Yup, I do that too. But again, the bracketing will not work in a burst. I have to press the shutter 3 (or 5) times when auto-bracketing. I mostly bracket only in very static situations.
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:31:59 AM UTC-6, GnomeNomad wrote: > > If you can set your camera to automatically bracket using JPGs, I'd > think you'd get good dynamic range results. Or you can do it manually > (adjusting the shutter speed). Then you're getting into the area of > shooting high-dynamic range images. > > On 12/11/2012 09:23 AM, JohnPW wrote: > > Actually, for static situations, I have found that taking 3 or 4 jpeg > > exposures (maximum quality) and stacking them gives a surprisingly > > decent result and (with my camera) is quicker and better than a single > > TIFF. My P&S camera takes forever to process a TIFF and they gobble up > > card space like crazy. Converting the JPEGS to 16b and stacking allows > > produces an image with higher resolution more dynamic range (obviously > > nowhere near as good as RAW, but if the camera could shoot RAW, I'd do > > that instead.) > > John > > > > On Monday, December 10, 2012 10:10:00 PM UTC-6, GnomeNomad wrote: > > > > 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] <javascript:> > 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
