On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:36:18PM +0100, Bruno Postle wrote:
> doesn't work on Windows. I'd like to hear some feedback, do you
> think something like this would be useful in Hugin? Is there a
> better approach than forcing _all_ the control points to fit?
Yes, I think this is useful.
The drawback of forcing ALL points to fit is that you force all
control points to be perfect: If there happens to be a rogue control
point in there, this will have a huge influence on the result.
Also there might be "unfixable" parallax errors. One photo might have
much more between two images.
Consider
1 a b c d 2
3 e 4
The 1, 2, 3 and 4 are control points. 1-3 are a vertical line. 2-4
too. And 1-a-b-c-d-2 are evenly spaced, as are 3-e-4 on a different
picture.
On the other hand, you seem to be getting pretty good results in
practise. I guess practise trumps theoretical drawbacks.. :-)
Roger.
--
** [email protected] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
** Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike
Phil, this plan just might work.
--
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
