On 2024-04-04 08:37, Clank wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:14:16 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> Not to do anything other than sympathise with the tale of awful customer
> service, but...
>
>> After another ten minutes (and then going off to talk to people in the
>> back room for another ten minutes) he called customer services on my
>> behalf and after some very low level security questions (like my name)
>> they decided the SIM had been suspended because it hadn't made a
>> *chargeable* call/text for three months.
>>
>> So much for wifi-calling, this must be tripping loads of SIMs into
>> peril. And of course the "error message" is completely misconceived.
>
> ...WiFi calls are chargeable - as in they go through the network's billing
> system just the same as any other call. Note of course that a chargeable
> call doesn't necessarily cost anything (so a call that cost 0 because it
> was part of package minutes is still a chargeable call, it was just
> charged at 0.)
>
> So if you made a WiFi call, that would likely reset their clock. The
> people who will be more impacted will be those who use the SIM for data
> only, and make all their calls/messages via OTT apps like WhatsApp or
> Signal.
>
>> He also claimed that the three month timeout was an OFCOM rule, which
>> seems very unlikely to me. I'll contact them later.
>
> If that rule is real, and really does only apply to SMS/Phone to keep a
> SIM active, it is in serious need of updating to recognise that Data is
> actually the main product mobile networks deliver these days.
>
>
If it's a rule it's not always enforced! I refresh my active Tesco PAYG
SIMs every 2 months or so to avoid this, but I've twice at least come
across old phones lying around that haven't been used for years and the
SIMS have still had credit and were able to make calls (in one case I
estimate inactive for 2.25 years).

nib

In message <nJrzIJjpkaDmFAvN@perry.uk>, at 20:08:25 on Wed, 3 Apr 2024,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>> "My new phone has only one main camera[1]. But it also has separate
>>> low-light and infra-red cameras (as well as the obligatory selfie-
>>> cameras)."
>>
>>I assumed you were using the Pixel, which does have an UWA camera.
>
>Sorry if it wasn't clear, my expedition was to compare the new phone
>with the OM-D. Anyway, went back again today:
>
> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Ely_slipway-more_birds_fewer_people_but_no_foxes.jpg>
>
>It's much better stitched, but has significantly lost pixel count. Which
>is a little unexpected. I'll go back tomorrow with the Pixel (in
>Panorama mode).

Managed to grab some photos in between the torrential showers.

The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
individual frames would be around ten times that.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:06:52 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <nJrzIJjpkaDmFAvN@perry.uk>, at 20:08:25 on Wed, 3 Apr 2024,
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>> "My new phone has only one main camera[1]. But it also has separate
>>>> low-light and infra-red cameras (as well as the obligatory selfie-
>>>> cameras)."
>>>
>>>I assumed you were using the Pixel, which does have an UWA camera.
>>
>>Sorry if it wasn't clear, my expedition was to compare the new phone
>>with the OM-D. Anyway, went back again today:
>>
>> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Ely_slipway-more_birds_fewer_people_but_no_foxes.jpg>
>>
>>It's much better stitched, but has significantly lost pixel count. Which
>>is a little unexpected. I'll go back tomorrow with the Pixel (in
>>Panorama mode).
>
>Managed to grab some photos in between the torrential showers.
>
>The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>individual frames would be around ten times that.

It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:06:52 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <nJrzIJjpkaDmFAvN@perry.uk>, at 20:08:25 on Wed, 3 Apr 2024,
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>> "My new phone has only one main camera[1]. But it also has separate
>>>> low-light and infra-red cameras (as well as the obligatory selfie-
>>>> cameras)."
>>>
>>>I assumed you were using the Pixel, which does have an UWA camera.
>>
>>Sorry if it wasn't clear, my expedition was to compare the new phone
>>with the OM-D. Anyway, went back again today:
>>
>> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Ely_slipway-more_birds_fewer_people_but_no_foxes.jpg>
>>
>>It's much better stitched, but has significantly lost pixel count. Which
>>is a little unexpected. I'll go back tomorrow with the Pixel (in
>>Panorama mode).
>
>Managed to grab some photos in between the torrential showers.

What about the Pixel's UWA camera?

In message <uullbe$gric$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:37:18 on Thu, 4 Apr
2024, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:14:16 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>Not to do anything other than sympathise with the tale of awful customer
>service, but...
>
>> After another ten minutes (and then going off to talk to people in the
>> back room for another ten minutes) he called customer services on my
>> behalf and after some very low level security questions (like my name)
>> they decided the SIM had been suspended because it hadn't made a
>> *chargeable* call/text for three months.
>>
>> So much for wifi-calling, this must be tripping loads of SIMs into
>> peril. And of course the "error message" is completely misconceived.
>
>...WiFi calls are chargeable - as in they go through the network's billing
>system just the same as any other call.

Given the ball-achingly incompetent implementation of the rest of their
billing platform, I would not be so sanguine.

>Note of course that a chargeable call doesn't necessarily cost anything
>(so a call that cost 0 because it was part of package minutes is still
>a chargeable call, it was just charged at 0.)

Sure, but do they appear on an itemised bill?

>So if you made a WiFi call, that would likely reset their clock. The
>people who will be more impacted will be those who use the SIM for data
>only, and make all their calls/messages via OTT apps like WhatsApp or
>Signal.
>
>> He also claimed that the three month timeout was an OFCOM rule, which
>> seems very unlikely to me. I'll contact them later.
>
>If that rule is real, and really does only apply to SMS/Phone to keep a
>SIM active, it is in serious need of updating to recognise that Data is
>actually the main product mobile networks deliver these days.

I think the only role of OFCOM is likely to be specifying a minimum
period before the SIM is trashed. Some of the more voracious minor MVNOs
do that after a month. It feels very unlikely they'd specify a maximum
period like three months, and I'm sure I've had SIMs where it was
measured in years.
--
Roland Perry

In message <5q2t0jtuqubsbk2qn6n3vi4ldadtmrh5p7@4ax.com>, at 12:28:34 on
Thu, 4 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 20:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <u78PN.53905$kt2.48237@fx13.ams1>, at 08:07:54 on Wed, 3 Apr
>>2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <Sp%ON.28312$Lw2.24989@fx11.ams1>, at 22:13:06 on Tue, 2 Apr
>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <Uxv*z8WGz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 18:12:06 on Tue,
>>>>>> 2 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <klun0jhf1p3n1jaie1jhfq48kfn06jloqv@4ax.com>, at 13:35:26 on
>>>>>>>> Tue, 2 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 08:43:16 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>><roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <Thread convergence> While I was out, I took this photo of the
>>>>>>>>>>riverside grassy patch which had the pike:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Slipway%20Easter%202024.jpg>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a photomerge, and needs a little more work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are obvious stitching errors, not helped by the fact that
>>>>>>>>> the images to be merged have keystone distortion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can fix that with "a little more work" but have other things to do
>>>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't you have an UWA lens?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last time I had an oddon-lens for a smartphone it was (a) a
>>>>>>>> telephoto and (b) about eight years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like you have a Pixel 7a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do, but I'm currently trialling a new phone I bought a week or two
>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which has a 64-megapixel main camera, a
>>>>>>> 13MP ultrawide camera and a 13MP selfie camera. If you 'zoom out'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a general rule I never "zoom in" on phones, so "zooming out" is moot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why wouldn't you use the UWA camera?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> it'll automatically use the ultrawide when needed. But I'm not sure
>>>>>>> you'd get as good resolution from 13MP sensor as your stitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The stitch I posted was two "normal" photos taken a few seconds apart.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would have been easier, and produced better results, if you'd have used
>>>>> the UWA camera.
>>>>
>>>> What is this "UWA camera" of which you speak. The phone doesn't have
>>>> one. In case you missed it first time around:
>>>>
>>>> "My new phone has only one main camera[1]. But it also has separate
>>>> low-light and infra-red cameras (as well as the obligatory selfie-
>>>> cameras)."
>>>
>>>I assumed you were using the Pixel, which does have an UWA camera.
>>
>>Sorry if it wasn't clear, my expedition was to compare the new phone
>>with the OM-D. Anyway, went back again today:
>>
>> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Ely_slipway-more_birds_fewer_people_but
>>_no_foxes.jpg>
>>
>>It's much better stitched, but has significantly lost pixel count. Which
>>is a little unexpected. I'll go back tomorrow with the Pixel (in
>>Panorama mode).
>
>This prompted me to compare two pictures I took of the same scene some
>years apart, one using an UWA and one using an in-camera panorama.
>They're both of one of my favourite dormant volcano crater lakes, Rano
>Kau. Both were taken with different generations of the same camera family.
>
>The first was taken in December 2012, using a 27mm equivalent lens on a
>Sony NEX-7, then a state-of-the-art 24mp APS-C camera (that was a high
>mp for an APS-C sensor back then). The scene was much too wide for that
>lens, and I didn't have a wider one, so I used the camera's panorama
>feature to produce this 12mp (yes, stitched multi-frame images are
>surprisingly low res)

Even more so for camera *phone* it seems.

>image:

>https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/53631372518/in/album-72177720315965891/
>
>I returned to almost the same vantage point this year, this time
>carrying a much newer Sony A6500, with the same size APS-C 24mp sensor,
>but now fitted with an UWA lens (15mm equivalent). I shot raw, and this
>is the 18.5mp processed image:

>https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/53631501544/in/album-72177720315965891/

I picked up a Panasonic TZ20 in a job lot at the auction last month,
while it's quite old and I haven't tried it yet, the menus suggest
there's a 10.5Mpx panorama mode (where the maximum regular mode is
14Mpx). So this resolution slugging definitely seems to be a thing.
--
Roland Perry

In message <2m9t0j96l4lm9jh8e1528c224aujaiu447@4ax.com>, at 14:11:02 on
Thu, 4 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:06:52 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <nJrzIJjpkaDmFAvN@perry.uk>, at 20:08:25 on Wed, 3 Apr 2024,
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>> "My new phone has only one main camera[1]. But it also has separate
>>>>> low-light and infra-red cameras (as well as the obligatory selfie-
>>>>> cameras)."
>>>>
>>>>I assumed you were using the Pixel, which does have an UWA camera.
>>>
>>>Sorry if it wasn't clear, my expedition was to compare the new phone
>>>with the OM-D. Anyway, went back again today:
>>>
>>>
>>><http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Ely_slipway-more_birds_fewer_people_but
>>>_no_foxes.jpg>
>>>
>>>It's much better stitched, but has significantly lost pixel count. Which
>>>is a little unexpected. I'll go back tomorrow with the Pixel (in
>>>Panorama mode).
>>
>>Managed to grab some photos in between the torrential showers.
>>
>>The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>individual frames would be around ten times that.
>
>It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.

The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
Jpeg compression perhaps.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tv9t0jtd7s5hn7n3rncrkrnq0hq97p18m3@4ax.com>, at 14:16:10 on
Thu, 4 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:06:52 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <nJrzIJjpkaDmFAvN@perry.uk>, at 20:08:25 on Wed, 3 Apr 2024,
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>> "My new phone has only one main camera[1]. But it also has separate
>>>>> low-light and infra-red cameras (as well as the obligatory selfie-
>>>>> cameras)."
>>>>
>>>>I assumed you were using the Pixel, which does have an UWA camera.
>>>
>>>Sorry if it wasn't clear, my expedition was to compare the new phone
>>>with the OM-D. Anyway, went back again today:
>>>
>>>
>>><http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Ely_slipway-more_birds_fewer_people_but
>>>_no_foxes.jpg>
>>>
>>>It's much better stitched, but has significantly lost pixel count. Which
>>>is a little unexpected. I'll go back tomorrow with the Pixel (in
>>>Panorama mode).
>>
>>Managed to grab some photos in between the torrential showers.
>
>What about the Pixel's UWA camera?

Didn't try that. Maybe yet another trip.
--
Roland Perry

In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:

>>>The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>>phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>
>>It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>
>The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>Jpeg compression perhaps.

The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and takes in
everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>
>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>
>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>
> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and takes in
> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).

There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA lenses over
stitched panoramas.

In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>
>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>
>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>
>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and takes in
>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>
>There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA lenses over
>stitched panoramas.

I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
degree one from the top of a mountain).

However I do need to get some better stitching software. Whatever it was
I used for Panoramio[tm][RIP] I've lost.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>>
>>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>>
>>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and takes in
>>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>>
>> There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA lenses over
>> stitched panoramas.
>
> I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
> degree one from the top of a mountain).

That's the sort of gimmick shot you take just once. I take lots of UWA
shots, and have a number of high quality UWA lenses, as well as the less
satisfactory UWA camera in my phone.

> However I do need to get some better stitching software. Whatever it was
> I used for Panoramio[tm][RIP] I've lost.

In message <DAuQN.23998$2G2.5602@fx07.ams1>, at 10:29:55 on Sun, 7 Apr
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and takes in
>>>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>>>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>>>
>>> There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA lenses over
>>> stitched panoramas.
>>
>> I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
>> degree one from the top of a mountain).
>
>That's the sort of gimmick shot you take just once.

Actually I used to take that kind of shot a lot. Not always 360 degrees,
but frequently more than 180 degrees. I rather gave up when Google threw
Panoramio under the bus. Never trust a company whose motto is "Do no
harm".

>I take lots of UWA shots, and have a number of high quality UWA lenses,

For your smartphone? Anyway, my most recent best shots of the local
riverside are more than 180 degrees, so stick that in your pipe and
smoke it!

>as well as the less satisfactory UWA camera in my phone.

Oh apparently not. And no-one is surprised a smartphone shot has some
"less satisfactory" parameters than a £2k+ penis-extension traditional
camera.

But the question is: where are you publishing them and hence "does it
matter"... you can get the maximum resolution a site like Facebook
permits from a phone, and that's also sufficient for an 8x10 wet print.

>> However I do need to get some better stitching software. Whatever it was
>> I used for Panoramio[tm][RIP] I've lost.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <DAuQN.23998$2G2.5602@fx07.ams1>, at 10:29:55 on Sun, 7 Apr
> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>>>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>>>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>>>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and takes in
>>>>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>>>>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>>>>
>>>> There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA lenses over
>>>> stitched panoramas.
>>>
>>> I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
>>> degree one from the top of a mountain).
>>
>> That's the sort of gimmick shot you take just once.
>
> Actually I used to take that kind of shot a lot. Not always 360 degrees,
> but frequently more than 180 degrees. I rather gave up when Google threw
> Panoramio under the bus. Never trust a company whose motto is "Do no
> harm".

Which company was that? Certainly not Google.

In message <ooFQN.90237$au2.88920@fx12.ams1>, at 22:47:48 on Sun, 7 Apr
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <DAuQN.23998$2G2.5602@fx07.ams1>, at 10:29:55 on Sun, 7 Apr
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>>>>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>>>>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>>>>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and takes in
>>>>>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>>>>>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>>>>>
>>>>> There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA lenses over
>>>>> stitched panoramas.
>>>>
>>>> I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
>>>> degree one from the top of a mountain).
>>>
>>> That's the sort of gimmick shot you take just once.
>>
>> Actually I used to take that kind of shot a lot. Not always 360 degrees,
>> but frequently more than 180 degrees. I rather gave up when Google threw
>> Panoramio under the bus. Never trust a company whose motto is "Do no
>> harm".
>
>Which company was that? Certainly not Google.

OK, Mr Arch-quibbler, it was "Don't be Evil".

Would it really have been so hard, to just say "Did you mean..."
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ooFQN.90237$au2.88920@fx12.ams1>, at 22:47:48 on Sun, 7 Apr
> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <DAuQN.23998$2G2.5602@fx07.ams1>, at 10:29:55 on Sun, 7 Apr
>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much as the new
>>>>>>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>>>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>>>>>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>>>>>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and takes in
>>>>>>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>>>>>>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA lenses over
>>>>>> stitched panoramas.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
>>>>> degree one from the top of a mountain).
>>>>
>>>> That's the sort of gimmick shot you take just once.
>>>
>>> Actually I used to take that kind of shot a lot. Not always 360 degrees,
>>> but frequently more than 180 degrees. I rather gave up when Google threw
>>> Panoramio under the bus. Never trust a company whose motto is "Do no
>>> harm".
>>
>> Which company was that? Certainly not Google.
>
> OK, Mr Arch-quibbler, it was "Don't be Evil".

Which has an entirely different meaning, so that's *not* quibbling.

In message <kHOQN.91085$au2.35983@fx12.ams1>, at 09:22:24 on Mon, 8 Apr
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ooFQN.90237$au2.88920@fx12.ams1>, at 22:47:48 on Sun, 7 Apr
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <DAuQN.23998$2G2.5602@fx07.ams1>, at 10:29:55 on Sun, 7 Apr
>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
>>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>>>>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>>>>>>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>>>>>>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and
>>>>>>>>takes in
>>>>>>>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>>>>>>>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA
>>>>>>>lenses over
>>>>>>> stitched panoramas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
>>>>>> degree one from the top of a mountain).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the sort of gimmick shot you take just once.
>>>>
>>>> Actually I used to take that kind of shot a lot. Not always 360 degrees,
>>>> but frequently more than 180 degrees. I rather gave up when Google threw
>>>> Panoramio under the bus. Never trust a company whose motto is "Do no
>>>> harm".
>>>
>>> Which company was that? Certainly not Google.
>>
>> OK, Mr Arch-quibbler, it was "Don't be Evil".
>
>Which has an entirely different meaning, so that's *not* quibbling.

But you still could have said that earlier. Well done for avoiding (or
attempting anyway) that question, yet again.

However, I think throwing Panoramio under the bus, after all the effort
subscribers spent curating their contributions, was pretty evil.

Over to you (the person who recently said he didn't start arguments), to
split some more hairs...
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <kHOQN.91085$au2.35983@fx12.ams1>, at 09:22:24 on Mon, 8 Apr
> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ooFQN.90237$au2.88920@fx12.ams1>, at 22:47:48 on Sun, 7 Apr
>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <DAuQN.23998$2G2.5602@fx07.ams1>, at 10:29:55 on Sun, 7 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
>>>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>>>>>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>>>>>>>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>>>>>>>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and
>>>>>>>>> takes in
>>>>>>>>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>>>>>>>>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA
>>>>>>>> lenses over
>>>>>>>> stitched panoramas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
>>>>>>> degree one from the top of a mountain).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the sort of gimmick shot you take just once.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I used to take that kind of shot a lot. Not always 360 degrees,
>>>>> but frequently more than 180 degrees. I rather gave up when Google threw
>>>>> Panoramio under the bus. Never trust a company whose motto is "Do no
>>>>> harm".
>>>>
>>>> Which company was that? Certainly not Google.
>>>
>>> OK, Mr Arch-quibbler, it was "Don't be Evil".
>>
>> Which has an entirely different meaning, so that's *not* quibbling.
>
> But you still could have said that earlier. Well done for avoiding (or
> attempting anyway) that question, yet again.

I assumed you were confusing Google with some local charity or religious
institution.

>
> However, I think throwing Panoramio under the bus, after all the effort
> subscribers spent curating their contributions, was pretty evil.

I can't comment, as I had no experience of it.

But it's perfectly normal, like it or not, for commercial companies to cull
under-performing products, particularly free ones. All of us here
experienced that with what Google did with Deja and the Usenet archive.

If you were more into stitched panoramas, you would be familiar with ICE,
and what happened to it.

On 8 Apr 2024 at 15:02:28, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <kHOQN.91085$au2.35983@fx12.ams1>, at 09:22:24 on Mon, 8 Apr
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ooFQN.90237$au2.88920@fx12.ams1>, at 22:47:48 on Sun, 7 Apr
>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <DAuQN.23998$2G2.5602@fx07.ams1>, at 10:29:55 on Sun, 7 Apr
>>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <_YhQN.26584$MP2.25141@fx05.ams1>, at 20:08:26 on Sat, 6 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <PfnZNy+bSrDmFA72@perry.uk>, at 15:09:31 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024,
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Pixel has also slugged the panorama, not quite as much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone, but the result is 1.8Megabytes, whereas a manual stitch of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual frames would be around ten times that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the megapixels you should measure, not the MB.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Pixel auto-panorama is 3620x1646 [5.9Mpx, 1.8MB], whereas the
>>>>>>>>>>> hand-stitched image was 7120*3147 [22.4Mpx, 14MB], a higher resolution
>>>>>>>>>>> Jpeg compression perhaps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Pixel UWA is halfway between, 4624*3472 [16Mpx, 4.25MB] and
>>>>>>>>>> takes in
>>>>>>>>>> everything the original two-stitched photo does, but not the later
>>>>>>>>>> panoramas (which also have the lefthand bank and moored boats).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are pros and cons with both, but I've long favoured UWA
>>>>>>>>> lenses over
>>>>>>>>> stitched panoramas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've always preferred stitched panaoramas (for example I have a 360
>>>>>>>> degree one from the top of a mountain).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the sort of gimmick shot you take just once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually I used to take that kind of shot a lot. Not always 360 degrees,
>>>>>> but frequently more than 180 degrees. I rather gave up when Google threw
>>>>>> Panoramio under the bus. Never trust a company whose motto is "Do no
>>>>>> harm".
>>>>>
>>>>> Which company was that? Certainly not Google.
>>>>
>>>> OK, Mr Arch-quibbler, it was "Don't be Evil".
>>>
>>> Which has an entirely different meaning, so that's *not* quibbling.
>>
>> But you still could have said that earlier. Well done for avoiding (or
>> attempting anyway) that question, yet again.
>
> I assumed you were confusing Google with some local charity or religious
> institution.
>
>>
>> However, I think throwing Panoramio under the bus, after all the effort
>> subscribers spent curating their contributions, was pretty evil.
>
> I can't comment, as I had no experience of it.
>
> But it's perfectly normal, like it or not, for commercial companies to cull
> under-performing products, particularly free ones. All of us here
> experienced that with what Google did with Deja and the Usenet archive.
>
> If you were more into stitched panoramas, you would be familiar with ICE,
> and what happened to it.
>

Here was me thinking Morecambe and Wise were dead.