Yuval Levy wrote: > Jim Watters wrote: > >> Is the fact that the plane must be straight a current limitation? In >> the future will it be possible to use Tr to align an image to any >> arbitrary plane. Or will the planes have to be defined to work? >> > > maybe I am just sleep deprived and dreaming... but isn't the logical > consequence to define a new type of control points: plane? and go "real 3D"? > > The plane control point would be similar to the line control point. I am > not sure yet if it must be defined between two shots, or if it also > makes sense to define a plane on a single pictures. Mathematically three > points are always on a plane. We'd need more than that to make it a > constrain (the constrain in case of the line control point is two points > *and* the sphere. If we relax the assumption that all CPs are on the > sphere and go real 3D, we need a constrain to replace the sphere. > > Once in real 3D space, we can place whatever target geometry (sphere, > plane, etc.) wherever we want and project onto it. > > Or am I missing something? > > Yuv > We wont need to define a new annotation to identify control points belonging to a particular plane if we assume all control points of an image that is using Ti or Tr are of the same plane. But this will only work if the plane can be something other than z=1.
-- Jim Watters jwatt...@photocreations.ca http://photocreations.ca --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
