Hi David, 2011/12/31 Monkey <[email protected]>
> > > 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). > > I used --compression=LZW for both. > > 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 > > That's very nice. You know it: users always ask for more :) I have a simple compact camera and I'm always using jpegs, also for my output images. Is there a chance you could add jpeg support? Harry -- 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
