Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2011/11/5 kfj <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 5 Nov., 07:22, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > Have you tried hugin masks?
>
> As I was going to say. But in my experience, only exclude masks
> work. Has anybody got include masks to work as well?
They work for me as well, though I don't use them so much. It only
took me a while to understand what precisely they do and how to employ
that. Include masks basically put exclude masks on all other images
that coincide with the mask and leave the image with the include mask
unmasked. That's the only way to do it since the blending stage has no
notion of masks, only of alpha channels, so you can only take away
bits from images. And that's also the reason why overlapping include
masks don't work - you get holes in the pano. The content is taken
from the bit that's masked with the include mask, excluding all other
content other images could provide for that area.
So that's what was happening sometimes when I used include masks.
Couldn't Hugin rather use a more intuitive logic: merge the parts where
two include masks overlap? This could be achieved by setting the alpha
channel to 0 only if the pixel is not part of an include mask.
That would be great!
Now if only there was a way to check and easily tell when masks on
different images overlap.
--
Gnome Nomad
[email protected]
wandering the landscape of god
http://www.cafepress.com/otherend/
--
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
