javqui wrote:The Myths:
1. Panogear is slow
2. Panogear is not accurate enough for professional jobs.
3. Panogear has a low weight equipment capacity
4. Panogear is not user friendly
Javier
mediavets wrote:1. The speed statistics you publish are interesting - you say they compare Panoshoot with similar settings for Papywizard but we don't get to see what settings you used in Papywizard nor what host platform you used to run Papywizard, nor what version of Papywizard you used, nor what type of connection you used between the Panogear/merlin mount and the Papywizard host.
mediavets wrote:2. I am not aware that anyone ever said that "Panogear is not accurate enough for professional jobs."
mediavets wrote:3. It's long been advised that heavy gear shoudl be mounted at the centre of mass - nothing new there.
mediavets wrote:4. Panogear - in the sense of the Merlin mount - is neither friendly nor unfriendly to the user it's just a 'dumb' mechanical device . I presume you are instead referring to various means of controlling the Panogear/Merlin mount for pano shooting ? - Papywizard and the T&C touch controller or PandroidWiz. Like beauty user-frendliness seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I've never found papywizard hard to use but then I had a hand in the look-n-feel of the UI.
javqui wrote:The Myths:
1. Panogear is slow.
2. Panogear is not accurate enough for giant Panos.
3. Panogear has a low weight equipment capacity.
4. Panogear is not easy to operate.
javqui wrote:mediavets wrote:1. The speed statistics you publish are interesting - you say they compare Panoshoot with similar settings for Papywizard but we don't get to see what settings you used in Papywizard nor what host platform you used to run Papywizard, nor what version of Papywizard you used, nor what type of connection you used between the Panogear/merlin mount and the Papywizard host.
Probably you save a copy of the document and you will be able to re-open and read it again.
Could be interesting publish the real measurement of speed, resolution, accuracy and precision of your T&C head at the same conditions.
javqui wrote:A head with a poor User interface will lock the capabilities of any head and will force the user to think on how to handle it the head instead focus on the real job.
javqui wrote:Is more difficult create a new full graphics game if you are using a green text screen computer with a DOS.
javqui wrote:Panogear is not a "dumb" mechanical device.
A head with a poor User interface will lock the capabilities of any head and will force the user to think on how to handle it the head instead focus on the real job. Is more difficult create a new full graphics game if you are using a green text screen computer with a DOS.
klausesser wrote:javqui wrote:The Myths:
1. Panogear is slow.
2. Panogear is not accurate enough for giant Panos.
3. Panogear has a low weight equipment capacity.
4. Panogear is not easy to operate.
1. = no myth - it IS slow . . i used it for two years and can state this "myth". Using a 105mm lens for example threatens your nerves. You will realize that immediately when you use a "modern" head.
2. = no myth also - i used it for two years and can state this "myth" when it come to long lenses. But you can use 50% overlap ofd course . .
3. = i guess nobody will put a very expensive - and usually heavy- and big camera on it.
4. = using the Nokia and BT i wouldn´t get it run these days (tried it some weeks ago - but forgot the procedere of conecting it via BT.)
Honestly: the Merlin is a great device. But nobody should expect too much from it´s mechanics and it´s electrics - it´s cost comes for a price . . .:cool:
best, Klaus
javqui wrote:Some photographers didn't found a substantial difference in time and precision when compared the robotic head with a manual calibrated head. At the end, probably the manual head could be faster for an experienced photographer with large lens, large overlaps and tons of redundancy pixels when compared with low performance robotic head- user interface. This is a real myth and the truth is just the opposite.
javqui wrote:klausesser wrote:javqui wrote:The Myths:
1. Panogear is slow.
2. Panogear is not accurate enough for giant Panos.
3. Panogear has a low weight equipment capacity.
4. Panogear is not easy to operate.
1. = no myth - it IS slow . . i used it for two years and can state this "myth". Using a 105mm lens for example threatens your nerves. You will realize that immediately when you use a "modern" head.
2. = no myth also - i used it for two years and can state this "myth" when it come to long lenses. But you can use 50% overlap ofd course . .
3. = i guess nobody will put a very expensive - and usually heavy- and big camera on it.
4. = using the Nokia and BT i wouldn´t get it run these days (tried it some weeks ago - but forgot the procedere of conecting it via BT.)
Honestly: the Merlin is a great device. But nobody should expect too much from it´s mechanics and it´s electrics - it´s cost comes for a price . . .:cool:
best, Klaus
Hi Klaus,
Thank you for the feedback.
You are confirming that all statements are myths and really active in the popular belief with your post.
1- panogear is slow, it's a myth due current drivers like Papywizard didn't use the capacity of Panogear that runs twice the speed at least (some applications up to 4 times faster). Please check how Panoshoot handle Panogear and you will notice that for years the Panogear was handled with the wrong commands.
2- Panogear is not accurate/precise. its a myth due previous software drivers use a highly simplified model of how calculate the angle and how to move Panogear. These mistakes result in a low precision measurement and movement resulting in very poor performance.
3- Nobody will put a very expensive equipment mainly for the lack of information about how need to be done, previous drivers use the improper heavy equipment handling (speed, acceleration, breaking) and the lack of information about why the slip protection mechanism is present.
4- poor user interface and portability,its a myth due Papywizard and other experimental drivers can't run on our modern devices properly, but the truth is the User interface runs in all modern portable devices with HTML5 support (almost all devices)
I wisely recommend read the paper in detail to demystify your point
mediavets wrote:javqui wrote:mediavets wrote:1. The speed statistics you publish are interesting - you say they compare Panoshoot with similar settings for Papywizard but we don't get to see what settings you used in Papywizard nor what host platform you used to run Papywizard, nor what version of Papywizard you used, nor what type of connection you used between the Panogear/merlin mount and the Papywizard host.
Probably you save a copy of the document and you will be able to re-open and read it again.
Could be interesting publish the real measurement of speed, resolution, accuracy and precision of your T&C head at the same conditions.
And maybe you should read my post again. I am aware you have problems some with English but I think what I wrote was plain enough.
I read your PDF and nowhere do I see the settings you used in papywizard when producing the comparative timings, nor which version of Papywizard you used, nor which OS, nor the type of connection .... perhaps I failed to spot those details?
javqui wrote:1- panogear is slow, it's a myth due current drivers like Papywizard didn't use the capacity of Panogear that runs twice the speed at least (some applications up to 4 times faster). Please check how Panoshoot handle Panogear and you will notice that for years the Panogear was handled with the wrong commands.
2- Panogear is not accurate/precise. its a myth due previous software drivers use a highly simplified model of how calculate the angle and how to move Panogear. These mistakes result in a low precision measurement and movement resulting in very poor performance.
3- Nobody will put a very expensive equipment mainly for the lack of information about how need to be done, previous drivers use the improper heavy equipment handling (speed, acceleration, breaking) and the lack of information about why the slip protection mechanism is present.
4- poor user interface and portability,its a myth due Papywizard and other experimental drivers can't run on our modern devices properly, but the truth is the User interface runs in all modern portable devices with HTML5 support (almost all devices)
javqui wrote:I will really appreciate handle the topic as a professional and respectfully to current users and all developers, before your destructive personal intention start doing the incorrect things and move into the wrong direction.
javqui wrote:Regarding to do a better job, I suggest measure the real speed, resolution, accuracy and precision of T&C with lab equipment.
javqui wrote:Also I suggest compare side by side how easy is operate Panoshoot in whatever device, autonomously and with a smartphone that you carry in your pocket with a powerful graphics and touch interface.
Additionally I suggest compare the amount of parameters and requirements to run the T&C vs Panoshoot easy human fuzzy parameters.
klausesser wrote:Hi Javier!
1) depends on how you define "slow". When i started to use the TC on Merlin and also using the accus Hosef provided - the Merlin was signifficantly faster. But it wasn´t "fast". "Fast" is what the Panoneed, VR2 or Rodeon are.
2) It´s obvious that the rather toy-like motors and gears in the Merlin CAN NOT provide the accuracy which Panoneed, VR2 or Rodeon can provide. That´s not questionable.
3) Be confident that someone who uses "very expensive equipment" usually has some experiences - and wouldn´t use a Merlin anyway for doing his work, sorry: no offense. I definitely wouldn´t.
4)
I wisely recommend gathering practical experience in real world doing professional, commercial work - indoors and outdoors, fisheye and 85mm spheres and 200/300mm mosaics with a Merlin . .:cool:
I did.
best, Klaus
javqui wrote:How many pages do you read?
Press CTRL-END to go to the end of the document and start going back. You will find several images about the settings, including the answers to all your questions about versions and test conditions.
Markus W. wrote:Javier,
is it possible to optimize the drivers for Allview too?
Regards
Markus
javqui wrote:I can't talk about a head that I never see, but according with the Panoneed pdf, it handles an accuracy of about 0.036 degrees.
Panogear –panoshoot build #100 handle an accuracy of about 0.025 degrees for non heavy equipment.
javqui wrote:The web user interface is a clear advantage on how to handle the head.
Hope will be useful for current Panogear owners.
klausesser wrote:….But i´m experienced enough in using Merlin/N800 and Merlin/TC to ask some questions regarding your xml-handling and so.
Here we still don´t have a clear statement!
Shooting panoramas you NEED to have a xml-file coming with EACH pano individually. You need to accompany EACH pano to it´s individual xml (aside from spheres).
Now: shooting 20-30 panos a day: will you get a individual xml file stored in your device? Can it easily be attached to the according shots when you come home and sort your work for being processed?
klaussser wrote:Besides all other things - mechanical and electrical shortcomings on a cheap device (as great as it is) - having a xml seperately attached to EACH pano i realized is essential . . . besides shooting spheres.
More: depending on the electrical and mechanical precision of the head you can do a preset-xml for each lens you use for spheres.
That´s why the mechanical precision is so important.: i let the head run "dry" recording a sphere with each of my preferred lenses.
Later i can use this xml for stitching the spheres. Thaanks to thje high precision of my head it works perfectly this way.
klaussser wrote:But evertheless the TC writes xml for EACH pano seperately - whether i use it or not.
javqui wrote:Starting build#97 you have two options: use a single file for all your panos or download all files individually.
We believe that future XML pano importers should support multi-panos XML files
and read the head to help with the import processing.
klausesser wrote:See - i´m a professional user. And i need it simple and straight - just doing for what it is designed. I don´t need a web-interface, i don´t need wireless, i don´t need images transmitted - for all this i have dedicatd devices if i need them. I NEED stability and reliability of the interface under ALL conditions as well as stability and reliability of the hardware under ALL conditions. Did you ever shoot in a surrounding where you´re not allowed to use wireless? What would you do then?
Did you ever work in a surrounding of heavy electronic interferences? Your device wouldn´t work there! How would you shoot? You can´t always know this in advance - sometimes you come to a site and are told not to use any wireless . . not even a cell-phone (i experienced that several times!).
klausesser wrote:What i read here so far can´t´t convince me at all
klausesser wrote:For example i´m still waiting for hard and reliable facts regarding my xml-questions!?
best, Klaus
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests