Yup. If you have the RAW, that would be the way to do it. But, as the prison warden in "Coolhand Luke" said, "I think what we have here, is a failure to communicate!" ;-) Not really a failure to communicate, but possibly a misunderstanding of interests.
• I think Bugbear is advocating this as a nice and quick way to get the most from a single jpeg image. And I think he's right — it looks like a neat trick to faux enfuse a jpeg and get a better image. • Other folks maybe think one should use a RAW file instead, which is also right, but he's talking about getting the most from a jpeg when you don't have a RAW file. And presently, I can't take RAW images. • And in addition to these points, I'm curious about the theoretical and practical aspects of this image processing method. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about image processing to figure it out for myself. It seems to me there is some loss of detail in the highest highlights. But is this just a figment of my imagination? Is it endemic to improving the image and impossible to avoid (even with a RAW file?) Is there a way to avoid it by changing how the method is used? As an example, if one uses this process on a single, well exposed, high bit depth image extracted from a RAW file, how does it compare to enfusing several exposures extracted from that RAW file? etc. John On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:50:00 AM UTC-6, Cartola wrote: > > Another try would be using some command line tool to convert directly from > the raw files. I know that ufraw[1] <http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/> can > do this. One easy way to do this is to use its graphic interface to > generate the different profiles in files, then make the script using them. > > Surely it is available on unix systems, I just don't know if it can be > used on command line on windows. > > [1] - http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/ > > > Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) > http://cartola.org/360 > http://www.panoforum.com.br/ > > > > 2012/12/18 paul womack <[email protected] <javascript:>> > >> JohnPW wrote: >> >> >>> The main thing I notice with this process is that the highest of the >>> highlights seems to get slightly blown. But is this a result of the >>> strategy itself or just the finer points of it? Perhaps some adjustments >>> might make a difference, say the sigmoidal contrast settings — perhaps the >>> contrast factor needs to be edged down bait? Or maybe the weighting of the >>> enfuse settings should be different from the defaults? Or is it inescapable >>> with this process because of a simple principle of image >>> manipulation theory? Or maybe it's inescapable even with full access to >>> a RAW file? >>> >> >> Are they un-blown in ANY of the intermediate images? >> >> >> BugBear >> >> -- >> 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<http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@** >> googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/hugin-ptx <http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx> >> > > -- 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
