November 30, 2006: Paris by night panorama

Now do you highlight an image that's roughly 15000
pixels wide and 520 pixels high?

You reduce it to 2875 x 100 pixels, and link it to the
larger version. Click on the above panorama to see the
massive 1.8 MB version. (But don't do it if you're on a
modem connection, unless you have some time to spare.)

Even the reduced version is too wide for our site here,
but it's such an awesome image I had to share it.

This item is linked today by Digg, where it's pointing to a
French site with nothing but the photo credit and link for
the photographer, so I'll do the same:

[COLOR=#993300]This marvellous photo is by Arnaud Frich http://www.arnaudfrichphoto.com [/COLOR]

mmmm.... The City of Light!

[COLOR="#F6F6Fd"]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX[/COLOR]Nice!

Really gorgeous. It looks like a Golden City.

Hark, me heareth Jean Val Jean!

Looks like the shot is being taken from some roof on Notre Dame.

Whoa, that's wide! Must be several turns. ;-)

Could be interesting to know, how many of you have been there? (Not necessarily on the roof, but in the city.) Let's see a "[COLOR="Red"]YES[/COLOR]" (if you have) or a "[COLOR="Red"]NO[/COLOR]" (otherwise). Here's mine: [COLOR="Red"]YES[/COLOR]

YellowBolt wrote:

Looks like the shot is being taken from some roof on Notre Dame.

Nah, that building with the rose window is Notre Dame. This seems to have been taken from a roof across the street. There is a less cropped version of the posted photo that indicates this spot. Make your window real small before you click the last link to frame the spot i centered. A zooming tool might also be useful.

Nice, but I don't see Paris. Nor her little dog.

...nor her little minky. Nor Britney's.

She was hiding behind that building

Bromkloss - yes, but must be in a cherry picker or something, because that rosette on the Notre Dame is not at ground level.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Yes[/COLOR] I've been there three times -- all on business. But I did take some extra time to do some exploring. It's a lovely city, pleasant people, and the subway is very convenient.

Great shot and his website has several others http://www.arnaudfrichphoto.com/photo-de-paris-pl1.htm

But did he get a model release from this guy? We're talking a lawsuit here!

dar512 wrote:

Bromkloss - yes, but must be in a cherry picker or something, because that rosette on the Notre Dame is not at ground level.

I think the camera just is on the roof across the street from that window. You can see it in the lesser cropped image.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Yes[/COLOR] I've been there three times -- all on business. But I did take some extra time to do some exploring. It's a lovely city, pleasant people, and the subway is very convenient.

I have heard they have a very fast moving walkway at one of the railway stations (forgot which, not the one I used anyway). On the order of 40 km/h someone guessed, with some care taken to gradually accelerate its passengers. Cool! Had I only known that when I was there. Does anyone know what I am talking about? How exaggerated is it? :)

I have heard they have a very fast moving walkway at one of the railway stations (forgot which, not the one I used anyway). On the order of 40 km/h someone guessed, with some care taken to gradually accelerate its passengers. Cool! Had I only known that when I was there. Does anyone know what I am talking about? How exaggerated is it? :)

Oh wait. Wikipedia:

The speed of a moving walkway is usually 3 km/h, but there is a high-speed version at Gare Montparnasse station in Paris. At first it operated at 12 km/h but too many people were falling over, so the speed was reduced to 9 km/h.

Boring. :sniff:

How would you gradually accelerate a walkway? It's a unit. The entire walkway would have to be going the same speed.

glatt wrote:

How would you gradually accelerate a walkway? It's a unit. The entire walkway would have to be going the same speed.

Yeah, unless they make them wait in a line for their turn to "ride" while the other people accelerate away.

Anyway, why do people stand still on walkways? Or escalators for that matter?

Shawnee123 wrote:

Anyway, why do people stand still on walkways? Or escalators for that matter?

Probably for the same reason they circle around parking lots for a minute, looking for that one spot just a few feet closer to the store's door.

glatt wrote:

Probably for the same reason they circle around parking lots for a minute, looking for that one spot just a few feet closer to the store's door.

Heheee, they drive me nuts, too.

Don't get me started on a rant about people and their shopping carts. :p

glatt wrote:

How would you gradually accelerate a walkway? It's a unit. The entire walkway would have to be going the same speed.

You could have multiple parallel walkways moving at increasing speed, but that would make handrails an issue.

Amazing pic. Paris seems to have two churches that look just about identical... you can see one of them at the far left of the picture, and the other at the far right.

;-)

I love that Paris by Night panaroma website.

Bromskloss wrote:

I think the camera just is on the roof across the street

It is. I once stayed in the hospital to the left. There is a hotel on the top floor. If I stood on the bed and stuck my head out of the skylight I got a similar view of about quarter of that photo.

>>I have heard they have a very fast moving walkway at one of the railway stations.

Yeah. I got lost in there. I think they have everyone fooled. You walk for miles and never see a train but eventually get where you want to go.

i'm getting the AFU error code

We had a weekend in Paris about three years ago. Stayed in a little hotel not too far from Notre Dame. Got to see the Arc de Triumph (sp?) Inside Notre Dame, the Louvre, ate crepes up the Eiffel Tower, got happy on absynth, ate snails and saw the Moulin Rouge show. All in the crappiest (freezing hortizontal rain) weather possible, and spent a bloody fortune.

It was huge fun and I'd do it again in an instant....

Welcome to the Cellar, Yupa.:D

dar512 wrote:

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Yes[/COLOR] I've been there three times -- all on business. But I did take some extra time to do some exploring. It's a lovely city, pleasant people, and the subway is very convenient.

When you were on the metro, did you notice all the rabbits running around? I think Paris must have some sort of infestation or something. I bet the metro takes care of a bit of the surplus rabbit population ;)

I think I walked down one of those streets there! I went to Paris once, because while we were visiting Bosnia (no, I'm serious) in 1999, Tony Blair and NATO decided to bomb what used to be Yugoslavia (and is now Serbia). So it was a little tricky getting a flight out, because all the planes were grounded in Bosnia and Croatia. Eventually we were re-routed to Paris, where Air Canada paid for an overnight stay in a three-star hotel (think four-star in North American terms). It was quite an adventure.

Wombat wrote:

Amazing pic. Paris seems to have two churches that look just about identical... you can see one of them at the far left of the picture, and the other at the far right.

;-)

It doesn't seem right to me, but the photo is actually a full 360 degrees. The far left and right sides overlap by about one full building.

Pretty neat. I've never used the 360-degree function on my photostitching software, but then again, I've never thought to shoot a 360 panorama in the first place.

This guy does awesome panoramic and 360 work. <jealous> :worried:



Oh right, and YES, I have been to Paris. Was there from May to September 2001.

Ahhhh this is what dual 1280x1024 monitors are good for!!



chrisinhouston;
I think that guy's pants are down around his ankles!!

Ah hell it is Paris..

SPUCK wrote:

...
I think that guy's pants are down around his ankles!!
...

I feel tempted to photoshop some more people into some of those many windows :D

Are those lights or burning cars?

jaybat wrote:

Are those lights or burning cars?

Aww, I got beaten to it. :sniff:

Yeah tulzscha, me too.

Welcome to the Cellar jaybat. :D

Are those lights or burning cars?

I was recently told by a guy who visits Paris regularly on business that all those car burnings are really just show. They get permits. They close the streets. They bring in purchased wrecks. Then they torch them. Our favorite media idiots then come trotting in and wah-law; "ohmygawd they're burning cars in Paris!!"

He swore he watched all this occur and that, that is what always happens.

??

SPUCK wrote:

I was recently told by a guy who visits Paris regularly on business that all those car burnings are really just show. They get permits. They close the streets. They bring in purchased wrecks. Then they torch them. Our favorite media idiots then come trotting in and wah-law; "ohmygawd they're burning cars in Paris!!"

He swore he watched all this occur and that, that is what always happens.

??

Burning something does seem to be a standard French protest, so I can understand that they're pretty organised about it by now.

But the idea that it's for show is missing the point. It's a protest, and it's still a burning car. I very much doubt that when Paris erupted into riots last year it was "for show"

So the poor impoverished minorities are buying wrecks to torch them?

They've averaged 110 per night so that's a lot of money for show.

And how about the two people who died recently when a working bus was torched?

The story says a lot about how deep the French capacity for denial is.

Isn't denying the problem, helping make it bigger? :eyebrow:

Let's show those French by doing them one better: we'll go out, buy some wrecks and deep-fry them.

LOL

SPUCK wrote:

Our favorite media idiots then come trotting in and wah-law; "ohmygawd they're burning cars in Paris!!"

The word is voila -- and it's French.

There's some serious irony in there somewhere.

HAHA!!

No wonder the spell checker refused to help me.... :thepain: :worried:

vi·o·la -1 n.

1- A stringed instrument of the violin family, slightly larger than a violin, tuned a fifth lower, and having a deeper, more sonorous tone.

2- An organ stop usually of eight-foot or four-foot pitch yielding stringlike tones.


vi·o·la -2 n.

A plant of the genus Viola, which includes the violets and pansies, especially a variety having flowers resembling violets in size and shape and pansies in coloration.


voi·là - interj.

Used to call attention to or express satisfaction with a thing shown or accomplished: Mix the ingredients, chill, and voilà! a light, tasty dessert.

;)

I thank you... You are a gentleman and a scholar.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

vi·o·la -1 n.

1- A stringed instrument of the violin family, slightly larger than a violin, tuned a fifth lower, and having a deeper, more sonorous tone.

2- An organ stop usually of eight-foot or four-foot pitch yielding stringlike tones.


vi·o·la -2 n.

A plant of the genus Viola, which includes the violets and pansies, especially a variety having flowers resembling violets in size and shape and pansies in coloration.

And I think he won the 1988 Cy Young award for the AL, too.

But I keep pitching...:lol: