Gilles -
On Jul 26, 4:58 am, Gilles San Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> So I use the HardMask option as recommended in the documentation for
> focus stacking to avoid too soft final images.
As you want to do focus-stacking, option
"--hard-mask" ("--HardMask" became "--hard-mask"
in version 4.0) is the right way and in fact the _only_
way to go.
> But I never tried the soft mask approach. And as you point out, it could
> indeed decrease the hallo problems thanks to the arithmetic averaging
> over all the images for non contrasted pixels.
Stay away from the default soft mask for
focus stacks! If you think I recommended it,
this has been a severe misunderstanding. Sorry,
but soft-masks and focus stacking don't go
together.
Soft-masking will reduce noise because of the
averaging associated with it. But soft-masking
will _never_ counter focus-stack halo problems,
which have a completely different origin.
> I was however maybe a little bit over-optimistic about the results with
> these --wExposure=0.01 --wSaturation=0.01 options.
> I run some rapid tests on reduced size images but the results on full
> size images seems to be better but not as better as on the smaller size
> images (so maybe I also have to change the value of the
> ContrastWindowSize option ?). I should made more systematic tests on
> full size images but this is less easy because of computation time...
On the problem of execution time:
(1) Try to get your hands on the new version
4.0. Prefer a parallelized binary. This
should give you a modest (as the core of the
contrast weighting algorithm has not been
parallelized yet) performance boost.
(2) Use _cropped_ versions of your original
images, which show the relevant parts. As
the (4.x) manual explains, rescaled versions
have the disadvantage that the optimal
fusion parameters do not scale as the
images. Thus, you'd have to start over with
the large, original images, which is a real
bummer.
On contrast window size:
Judging from your example pictures, I'd
guess you loose big with standard deviation no
matter how small or how large you make the
sampling window. In your cases only the
Laplacian-of-Gaussian (LoG) can help. I ran
into exactly the same trouble with stubborn
halos a while ago, which was the reason I
extended Enfuse to LoG-contrast weighting.
In the manual for version 4.0 you will find a
section called "Advanced Focus Stacking", where
your problem is explained in detail.
HTH,
Chris
--
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
