Hi, >the new multi-row mode should help, but I am not sure how far the windows binaries are nowadays.
Which OS you use? I am also not into gigapixel race. But there are subjects that require gpx treatment. I have a Picture wall in same fort. Its a huge wall with beautiful mosaic paintings. Its requires a gpx treatment. Its full of beautiful artwork. Exposure enfusion is a magical thing for me :) It creates superior, rich colours. Fevon sensor is good but its low in megapixels :) Hugin n enfuse creates high res magic. Just check this image from my flickr stream...Lake of Fairies <http://www.flickr.com/photos/emaad/3910843351/>. On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Yuval Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Emad, > > On August 27, 2010 02:33:52 am Emad ud din Butt wrote: > > Bundles of thanks for your detailed reply. Its very informative for me. I > > learnt a lot from your reply. > > glad it helped. > > > > How can I stitch adjacent pics? I am not into scripting. > > the new multi-row mode should help, but I am not sure how far the windows > binaries are nowadays. > > > > Please! See final panorama at Royal Garden Arches at Lahore > > fort.<http://pan0.net/upano.php?id=1134#pano_self> Nadir is not > > patched yet. This is beauty of Mughal Architecture. > > Thanks. Beautiful indeed. > > > > Thanks again for help. have you ever tried to stitch extra large or > > gigapixel images with hugin ? Hugin can do it? > > Yes, easily. Already in 2007 at LGM we toyed with the idea with Pablo. > But > we lacked time and gear. I went back to the same place a few weeks later, > but > the weather was overcast, so it was a purely technical exercise. I did a > couple of other gpx-panos, although I am not a fan of the gigapixel race. > > I wish there was a method to weight the pixels by their quality and the > additional information they bring to the scene. Generally I found most > gpx- > panos published after the Harlem 13 gpx one to be boring. I would rescale > them factor 5 or 10 and would not miss the 80%-90% lost pixels. Plus most > of > their pixels are just boring areas that I would have not even framed. > > Attached is a thumbnail of one of my rather large panos. It's not > gigapixel, > far from it. But it is 3x bracketed exposure (does this count as 3x > pixels, > like foveon sensors vs. traditional sensors?) and I don't have enough free > wall space for it (4.5m x 1.5m). Shooting was limited by a tourist-like > situation. I could have used a longer focal distance. To waste more time > of > my waiting travel partners? With few exceptions I fail to see the > practical > and aesthetic value of gpx-panoramas beyond the computing race. Large > panos > are nice. Large prints are nice. But how big do you want to print, > considering that with increasing distance to the print resultion can be > lowered with no practical visible loss? It's like those home cinema > enthusiasts who buy 42" FullHD TV and sit 6-7 meters away from them, where > they can not discern the 1080i resolution. For the same price they can get > a > 56" 720p resolution and get a much better experience. But the salesman > sold > them the pixels. > > Yuv > -- _________________________________ Emaad www.flickr.com/emaad -- 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
