Re: How do you make a panorama Photo?

[pshute@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 05:40:33 -0800, WILLIAM D SCHWADERER
<WDAVID@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Stitching may be no fun, but it usually delivers nearly flawless images.

I experimented for a while with Larscan type cameras, and almost got
one working.  What stopped me finishing it was the difficulty of
printing the negatives, and the lack of control I had over it.  Then I
got a scanner, and started stitching scanned photos.  Then I got a
cheap digital camera and started stitching images from that.  It's
only 1024x768, but the results aren't too bad at all for the cost.

What I'd like would be a digital camera with image size about 2000
pixels high by, say, 10 pixels wide, that could take shots so quickly
that I could have the best of both worlds.  Better still, if it had an
angular sensor built in so when I rotated it it took shots
automatically and stitched them, allowing me to download a 360 degree
image.  If it could do 360 in less than a second then I'd have less
trouble with cars, pedestrians, wind blown trees, ocean waves, etc.
Then I could just start taking photos.

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Murat Germen <mgermen@xxxxxxxx>
>To: <panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 4:11 AM
>Subject: Re: How do you make a panorama Photo?
>
>
>> great point,
>>
>> voted for stitching, but i'd prefer to be able to get a quality (yet
>> affordable) 360 degree panorama camera.
>>
>> > From: pshute@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Reply-To: panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:33:36 +1100
>> > To: panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Subject: Re: How do you make a panorama Photo?
>>
>> > I notice that stitching is clearly beating one shot 360 degrees.  I
>> > wonder what the result would be if there was an option "stitching, but
>> > I'd prefer to use one shot 360 degrees if I could"?