Hi, Shows what happens when one assumes! Since you have a full frame body, your overlap is about 44%. That is pretty good. You probably don't need to add more images to help your cause. FYI, I shoot with an 8mm sigma on either a 350D or 40D. Shooting 6 pictures at 60 degrees gives me around 47% overlap. If you are confident with your a,b,c parameters that's fine, however you may want to try optimizing them as well if optimizing the 'v' parameter doesn't help.
I am hoping you see an improvement optimizing the 'v' parameter. Not being able to stitch across the 360 boundary, really sounds like adjusting 'v' parameter should help. Best Regards, - Gerry On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:22 PM, slaterson <[email protected]>wrote: > > i was optimizing for the y, p & r. i have a, b & c parameters for my > lens, so i wasn't optimizing for them. i will try this again, > optimizing for 'v' as well. > > i realize this isn't easy, especially after serveral attempts, > including taking many sets of photos. :) i had a feeling it would be > a little easier, though, to be honest. after looking at several sets > of photos i have taken with this setup, i think i've got it dialed in > parallax wise within a few pixels between shots, not sure how to get > it better. i am also using the longest lens i have available, i will > likely rent a 15mm fisheye soon and try with that. > > i forgot to add that i am not using a cropped body. i'm using a canon > 5d body, at 24mm, the hfov is 53 degrees, so i think i am ok with > overlap. i initially tried taking shots at 20 degree steps, however > this produced so many images it was difficult to work with and > obviously very time consuming. how much overlap should there be to > get a good set of 'automatic' control points as a starting point? > > thanks! > slate > > > > On May 25, 6:04 pm, Gerry Patterson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This may seem a silly question, but what parameters are you optimizing? > > Since you have a full 360 around, you should also be able to optimize 'v' > as > > well, which might help. > > > > Keep in mind, what you are doing is hard. :-) Taking a full spherical > pano > > inside a room with that long of a lens means you have to be dead-on with > > your measurements to avoid paralax. Much more difficult that stitching > a > > pano of objects far, far away. (I had problems like this too, it just > took > > me a while to understand what I needed to try to fix it. Once I got the > > hang of it, it wasn't bad). > > > > Based on what you have said in your e-mail and my assumption that you are > > working with a cropped body, your field of view in portrait mode (you are > > using a nodal ninja which mounts the camera vertical) is about 34 > degrees. > > 12 images around doesn't give you much overlap (14%). I may be wrong > here > > but am guessing all of your control points are near the edges of the > > images. Can you switch to a different detent disc to give you more > images > > and increase the overlap? This way you can have a more widely spaced set > of > > control points to pass to the optimzer. It has been said here that it > isn't > > the quantity of the control points, its the quality. > > > > For the time being I would also consider dropping down to 8bit tiffs > until > > you get this sorted out. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > - Gerry > > > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:37 PM, slaterson > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > i recently got a pano head (a nodal ninja) and i'm having all sorts of > > > trouble with seams in my panos. i have simplified my image set in an > > > attempt to isolate the problem, not that i think i have the problem > > > identified i'm not sure how to fix it. > > > > > i took a set of photos to make a 360x180 of my living room. the > > > photos were taken at a focal length of 24mm, 30 degree steps around > > > the vertical axis and 30 degrees around the horizontal, for a total of > > > 60 images. when stitching the entire set i was getting a lot of > > > misalignment and seams in the full 360x180 pano. i tried to fix this > > > by working with the control points, but ended up going in circles > > > (quite literally!). i then decided to look at only the 12 images that > > > make up the 'level' cylindrical pano. when adding control points, i > > > noticed i was having the same problem, but less pronounced. my next > > > step was to delete all control points between the first and last > > > images in the 12 image set. this produced a perfectly aligned set of > > > 12 images, however the first and last images were obviously not > > > aligned and major errors were present between those two images. if > > > control points are created between these two images, the seams re- > > > appear between previously 'perfectly' aligned images. the seams have > > > proven very difficult to minimize, let alone remove entirely. > > > > > i have carefully found the nodal point for the lens i am using and > > > can't see any visible parallax across the images. i am using 16-bit > > > tiffs from ufraw, they are pretty big (about 73 megs each, 810 megs > > > for all 12), so its might not be feasible to post them. i can re- > > > process them as 8-bit (about 400 megs for all 12). > > > > > i'm using hugin 0.8 and autopano-sift-c from svn. > > > > > is this normal? am i doing something wrong or missing a step? > > > > > thanks for any help! > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
