Lake Road Panorama
In the spirit of rakkity’s panos, here are two from the roof of our house. The first emphasizes the view from our bedroom and the second is about a 360. I’ll add that the wider photo about did me in.
First, I was standing on the top of the chimney, maybe a two and half foot square. Plenty of secure surface area unless you have your eyes epoxied to the camera, which is a must if you’re going to imitate a tripod and rotate so all the overlapping images are on the same plane. Without overlaps you can’t stitch your images together.
There are two ways to rotate. Either you move your feet Geisha-girl like in a tiny circle or you do the human corkscrew. I can’t dance without stepping on Diane’s feet so I sure as hell wasn’t going to take the chance of rotating myself right off the edge. I chose the technically more difficult, but safer option, the corkscrew. Why more difficult? Unless you’re Elastic Man you can only shoot half the circle before you have to unwind, remember where you left off, and then finish.
Very nice panos. You should have brought an old fashion lazy susan up with you.
Comment by Jen — July 16, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
Mighty fine panos indeed! The linkups could be a little larger (says the man with FIOS … ), but CS3 beats me hands down. I could never stitch that cleanly the “old-fashioned” way (even with such a conscientous panorographer providing raw material — AND he’s fast enough to get the clouds in all frames in more or less one array … ). Captures the place marvelously! Thanks for risking your life (again) for posterity!
Comment by el Kib — July 16, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
Your monitor and your browser limit your view of the long pano which stretches across both my 24 and 17 inch set-up.
Incidentally, Photoshop churned through fourteen images to create that one, and it took maybe two minutes.
Comment by michael — July 17, 2007 @ 7:15 am
And then one enlarges it, at which point you can scroll left and right, which is more impressive, but it’s still only 334 pixels high. Why not 600, 800, even 1200 … ? ‘S’all I’m sayin’ …
Comment by el Kib — July 17, 2007 @ 8:00 am
You win. This one is 69″x8″.
Comment by michael — July 17, 2007 @ 9:20 am
NOW we’re talkin’ ! Barely a second to download, almost fills the screen vertically, and if the swans were in view (alas, they do not seem to be … ), I’d be able to see them. Helps me sense your precarious perch more, too. Thanks!
Comment by el Kib — July 17, 2007 @ 10:21 am
But the one in comment #3 makes me more sea-sick. (Or see-sick.) Isn’t that the point?
Comment by Jennifer — July 19, 2007 @ 3:42 pm