?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Entries Friends Calendar Information turkeyphant.org Rewind Rewind Fastforward Fastforward
lonely as i am together we cry - http://turkeyphant.livejournal.com/ — LiveJournal
lonely as i am together we cry


[large 360° QuickTime VR panorama (692 KiB)]
[small 360° QuickTime VR panorama (224 KiB)]
[JPEG panorama (105 KiB)]
[ASCII panorama (1.12MiB)


    mood: safe happy
    choon: 2 Many DJs - As Heard on Radio Soulwax pt. 2
Comments
From:umberleigh [.]
Posted: Wednesday 9th February, 2005 at 13:31.22
 
"I couldn't be arsed to carry it up with me, although I will certers consider its usefulness next term."

Please, for the love of God, tell me you're using virtual desktops then.

The JPEG is composed of 4 individual shots ya? I meant stitch the left of the leftmost shot to the right of the rightmost.
From:turkeyphant [.]
Posted: Wednesday 9th February, 2005 at 15:54.25
 
Please, for the love of God, tell me you're using virtual desktops then.

No, I consider their usefulness very limited in comparison to a high resolution and preferably, multiple displays. I toyed with them for a while before realising it merely hindered my productivity.

The JPEG is composed of 4 individual shots ya?

No. The JPEGs (and the QTVR panoramas) are constructed from almost 100 individual shots.

I meant stitch the left of the leftmost shot to the right of the rightmost.

I realise what you're trying to say, but unfortunately I don't know anyone with the 360° cylindrical display necessary for rendering such an image. Whst's more: the JPEG standard is limited to having finite dimensions with no wrapping and being planar.

There has to be a split somewhere due to the limitations of two spatial dimensions. What do you really mean?
From:umberleigh [.]
Posted: Thursday 10th February, 2005 at 01:17.22
 
What size is your main monitor, and what res?

"The JPEGs... are constructed from almost 100 individual shots."

Shit. And I thought I had too much free time on my hands.

I really mean a single flat JPEG where the ends match, looped with no gap. As I said, I'm too lazy to google for code/hack something together/find out if this is even possible. Of course you could always cheat and use a marquee containing n copies of the JPEG, where n is some number large enough for people to have refreshed and/or left the page by the time the inevitable gap arrives.
From:turkeyphant [.]
Posted: Thursday 10th February, 2005 at 13:05.34
 
What size is your main monitor, and what res?

17" LCD running at 1280*1024. I usually put it alongside a old 15" I picked up for a tenner than can only go up to goes up to 1024*768 but that matches pixel-sizes fairly well at that res.

Shit. And I thought I had too much free time on my hands.

With a normal 35mm lens you need a minimum of about 50 shots to get the whole 360° in. This includes four rows of 12 photographs (one every 30°) taken at varying pitches, plus two more for the straight up and straight down view. I like to take more because I sometimes fuck up a couple and the stitching process is made much easier with more overlap.

I really mean a single flat JPEG where the ends match, looped with no gap.

As you know, the JPEG standard is incapable of doing this by itself. Any hack that is renderable in a web browser would be beyond ugly. Unfortunately the JPEG compression algorithm is absolutely useless at repeated images (although it really shouldn't be) and any specialist image format wouldn't be viewable by over 99% of users.

It would be nice if <marquee> had more than its few useless functions to make up for its incompatibility and annoyingness. However, given that I'm using such a nasty piece of code already, I'm prepared to cheat. Multiple animated gifs is very nasty and can cause systems to meltdown but, because it looks so nice, I can deal with overloading the page this one time. I just don't see what's wrong with using QuickTime as it does the whole thing nine times better...

Anyway: thanks for the advice (in the end) and enjoy.
From:umberleigh [.]
Posted: Thursday 10th February, 2005 at 16:06.29
 Why isn't this thread dead?
Why repeat the image that way when HTML tables do it a million times better?

"I just don't see what's wrong with using QuickTime as it does the whole thing nine times better..."

Feh.

From:turkeyphant [.]
Posted: Thursday 10th February, 2005 at 18:51.50
 Re: Why isn't this thread dead?
Tell me how tables are better.

Tables are almost as putrid as marquees - I'd still be doing the intarweb equivalent of serving you a plate of steaming faeces to munch on.
for $62 | anyone can conceive a god on video