David, Yes, that's a good explanation for HugIn's short comings. I appreciate it. Thanks, Bill > On Jan 17, 2015, at 17:16, David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Bill! > > You suggested I'd changed my views on panos... > >> Quite a change from a previous remark you made about panos on January 7: >> >> "I suppose I could have taken a 3 panel pano, but they too, are not without >> their distortions ..." >> >> I guess HugIn came to the rescue, eh? > > Nope. I've been using Hugin for some time. The difference is that this shot > was made outdoors. > > Here's one I'd shown before, taken inside a covered railway bridge, where I > could only get back some 10 or 12 feet. > > http://www.furnfeather.net/Panos/ChambersInside.html > > Here, the distortion induced by a pano is painfully obvious. And this is a 3 > panel pano. > > The outdoor version, > > http://www.furnfeather.net/Temps/PH2015_Pano.html > > is a 6 panel pano, but because I am far back and there are no distinct grid > lines, the distortions are far less obvious. My comment, in January, > referred to taking a shot in our hotel room. Using a pano, would have looked > much like the railway bridge. > > Clear as mud? > > David. > > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > ------ > Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: > http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ > Archives are at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/ ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/