Guiseppe, you convinced me that you were on the summit. But I do not believe that the other panorama was made above 3700 m. There is not such fine rock there above. But the proof is, as highly the Conde between the Almendro and the Sombrerito is represented. Only in a height of 3500 m it appears just as high as the Almendro. From above 3700 m it appears more highly than the Almendro, as here in the panorama. You can test it with the tools http://www.udeuschle.de/Panoramen.html.
Now I would like to say some more to your panorama. The panorama is incorrectly stitched. In the right part the horizon line drops strongly. The horizon line must be however straight. That concerns also the representation of the other mountains. The Guajara may not lie more deeply than e.g. the Almendro.
Heinz, I don't have to prove anything. In this wide shot http://www.panorama-photo.net/panorama.php?pid=7739 the Conde's top is in the clouds and its height is not measurabile. That is plain, don't insist.
In this photo there is none incorrect stitching: las canedas is circular and enveloped in the clouds. Look yours photo http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/495979/display/2639875
It is possible, on the other hand, that the wide shot leans slightly to left.
Comments
Grüße Horst
Now I would like to say some more to your panorama. The panorama is incorrectly stitched. In the right part the horizon line drops strongly. The horizon line must be however straight. That concerns also the representation of the other mountains. The Guajara may not lie more deeply than e.g. the Almendro.
In this photo there is none incorrect stitching: las canedas is circular and enveloped in the clouds. Look yours photo http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/495979/display/2639875
It is possible, on the other hand, that the wide shot leans slightly to left.
I could be frequently here, thanks for the memory. The horizon seems only to be somewhat inclined. Best greetings, Christian
Leave a comment