Wow! sounds complicated. I must admit my normal panorama shooting process does not require using Celeste.
Wouldn't the simple solution be for Celeste to remove points if there is a mixture of cloud and non-cloud points joining two images. But if the only points[1] joining two images are cloud points then they should not be removed. [1] Requires at least 2 non-cloud point to be considered as having non-cloud points. Jim Watters Yuv wrote: > hi all, > > I'm currently dealing with a lot of clouds (when traveling quickly > through many locations I have no other choice than take the meteo > conditions as they are). Since the introduction of Celeste (that works > great, thanks Tim!) this is no longer an issue for the proper > alignment and stitching of everything but the clouds. However in multi- > rows high resolution shots the clouds end up being an issue at the > blending stage. The rows become visible. > > The lazy way to deal with this is to mask out the sky and replace it > with whatever photo editor is at hand, but the result inevitably looks > artificial (shade zones on the mountains and so). > > When Tim was coding Celeste, we sparred about what kind of mask should > Celeste generate around the clouds, if any. > > Now, having such a mask could be useful for the following idea, > assuming the clouds movement is constant throughout the photoshooting: > 1. generate control points for the static parts in the image. Use them > to position the images in relationship to one another and create the > master panoramas, using Celeste to prune CPs from the clouds and mask > the coulded areas. > 2. generate control points in the clouds (area masked by Celeste) and > calculate the translation related to the positioning in 1 (which is > the translation vector multiplied by the time differential between the > reference image and the current image) > 3. use the translated cloud images to generate an additional panorama > of the sky > 4. mask the sky out from the static panorama and add the sky panorama > as a layer > > there will be some areas of the sky that will be "empty" (e.g. when a > cloud moves behind an object or out from it), but those will be much > smaller areas to deal with in an image editor than generating the sky > artificially or dealing with the shift across all images. > > to do this we need: > - an additional category of CPs to compose the sky panorama (sky-CPs) > - a measurement of the displacement of those CPs related to the > position of the image in the static pano > - some math to average / optimize the displacement measures > - some glue/script to generate the second panorama > - a tool to mask the sky from the rest of the panorama (I don't think > that Celeste's mask are fine enough for that). > - some glue/script to add the mask and the sky to the resulting > panorama. > > does this sound logic? or have I missed something? should I record > this as a feature request? maybe a future GSoC project? > > Yuv > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
