by a
Pentax K10D, which is a 10.75MP camera.

I'd guess it was a panoramic shot, maybe taken by a very high resolution camera
(since edges on the magnified parts are as sharp as those on the shrunken
parts), then conformally transformed (since there are a lot of straight lines
going to circles and other straight lines staying straight) scaled down and
JPEGged.

Don't know PhotoShop well enough to know if it will do the conformal
transformation. You might need something like Matlab.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/1/2012 5:47 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw

Yes, but not in this case.  It's stitched together from multiple images 
into the appropriate projection.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
>
> How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the
> heck is holding the camera up??

Google Earth is fun.

The photographer was standing on the Pont de Bir Hakeim, and I'm now sure the
photo started off as a panorama.

Post a reply to this message

"JimT" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
> >
> > How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the
> > heck is holding the camera up??
>
> Google Earth is fun.
>
> The photographer was standing on the Pont de Bir Hakeim, and I'm now sure the
> photo started off as a panorama.

Oops! You can read the bridge name from the plaque on the pillar in the
photogaph. In Google Earth, the plaque on the side the photographer took is
mirrored.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw

oh, I've seen this before.  Pretty cool.

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.06.2012 14:47, schrieb Invisible:
> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
>
> How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the
> heck is holding the camera up??

Hint: When an image file has "projection" in its name, it /might/ be no 
actual photograph at all, but the result of some postprocessing...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
>
> How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the
> heck is holding the camera up??

As others have mentioned, it's a stitched composite from at least 4 shots
(probably more), probably using a fisheye lens or at least a very wide angle
rectilinear lens on a DSLR. The camera would probably have been mounted on a
tripod using a special pano bracket like this:

http://www.nodalninja.com/

Plenty of dedicated software for pano stitching:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_stitching_applications

I personally like Hugin:

http://hugin.sourceforge.net/

because it's open source and awesome. There's lots of interesting tutorials
linked from the hugin site, including images like the one you linked to.

You don't necessarily need expensive kit to have a go at this sort of thing, I
made this panorama myself shooting freehand with a midrange compact
point-and-shoot:

http://www.infradead.org/~wmp/new_panoramas/paris_sept_11/paris04_tour_eiffel02.jpg

:)

Post a reply to this message

On 6/1/2012 7:28, Warp wrote:
>    Please elaborate.

Maybe you missed the rage, Warp.  "It's shopped. I can tell by the pixels." 
was as much a meme as rick rolling or "it's a series of tubes!"  It's 
basically making fun of some famous dweeb who posted online that they could 
tell something was shopped by the pixels. Usually followed by "I have seen 
quite a few 'shops in my time" or some such. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 6/2/2012 12:13, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I personally like Hugin:

I used to use "autostitch."  Now I use hugin. Another +1 for that. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

They call it "little planets", here is a tutorial for it

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/07/06/20/




"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:4fc8b9dc@news.povray.org...
> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
>
> How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the 
> heck is holding the camera up??

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??
>
> As others have mentioned, it's a stitched composite from at least 4 shots
> (probably more), probably using a fisheye lens or at least a very wide angle
> rectilinear lens on a DSLR. The camera would probably have been mounted on a
> tripod using a special pano bracket like this:
>
> http://www.nodalninja.com/

That still doesn't explain how the tripod somehow doesn't appear 
anywhere in the photograph...

Post a reply to this message

On 01/06/2012 05:36 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 6/1/2012 5:47 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this possible?"
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
>
> 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?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> How the holy hell do you make a camera lens /that/ shape? And what the
> >> heck is holding the camera up??
> >
> > As others have mentioned, it's a stitched composite from at least 4 shots
> > (probably more), probably using a fisheye lens or at least a very wide angle
> > rectilinear lens on a DSLR. The camera would probably have been mounted on a
> > tripod using a special pano bracket like this:
> >
> > http://www.nodalninja.com/
>
> That still doesn't explain how the tripod somehow doesn't appear
> anywhere in the photograph...

e.g.

http://www.davidkennardphotography.com/blog/427-tips-for-taking-the-nadir-photo-of-a-panorama.xhtml

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:49:21 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 01/06/2012 05:36 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> On 6/1/2012 5:47 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Every now and then, you have to stop and wonder "how is this
>>> possible?"
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/28gh5qw
>>
>> 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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:10:59 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>>> 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?

Magic.

Really.  Magic.

Oh, OK, perhaps the way you do it is overlap two images that show 
different angles, and when you stitch the images together, you eliminate 
what you want.

Kinda like removing people from an image - you take multiple shots, and 
use one image to "paint over" the content that you want to replace.

It's not difficult.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-06-01 10:28, Warp a écrit :
> Francois Labreque<fla### [at] videotronca>  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

Le 2012-06-01 09:02, Invisible a écrit :
>>> 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.
- Take pictures, rotating your camera on the tripod.  Do a full 360° sweep.
- 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