On 25 Okt., 21:35, Brent <[email protected]> wrote: > Autoloading of .ini files is a great idea -- would make life much > easier. It could also use camera serial number as a lookup > parameter, if that's included in the exif data.
The principle is, of course, extensible. It might also be a really good candidate to delegate to a python script. The python interface can be used from anywhere in hugin, it's not just for plugins. If the routine looking at the exif values and deciding which ini file to load was written in python, it'd be easy to modify and adapt to the behaviour that's wanted, without having to do a recompile. It might also have a set of behaviour patterns ready and chose from them based on environment variables or other clues. > One other detail though, is that the 'lens' is really a combination of > a lens and a body. Some of the 'lens' parameters, such as the > photometric scaling, and perhaps the lens shift parameters, are really > a function of the body not the lens. In the longer term view, it may > be appropriate to separate those as different ini files... The lens parameters as defined in hugin and stored in the ini file have a few annoying quirks. I never understood why it is necessary to have two different ini files for landscape and portrait orientation with the same lens. If the parameters were always reative to the sensor, one could use the same. And that the lens shift parameters (d, e) are given in pixels instead of a float factor around 1.0 - as a, b and c - is also annoying. I think this is all legacy from the pto format and changing it would mean breaking compatibility with the existing format, so there's a great deal of inertia here. As far as the lens-body combination goes, it seems to be the case that even with every change of the lens the optical system comes out slightly different - I was advised on this ML to reoptimize d and e every time, because they won't come out the same from set to set even with the same lens-body combination if the lens is taken off and put on again. I'm not entirely certain if there is really a physical difference or if the change in the d and e parameters the optimizer generates may be due to content, rather - but the optimizer sure does come up with different values each time. Kay -- 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
