Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Why not imagine it in a way that works?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                     

Panoramic Very High Resolution Picture of the Amazon Rain Forest Sans Trees or Major City Sans Buildings

Using cameras on drones and controlling picture angles via radio triangulation.
  (+4)
(+4)
  [vote for,
against]

A variation of the multiple shots at multiple angles idea used to get a clear picture of the Titanic or other wreckage by angling each closeup shot so it can be arranged with other closeup shots to look like it was taken with one shot from one angle.

So your making a virtual shot simulating a vantage point 180 degrees from the subject. The camera shot on the left might take a closeup shot aimed at the subject at 350 degrees and the shot on the right aimed at 10 degrees with all the other shots in between. No matter where the shot is the rear of the camera is always pointed at the one simulated vantage point so they'll assemble together with the appearance of being one picture.

Wow, lengthy, wordy and confusing explanation. Sorry 'bout that.

Anyway, this could be used to take panoramic pictures of anything that has objects you want to remove.

You could theoretically take a panoramic picture a major city with the buildings removed.

I'm not sure if the sensors on a smartphone are accurate enough but you might even be able to pull this off with a simple application where you walk the entire area in a grid and it tells you where to aim the phone for each shot.

doctorremulac3, Apr 06 2017

Take a Photo through a Tree Canopy Prior art. See also my link there for practical prior art. [notexactly, Apr 07 2017]

[link]






       Is the idea "What is parallax ?" and "What can you do with parallax processing especially from large data sets ?".   

       Essentially with any stereoscopic pair you can construct some kind of 3D model, and with a 3D model of a scene you can remove bits of it. You still need pictures of what's behind buildings when you remove them.   

       Btw there are quite a few free packages out there that can do this i.e. take a random cloud of photos and turn them into a 3D model. All you need to do is import into a 3D editor and delete away.
bigsleep, Apr 07 2017
  

       Nothing out there like this.   

       You're referring to taking a flat picture from above and making it lumpy so it looks like the actual terrain. This is not that.   

       This is an actual closeup picture from the correct angle as if you snapped your fingers and removed all the trees or buildings and with incredible resolution since each section of this panorama is taken from inches away.   

       //You still need pictures of what's behind buildings when you remove them.//   

       Which shows me that I didn't clarify the idea to you. My apologies.   

       Every inch of the ground has a picture taken of it. Even if there's a building between the virtual vantage point and the subject. The angle at which that picture is taken is such that it, even though it it close to the object being photographed, it is from the same angle as the far away vantage point.   

       So you can zoom in to something a mile away and see a squirrel playing with his nuts as if you were looking through the buildings or trees or whatever you never photographed them.   

       Let me put it another way. You've got two cameras. One with a telephoto lens shooting from a mile away and another camera that is a foot away from the subject that takes the exact same shot at the exact same angle. Now both pictures are identical but the one taken from close up is of higher resolution and doesn't include any of the stuff that was between the subject being photographed and the far away camera. You turn the far away camera .01 degree to the right and the corresponding close up camera actually moves a foot to the right but turns .01 degree to the right as well so it still has its back exactly facing the far away camera. Both cameras have taken two identical pictures that can be edited together but the far away one has a mile of atmosphere, or buildings, or trees in the way whereas the closeup one does not.   

       Let me know if that clarifies the idea.
doctorremulac3, Apr 07 2017
  

       No, they're far from identical. The perspective flattening effect of a telephoto lens versus the opposite distortion of a wide angle lens is well known and everybody who has done a trivial bit of serious photography encounters this early on. There's no way they can be identical - think about it. Picture what the parallax effect from the centre of the image circle toward the outer bound of the image circle is like, and now picture the same parallax with a closer vantage point but wider lens. Now picture it much further away but with a tele lens. The dead centre of the image might maintain the relationship but everything else will change relationship.
Ian Tindale, Apr 07 2017
  

       Oh shit Ian, close enough. Jeez.   

       They're not "far from identical" the near and far comparitive shots would be very very very very very very very very slightly and completely un- noticably different.   

       And there's no far away shot to compare it to anyway.   

       Don't be a pain. With all due respect. :)
doctorremulac3, Apr 07 2017
  

       No, it is a significant effect. It is why selfies taken with a camera phone lens (which is typically too wide to be classed as a portrait or even standard lens) gives you the typical distortion of a wide angle lens - ie, big nose.   

       Think about it this way. Imagine taking a set of pictures of a brick wall, one with a standard lens at a normal viewing distance away, and then one with a wide angle lens but quite a bit closer, and finally one with a tele lens, but quite a bit further back. Imagine you've arranged things so that you've picked focal lengths for the lenses and picked distances to stand away from the brick wall, such that you see exactly the same amount of bricks, exactly the same bricks in fact, hitting the edge of your picture. You'd think they're identical pictures (ignoring the actual and real perspective differences detectable in the relief of the brickwork). Now, we build another brick wall in front of the first brick wall, about a metre away from it, and it has a cluster of four bricks missing straight in front of where we're pointing the camera. We can see the original wall through the hole in the nearer wall. Now we do the three shot exercise again - even in your mind you can see we're going to see more of the behind wall through the hole in the new wall with the wide angle lens when we're in the near position, than we will with the standard lens in the normal position, and similarly less of the behind wall through the hole in the new wall with the tele lens from our further away position. This perspective difference results in a parallax difference that is marked and noticeable in everything in the scene.
Ian Tindale, Apr 07 2017
  

       So?
doctorremulac3, Apr 07 2017
  

       I see your point.
Ian Tindale, Apr 07 2017
  

       (Rattles beggar's cup) Bun please.
doctorremulac3, Apr 07 2017
  

       I think that, between them, the Brazilian Timber Consortium and al-Qaeda are already working on both of the objectives stated in the title.
MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 07 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle