Jannes Bolten wrote: > Then when I optimize, I end up getting very bad results in the optimizer > tab. Hugin says that my worst control point is 1900 pixels, and the > average around 9 when it starts optimizing and around 5.5 when it's done > optimizing. Still, the control point tab shows these low, mostly sub-1 > pixel values. Also in the preview window the panorama looks good to me. > > Previously I did this pano also with manual control points. I noticed > that Autopano-SIFT places the CPs roughly where I placed them manually. > When I optimize my manual CPs, I end up with an average value of around > 0.2 after optimizing. That's a long way from the results with > autopano-SIFT's CPs. > > What explains this discrepancy?
There might be control points in non-overlapping images or in images with very little overlap. Did you use the control point table (F3) sorted by distance to locate the images? -- Erik Krause http://www.erik-krause.de --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
