On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:38:55AM +0100, Bruno Postle wrote:
> On 11 September 2012 10:03, Rogier Wolff <rew-googlegro...@bitwizard.nl>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:09:50AM -0400, Bruno Postle wrote:
> >> Sharpening doesn't survive remapping very well, so you should apply it to
>
> > If my math intuition is good, the -0.5 2 -0.5 convolution is the
> > inverse of 0,1,1,0. Such a convolution might be possible to build into
> > the remapping operation to keep the images as sharp as the original.
>
> Artificially 'sharpened' images are a special case, you don't find
> this kind of data in 'normal' photos, these don't really suffer any
> loss of focus in the standard remapping used by Hugin.
IMHO, when I click "optimal size" it recommends a size where each
source pixel maps to at least one remapped pixel. Bluntly said: If I
take three portrait 2500x4000 images and align them next to each
other, my "optimal size" will have a height of 4000 pixels (plus
whatever is needed because they don't align perfectly).
In this situation, I have the impression I can clearly see that the
remapped images are softer, fuzzier than the originals.
Roger.
--
** r.e.wo...@bitwizard.nl ** 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 hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
