Terry Duell wrote:
I went through those processes, and as I said it was not possible to align the two images such that a sensible psf could be found. I came to the conclusion that one needed pixel for pixel alignment (ie exact) to be able to derive a correct psf, and that is where I set off to look at the simple example. Maybe some more experimentation will show that reasonable improvement can be made using a psf derived from mal-aligned images.
It might be necessary to execute the process iteratively, that is, find a "smooth" PSF for non-exactly aligned pictures, apply it, then reiterate and reposition the control points/the image with respect to the new level of detail added from the first iteration.
Especially in this case, moving objects or parallax will lead to horrible outcomes. I think someone wrote before that it will be hard to find a correct PSF for the whole image, because of lens errors and so on. Maybe the algorithm can (for example) work on a wavelet decomposition of the image: The lowest frequency layer is processed first, the result is applied, the wavelet decomposition repeated, and the next level is processed. One can then reduce the size of the samples to be corrected, so that lens errors, misplaced control points, moving objects etc will just have a local influence. You can take regions with most control points, or best-fitting control points, calculate the PSF for these, and interpolate PSFs for regions with few control points.
Just an idea. :) Benjamin -- 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
