On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> I'm seriously wondering if there might not be something broken with
>> the .jpeg files I'm spitting out. That laptop (saffron) is in the
>> middle of an overdue emerge --update --dee
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> I'm seriously wondering if there might not be something broken with
> the .jpeg files I'm spitting out. That laptop (saffron) is in the
> middle of an overdue emerge --update --deep --newuse @world, though.
> (And I saw it was complaining ab
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
[snip]
> I'm seriously wondering if there might not be something broken with
> the .jpeg files I'm spitting out. That laptop (saffron) is in the
> middle of an overdue emerge --update --deep --newuse @world, though.
> (And I saw it was complai
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Stroller
wrote:
>
> On 21 May 2012, at 02:06, Michael Mol wrote:
>> ...
>>>
And the final stitch is here:
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2030/brum3068brum30702.jpg
>>>
>>> All Firefox gives me is a black window : can you check ?
>>
>> Works on my sys
On 21 May 2012, at 02:06, Michael Mol wrote:
> ...
>>
>>> And the final stitch is here:
>>> http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2030/brum3068brum30702.jpg
>>
>> All Firefox gives me is a black window : can you check ?
>
> Works on my system. It comes up all-black in geeqie, though; I had to
> lo
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 120520 Michael Mol wrote:
>> as Philip later remarked, it turns out the lens was likely a 75mm prime
>
> The picture of the camera looks exactly what I remember,
> tho' there might have been different models with different lenses.
> It was a ve
120520 Michael Mol wrote:
> as Philip later remarked, it turns out the lens was likely a 75mm prime
The picture of the camera looks exactly what I remember,
tho' there might have been different models with different lenses.
It was a very good camera for its time.
> The leftmost portion will never
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Stroller
wrote:
>
> On 19 May 2012, at 20:28, Michael Mol wrote:
>> …
>> Worse, if the photographer was not using a prime lens[1], and was
>> instead using a lens with variable zoom, you can't easily know what
>> the real focal length was, as this will change depe
120520 Stroller wrote:
> Zoom lenses were much less common even 2 or 3 decades ago.
> For a long time, a 50mm prime was the common kit lens,
> rather than the 18-105mm zoom which is sold today.
> This was because on a camera using 35mm film, a 50mm focal length
> gives a field of view very close to
120519 Michael Mol wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, the Zeiss Ikon is 35mm SLR,
> but that's about all you're going to get from it.
No ! -- as Stroller pointed out, zoom lenses were invented only c 1950.
My stepfather's model was made in Germany c 1939
& had been mentioned to him as a good buy by
On 19 May 2012, at 20:28, Michael Mol wrote:
> …
> Worse, if the photographer was not using a prime lens[1], and was
> instead using a lens with variable zoom, you can't easily know what
> the real focal length was, as this will change depending on how far
> the photographer has zoomed in.
Thro
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 120518 Michael Mol wrote:
>> Remarkably simple. Probably because I was only stitching two photos.
>
> -- details snipped --
>
> Thanks : that gives me a 3rd method to pursue.
>
> NB in your result there are some badly curved lines :
> bottom r
120518 Michael Mol wrote:
> Remarkably simple. Probably because I was only stitching two photos.
-- details snipped --
Thanks : that gives me a 3rd method to pursue.
NB in your result there are some badly curved lines :
bottom right, the front of the tram is badly distorted ;
centre top, the sid
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 120516 Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
>>> I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each picture,
>>> which are 2 overlapping parts of a single original negative,
>>> but all it offered
120517 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On May 17, 2012 1:07 PM, "Stroller" wrote:
>> On 17 May 2012, at 05:34, Philip Webb wrote:
>>> Please do (smile) & send me the result off-list
>>> with the steps you followed to get there.
>> I have been really enjoying following this thread.
>> I felt sure from previo
On May 17, 2012 1:07 PM, "Stroller" wrote:
>
>
> On 17 May 2012, at 05:34, Philip Webb wrote:
> > ...
> > Please do (smile) & send me the result off-list
> > with the steps you followed to get there.
>
> I have been really enjoying following this thread.
>
> I felt sure from previous reading on Hu
On 17 May 2012, at 05:34, Philip Webb wrote:
> ...
> Please do (smile) & send me the result off-list
> with the steps you followed to get there.
I have been really enjoying following this thread.
I felt sure from previous reading on Hugin that it was the correct approach,
but when I tried it m
120516 Michael Mol wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
>> I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each picture,
>> which are 2 overlapping parts of a single original negative,
>> but all it offered was a black screen; I did follow the on-line help.
> Hugin
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
> I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each picture,
> which are 2 overlapping parts of a single original negative,
> but all it offered was a black screen; I did follow the on-line help.
Hugin can be tricky, especially if you
120516 Urs Schutz wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 00:12:25 -0400
> Philip Webb wrote:
>> I can't find out how to turn it into a rectangle.
> Transform -> Unbend Image
> Play with the vertical values, this is very easy, fast and
> intuitive. With brum-3.jpg the best combination was:
> vertical linear
On Wed, 16 May 2012 00:12:25 -0400
Philip Webb wrote:
> 120515 Philip Webb wrote:
> > 120515 Urs Schutz wrote:
> >> I just tried with fotoxx.
> >> This is a semi-manual process, but I liked the
> >> resulting image.
>
> I've installed Fotoxx & it does a very good job !
>
> >> The joint is less
120515 Philip Webb wrote:
> 120515 Urs Schutz wrote:
>> I just tried with fotoxx.
>> This is a semi-manual process, but I liked the resulting image.
I've installed Fotoxx & it does a very good job !
>> The joint is less visible than on brum-2.jpg.
There's no sign of it on my version :
http://w
120515 Urs Schutz wrote:
> I just tried with fotoxx.
I hadn't heard of that one : there are so many pkgs in media/gfx
that it's difficult to be sure I've checked all photo editors.
> This is a semi-manual process, but I liked the resulting image.
It c~b any more manual than Imagemagick (smile).
On Mon, 14 May 2012 22:50:33 -0400
Philip Webb wrote:
> I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each
> picture, which are 2 overlapping parts of a single
> original negative, but all it offered was a black screen;
> I did follow the on-line help.
>
> Then I tried Imagemagick & got
I tried Hugin, but got nowhere. I set 6 points on each picture,
which are 2 overlapping parts of a single original negative,
but all it offered was a black screen; I did follow the on-line help.
Then I tried Imagemagick & got a good result after a bit of fussing.
The commands I used were
c
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 120511 Dale wrote:
>> The biggest things about hugin, 1) learning to use the thing
>> 2) patience. The more control points you get, the better it will turn out.
>> Whatever you do, don't leave a control point that is not matched up.
>> Talk a
120511 Dale wrote:
> The biggest things about hugin, 1) learning to use the thing
> 2) patience. The more control points you get, the better it will turn out.
> Whatever you do, don't leave a control point that is not matched up.
> Talk about a weird picture. It only takes one too.
I was carefu
Philip Webb wrote:
> 120510 Dale wrote:
>> Philip Webb wrote:
>>> I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
>>> which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
>>> I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
>>> Now I want to reassemb
120510 Dale wrote:
> Philip Webb wrote:
>> I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
>> which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
>> I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
>> Now I want to reassemble them into the original
Philip Webb wrote:
> I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
> which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
> I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
> Now I want to reassemble them into the original whole pictures.
>
> Ther
Philip Webb writes:
> I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes,
> which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process;
> I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts.
> Now I want to reassemble them into the original whole pictures.
>
> Th
31 matches
Mail list logo
