h a l f b a k e r y
Why not imagine it in a way that works?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
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
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
might take a closeup shot aimed at the subject at 350
degrees and the shot on the right aimed at 10 degrees
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
the appearance of being one picture.
Wow, lengthy, wordy and confusing explanation. Sorry
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
Take a Photo through a Tree Canopy
Prior art. See also my link there for practical prior art. [notexactly, Apr 07 2017]
||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.
||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
||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.
||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
||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
||And there's no far away shot to compare it to
||Don't be a pain. With all due respect. :)
||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
wall, one with a standard lens at a normal
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.
||(Rattles beggar's cup) Bun please.
||I think that, between them, the Brazilian Timber Consortium and al-Qaeda are already working on both of the objectives stated in the title.