Hi Harry, Thanks for the update on the patch - I've made the change and reuploaded.
> multiblend is indeed much, much faster then enblend. From the 3 comparing > tests the resulting images were "equal" to me w.r.t. seams and so on. For a fair comparison (though it probably won't make much difference), you should run Enblend with --fine-mask --no-optimize --compression=none as multiblend's masks are always full resolution, it does no seam optimisation, and it defaults to no compression instead of LZW (on my machine multiblend spends more time reading and writing images than actually doing the calculations). > Two question though: > - Is multiblend GPL (V2/V3)? > - Does multiblend contain patent/license bound code? I've added the GPL v2 to the top of multiblend.cpp, and I wrote every line - not that that means much in these days of algorithm patents and the like, but it should be safe. David -- 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
