Bummer. On my camera, holding down the shutter fires a burst of
autobrackets (3 or 5). I think there's a mode setting, though, that
turns it off for autofocus on moving objects.
When I'm seriously bracketing, I'm general not shooting for a panorama,
I'm shooting for a HDR image. Then I'm manually adjusting shutter speed
between shots ...
On 12/12/2012 07:33 AM, JohnPW wrote:
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]
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
