17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8

"John Navas" <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:vqsal39pj3414u9k5nrg5k5069233s01b4@4ax.com...
> Preview: <http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/56/p1040106p1040113nc7.jpg>
>
> Full size high resolution image stitched with hugin (PanoTools):
> <http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=aiy1ykiyqyo>
>
> Note: The hosting site is usable to display very large images, so you'll
> have to Download to view the image.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas
> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Seriously John, why do you bother?
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:27:47 +1100, "Pete D" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in
<4755aa47$0$25019$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:vqsal39pj3414u9k5nrg5k5069233s01b4@4ax.com...
>> Preview: <http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/56/p1040106p1040113nc7.jpg>
>>
>> Full size high resolution image stitched with hugin (PanoTools):
>> <http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=aiy1ykiyqyo>
>>
>> Note: The hosting site is usable to display very large images, so you'll
>> have to Download to view the image.

>Seriously John, why do you bother?

Seriously, Pete, why don't you grow up?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

John Navas wrote:
>
>> Since: "The Panasonic DMC FZ8 is a seven megapixel, super zoom camera."
>> I guess you stitched around 3-4 images to get this?
>
> As noted in my original post. Four images.

Here's your ENTIRE original post, from USENET:

> Preview: <http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/56/p1040106p1040113nc7.jpg>
>
> Full size high resolution image stitched with hugin (PanoTools):
> <http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=aiy1ykiyqyo>
>
> Note: The hosting site is usable to display very large images, so you'll
> have to Download to view the image.

I see no "note" saying four images, hence my question.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:32:48 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear.RemoveThis@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in
<13lcs20spngjma3.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> Since: "The Panasonic DMC FZ8 is a seven megapixel, super zoom camera."
>>> I guess you stitched around 3-4 images to get this?
>>
>> As noted in my original post. Four images.
>
>Here's your ENTIRE original post, from USENET:
>
>> Preview: <http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/56/p1040106p1040113nc7.jpg>
>>
>> Full size high resolution image stitched with hugin (PanoTools):
>> <http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=aiy1ykiyqyo>
>>
>> Note: The hosting site is usable to display very large images, so you'll
>> have to Download to view the image.
>
>I see no "note" saying four images, hence my question.

What was noted in my original post was that it was a stitched image.
Likewise the stitching software.
Either read or phrase your questions more carefully,
and cut back on the caffeine.
Sheesh.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:fcqdl3t7ajbs35uhlns6llasrui1gdl8ce@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:32:48 +0000, bugbear
> <bugbear.RemoveThis@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in
> <13lcs20spngjma3.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since: "The Panasonic DMC FZ8 is a seven megapixel, super zoom camera."
>>>> I guess you stitched around 3-4 images to get this?
>>>
>>> As noted in my original post. Four images.
>>
>>Here's your ENTIRE original post, from USENET:
>>
>>> Preview: <http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/56/p1040106p1040113nc7.jpg>
>>>
>>> Full size high resolution image stitched with hugin (PanoTools):
>>> <http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=aiy1ykiyqyo>
>>>
>>> Note: The hosting site is usable to display very large images, so you'll
>>> have to Download to view the image.
>>
>>I see no "note" saying four images, hence my question.
>
> What was noted in my original post was that it was a stitched image.
> Likewise the stitching software.
> Either read or phrase your questions more carefully,
> and cut back on the caffeine.

He asked you how many images were stitched. You said it was noted in the
original post. It wasn't. And now you take offense that he pointed that out
to you? Why not just answer the question? Maybe YOU should read your own
posts more carefully.
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:32:48 +0000, bugbear
> <bugbear RemoveThis @trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in
> <13lcs20spngjma3 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> Since: "The Panasonic DMC FZ8 is a seven megapixel, super zoom camera."
>>>> I guess you stitched around 3-4 images to get this?
>>> As noted in my original post. Four images.
>> Here's your ENTIRE original post, from USENET:
>>
>>> Preview: <http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/56/p1040106p1040113nc7.jpg>
>>>
>>> Full size high resolution image stitched with hugin (PanoTools):
>>> <http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=aiy1ykiyqyo>
>>>
>>> Note: The hosting site is usable to display very large images, so you'll
>>> have to Download to view the image.
>> I see no "note" saying four images, hence my question.
>
> What was noted in my original post was that it was a stitched image.
> Likewise the stitching software.
> Either read or phrase your questions more carefully,
> and cut back on the caffeine.
> Sheesh.
>

Err. I refer the honourable gentleman to the points
made in other posts.

I asked HOW MANY images. This was NOT in your original post.
My caffeine levels are irrelevant.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

This thread is going rather well, John, don't you think? (O; Perhaps
a little introspection may be in order.

As for me, when I saw that it was a 7.something Mb download, I didn't
bother. WTF do you need 7Mb for a jpg, unless it is all noise?? The
crop doesn't look bad, but let's just say it is 'conveniently
truncated'...

And it is rather notable that you have not returned here:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/...8c670c4
to discuss the loss of detail in the background of the image here:
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg

Finally, at the risk of repeating myself, and for the benefit of any
visitors to this thread that still want to see a crudely put together
panorama from a non-dslr, here ya go:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg

That's a quick and dirty attempt to stitch together some images from a
Fuji S9000 (9mp 'prosumer'). I'll be revisiting the location later to
do a better job, as I screwed up the exposure royally - see below.
Note that despite underexposing it badly, it still has good foliage
detail in the dark areas - compare it to Mr Navas shot above...

For the technically minded:
- it was shot in RAW, processed by DCRAW
- it has had low-level NR applied selectively, but otherwise is pretty
much as it came from camera
- I stupidly underexposed it by 2 stops - still came up reasonably
well, but accurate exposure should result in a much better shot with
improved shadow detail/less noise
- it covers about 190° and was stitched together from 7 (heavily
overlapped) images, taken at about 30mm equivalent focal length
- stitching by PTGUI, default settings (no smart-/en-blend, so you
will see some minor stitching errors)
- file has been reduced about 2.5x - the original is 12,500 pixels
wide.

I'm happy to post full-size crops. No pride here! I know this
camera's limits, and am happy to work with them. My task would be
easier, and the result a little better if I was dslr-ing, but
sometimes the enjoyment is in the journey, not the destination...

This image is just a quick test, but feel free to criticise it to hell
and back! I have a plan for a rather unconventional panoramic
composite image from this location. I hope to post the result here
later, but it's gunna take a while to get the set of images I want.
No prizes for guessing my evil plan - anyone else done composite day/
dusk/night panoramas from a single location?

I'm also thinking of doing a time-exposure-daylight pano here - I have
one of those 9 stop ND thingies that hasn't really been exercised
(exorcised?) yet... (O;
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

mark.thomas.7 DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> No prizes for guessing my evil plan - anyone else done composite day/
> dusk/night panoramas from a single location?

I'm sure I've seen one where the time-axis (by angular degree)
of the panorame is in sync with the Sun,
giving interesting light effects.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

On Dec 8, 9:07 pm, mark.thoma....DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> This thread is going rather well, John, don't you think? (O; Perhaps
> a little introspection may be in order.
>
> As for me, when I saw that it was a 7.something Mb download, I didn't
> bother. WTF do you need 7Mb for a jpg, unless it is all noise?? The
> crop doesn't look bad, but let's just say it is 'conveniently
> truncated'...
>
> And it is rather notable that you have not returned here:http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread...
> to discuss the loss of detail in the background of the image here:
> http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg
>
.....

No reply to this either. John's disappearance from this thread, and
his new posting here:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/...d3a8621

give a good insight into his approach to photography.
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 03:07:46 -0800 (PST), mark.thomas.7 RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote
in <8ce86031-eb34-4240-b9cb-b35d49939ac0 RemoveThis @b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

>This thread is going rather well, John, don't you think? (O; Perhaps
>a little introspection may be in order.

A little more maturity and staying on topic are what's in order.

>As for me, when I saw that it was a 7.something Mb download, I didn't
>bother. WTF do you need 7Mb for a jpg, unless it is all noise??

It's actually an appropriate size to avoid compression artifacts on
such a high resolution image.

>The
>crop doesn't look bad, but let's just say it is 'conveniently
>truncated'...

Since you haven't looked at the image, you don't really have anything
meaningful to say, now do you.

>And it is rather notable that you have not returned here:
>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/7ec8c670c4accba3
>to discuss the loss of detail in the background of the image here:
>http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg

There is no "loss of detail" and there was nothing more to be said.
Like so many threads here, it had degenerated into meaningless and
pointless back and forth and name calling. I have limited patience for
that sort of thing.

>Finally, at the risk of repeating myself, and for the benefit of any
>visitors to this thread that still want to see a crudely put together
>panorama from a non-dslr, here ya go:
>http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg

I'm not a fan of that kind of projection, but it can't be assessed from
such a tiny shrink in any event.

>That's a quick and dirty attempt to stitch together some images from a
>Fuji S9000 (9mp 'prosumer'). I'll be revisiting the location later to
>do a better job, as I screwed up the exposure royally - see below.
>Note that despite underexposing it badly, it still has good foliage
>detail in the dark areas - compare it to Mr Navas shot above...

Totally different image, and impossible to judge in any event.

>I'm happy to post full-size crops. ...

Yet you didn't, much less a full size image.

>This image is just a quick test, but feel free to criticise it to hell
>and back! ...

I'm not into criticism, and there would be no meaningful way to do that
in any event.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:44:44 -0800 (PST), mark.thomas.7.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote
in <9098df14-2388-47b7-ae32-e4bb18469261.RemoveThis@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

>On Dec 8, 9:07 pm, mark.thoma....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>> This thread is going rather well, John, don't you think? (O; Perhaps
>> a little introspection may be in order.
>>
>> As for me, when I saw that it was a 7.something Mb download, I didn't
>> bother. WTF do you need 7Mb for a jpg, unless it is all noise?? The
>> crop doesn't look bad, but let's just say it is 'conveniently
>> truncated'...
>>
>> And it is rather notable that you have not returned here:http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread...
>> to discuss the loss of detail in the background of the image here:
>> http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg
>
>No reply to this either. John's disappearance from this thread, and
>his new posting here:
>
>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/347d3a862164af2f
>
>give a good insight into his approach to photography.

How childish.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

On Dec 17, 1:25 am, John Navas <spamfilt....DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> How childish.
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas

Bravo - complete avoidance noted. I love the "How childish.. Best
regards" touch - you can just hear the slime oozing.

>>As for me, when I saw that it was a 7.something Mb download, I didn't
>>bother. WTF do you need 7Mb for a jpg, unless it is all noise??
>It's actually an appropriate size to avoid compression artifacts on
>such a high resolution image.
So how big is it, exactly? You talk a lot, but when it comes to
actual numbers...

>>The
>>crop doesn't look bad, but let's just say it is 'conveniently
>>truncated'...
>Since you haven't looked at the image, you don't really have anything
>meaningful to say, now do you.
*Nobody does*, because you (deliberately?) posted it on a site that
would stop anyone with half a brain from downloading. And you still
defend that position, for very obvious reasons.

>>http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8yu8.jpg
> There is no "loss of detail" and there was nothing more to be said.

That's TRULY funny. Did you even look at your own picture? Did you
not notice the other comments?

>Like so many threads here, it had degenerated into meaningless and
>pointless back and forth and name calling. I have limited patience for
>that sort of thing.

I have limited patience for wankers who sprout nonsense, can't see
faults in their own images, and think that small sensor cameras don't
have noise (and in your case, *noise-reduction*) problems.

>I'm not a fan of that kind of projection, but it can't be assessed from
>such a tiny shrink in any event.
And I said I would post a full-res crop if asked. But seeing *you*
are the only one who asked, we know you're a wanker, and you haven't
yet been able to post a full-res section on a site without popups and
malware.. I'll wait until you start posting something remotely logical
or useful. But if anyone *else* asks, consider it done..

And you will note I only need *one* post to respond - I'm not whoring
for statistics.
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:52:49 -0800 (PST), mark.thomas.7.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote
in <e7aed8f4-93a3-4db9-800e-336fb306a0ea.RemoveThis@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:

>[SNIP]

I'm not going to waste any more time on your childish posts.
You'll have to rant on without me.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
 >> Stay informed about: 17.5 MP from the Panasonic DMC-FZ8