That's how I've done it. Works quite successfully.
If you're shooting JPGs, I wouldn't worry about converting them to
16-bit TIFF - JPG doesn't have the color depth for that.
Hmm, I think using TIFF isn't onerous at all!
On 12/10/2012 01:04 PM, JohnPW wrote:
Why not faux-bracket the source images first, then stack and enfuse them
before stitching?
This is similar to making bracketed images from RAW files (eliminates
alignment/movement difficulties common to conventional bracketing.)
I have to admit, most of my panos are from jpegs shot with cheap point
and shoots that don't do RAW (and using TIFF is too onerous.)
John
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:13:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Witten wrote:
I've achieved some pleasing results by using `Hugin' to stitch a
panorama several times with various Exposure Values, and then passing
this faux-bracketed stack through `enfuse' to yield the final,
exposure-fused result; this usually pulls out more details, especially
in places like a sky that might otherwise be blown out and clipped.
Unfortunately for this technique, the choice of seams made by
`enblend' occasionally depends on the Exposure Value setting;
consequently, various features in the images of the faux-bracketed
stack don't align, and thus the final exposure-fused panorama exhibits
ghosting and the like.
Is there a way to keep `enblend' from choosing alternate seams? Are
there better ways to achieve this faux-bracketing?
--
Gnome Nomad
[email protected]
wandering the landscape of god
http://www.clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
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
