On November 10, 2010 10:19:35 pm Robert Krawitz wrote: > One more panorama from the trip last month: > http://rlk.smugmug.com/Other/Landscapes/4851912_oeCNm#1086043156_p4b23
nice work, thanks for sharing. > Hugin kept giving me FOV estimates of between 87 and 95 degrees HFOV don't worry, as long as it is < 360° (i.e. fits on the panosphere) for partial (non 360° panos) accuracy of estimated HFOV is much less important than the visual result. > The amount of error was truly extreme -- the worst CP was about 85 > units off and the average was 8 units. However, there were only a > couple of bad seams when I actually stitched it together, and they > were all in locations that were fairly easy to fix. Interestingly, > when I added more CPs, the worst error went down to 70, but there were > more seams. I guess the thing to worry about is what happens when > it's stitched, not what the optimization results are (Yuv, I guess > that's what you were telling me :-) ). yep, you guess right! in this particular case, parallax affects the lower 1/3 of the image more than the top 2/3. If I was to add CPs manually, I would only put them on the far away mountains and maybe on the far away trees. The CP generator does not know this. It does not have a sense for depth, and it does not know that CPs at infinity suffer much less from parallax than CPs in proximity of the camera's viewpoint. points in the lower 1/3 will have higher error. the cleaning/pruning function of CPs in Hugin may or may not catch them - depending on where the majority of the points are found. running it multiple times (i.e. clicking the button multiple times) may help or may make things worse. the random/regular pattern on the surface of the rock makes it very easy to deal with bad seams in your favorite image editor. Yuv
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
