Roger Broadie wrote:
BugBear wrote on Thu, 09 Oct 2014 1at 4:54:22 +0100 about the presence of
stitching glitches in photomosaics.
He pointed out that if the individual transformed images of the sample
photomosaic we were investigating (a map of the English cathedral city of
Norwich) were loaded in a stack errors were visible.
Actually, in my post of 8 October, by stitching glitches I merely meant those
that are visible in the final output.
Ah, agreed.
I use the multi-layer trick to check the optimisation. I am (as you imply)
perfectly happy,
when the optimisation is as good as it can be, to use enblend to further reduce
the visual consequences
of any optimisation errors.
Certainly there are mismatches in the remapped images where they overlap, as
is, I think, not unusual. But in theory, for any given point, the stitcher
should allow only one version of it through to the final product and I can'’t
see that differences between that version and those from other images that are
invisible in the final product are directly relevant. In the map we have been
looking at the stitcher has been generally able to make a good choice and even
where distortions are visible it
is clear that they originate from the remains of folds.
Nonetheless, the discrepancies between the different remapped images are a
reminder that the final photomosaic is not to be relied on as an accurate
scaled-down reproduction of the original, much though one would like it to be.
Indeed.
BugBear
--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/543B8C94.3000602%40papermule.co.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
