Skyline Pics of Halifax

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Nice angle on the downtown. Trying to figure out where it was taken. Top of the Purdy's Wharf parking garage?

I think so.

I have gone there sometimes to take pictures before. This one is from 2012, back when Waterside Centre was under construction:

[Jonovision]

I love that angle. I never think to go down there for that shot though. It's so far away from everything else. Will be a great angle to watch 22nd Commerce Square if it ever comes to fruition.

[someone123]

I meant to take a new picture from this spot when I was back in town but I didn't have time. Maybe next visit.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I love that angle. I never think to go down there for that shot though. It's so far away from everything else. Will be a great angle to watch 22nd Commerce Square if it ever comes to fruition.

I think I remember reading that the Thiels recently sold the building to a group of offshore buyers.

[q12]

Found these taken February 3rd. Posted them in the Canada Skyline section.

Source Twitter user:
@sandymcclearn


Source Twitter user:@sandymcclearn

[someone123]

Source

[fenwick16]

^^^ Nice find someone123. Is there a camera that is able to take such a wide perspective in a single shot, or would that be several pictures stitched together (I am just asking since I know almost nothing about photography).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

^^^ Nice find someone123. Is there a camera that is able to take such a wide perspective in a single shot, or would that be several pictures stitched together (I am just asking since I know almost nothing about photography).

It is stitched together from many photos. If you click on the image you can find the gallery with the constituent shots and some others that didn't make it into the pano. When I made pictures like this in the past that's how I did it too.

You theoretically could make a camera to take a picture like this but it would be much more technically challenging. There's a trade-off between taking a picture of a wider field of view and the resolution of what you capture. Thankfully the panorama software is pretty good now (blending features you don't notice while preserving features you do) so assuming you take pictures of fixed objects from approximately the same location you can get good results. You can also arrange for multiple cameras to take pictures simultaneously in order to capture panoramas with subjects in motion but that is much harder as well.

[someone123]

Here's a high-resolution image of the US presidential inauguration: http://usa.tiles.fanpic.co/749-2017-cnn/fanpic.html?v=7

I think this was created using the many-cameras-at-once technique. I assume thousands or tens of thousands of dollars of equipment were involved. If you were to analyze the photo really closely you should be able to find artifacts too since the cameras would not have been at exactly the same position, and therefore would have had slightly different perspectives (but this effect would be very minor when it comes to capturing an object far away).

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is stitched together from many photos. If you click on the image you can find the gallery with the constituent shots and some others that didn't make it into the pano. When I made pictures like this in the past that's how I did it too.

You theoretically could make a camera to take a picture like this but it would be much more technically challenging. There's a trade-off between taking a picture of a wider field of view and the resolution of what you capture. Thankfully the panorama software is pretty good now (blending features you don't notice while preserving features you do) so assuming you take pictures of fixed objects from approximately the same location you can get good results. You can also arrange for multiple cameras to take pictures simultaneously in order to capture panoramas with subjects in motion but that is much harder as well.

Thanks for the information. I wonder if pictures were stitched together many decades ago, or is this new technology related to digitally photography?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for the information. I wonder if pictures were stitched together many decades ago, or is this new technology related to digitally photography?

I have seen old photos stitched together from the film days but they were not very successful. It is mostly a digital photography thing. The input images are modified and completely resampled to produce a resulting image that is much better than you would get just by cutting and pasting them together.

Using similar techniques you can do things like change the perspective of the photo you took. So you could start with a normal lens perspective (lines are bent, objects farther away look smaller) and then generate an orthographic pespective that looks like something from an architectural rendering or video game (lines are straight, objects farther away are not smaller).

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you were to analyze the photo really closely you should be able to find artifacts too since the cameras would not have been at exactly the same position, and therefore would have had slightly different perspectives.

The need thing about this is that you can, if you know all the camera parameters and the distance between the cameras, generate 3D images from that difference in perspective. I don't know if anyone has seen the new 3D buildings on Google Maps, but they're all generated from 2D images taken at an oblique angle from airplanes.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's a high-resolution image of the US presidential inauguration: http://usa.tiles.fanpic.co/749-2017-cnn/fanpic.html?v=7

I think this was created using the many-cameras-at-once technique. I assume thousands or tens of thousands of dollars of equipment were involved. If you were to analyze the photo really closely you should be able to find artifacts too since the cameras would not have been at exactly the same position, and therefore would have had slightly different perspectives (but this effect would be very minor when it comes to capturing an object far away).

that was probably done with one of these: http://www.gigapan.com/ Its an automated camera mover that allows you to perfectly align images to build large panoramas.

[RoshanMcG]

[Keith P.]

Nice tabletop. That's what height limits get you.

[RoshanMcG]

I don't have a problem with the tabletop per se, because I think we have a nice variation of building styles. That being said, the tabletop is really noticeable from this angle:


Source

[IanWatson]

Don't know if anyone has been using Google Maps' new 3D view (it's picky about browsers and such), but they just updated it with a 3D model of Halifax and Dartmouth. It's pretty insane. The imagery is very recent and shows many of the construction projects popping up.

Halifax 3D by Ian Watson, on Flickr

[q12]

^
It's awesome you can make your own 3D skyline photos. It's only in the Halifax area as the satellite image has just been updated with recent images and the new 3D feature.

[OldDartmouthMark]

...And you can pretty much find the ideal angle to compare to old aerial shots:





Source

[fenwick16]

^^^ Interesting comparison OldDartmouthMark. Can someone tell me what this building to the north of the Old Dominion Building is? It looks like an interesting building, too bad it is gone. In 1878 it was the site of the City Market House, and Board of Works as shown on this map page - https://novascotia.ca/archives/maps/...ID=3&Language= , however the building shown in the image below does not match the footprint so I assume it was built after 1878.

(source: https://novascotia.ca/archives/Built...ves.asp?ID=131 )