Hi again Chris, I have just tried another fused image stack, both with the "default" of no specified options for enfuse and another with "--no-ciecam" option...
The default one rendered a few pixel artefacts in the shadows, as before, but there were NO artefacts in the image made with the "no ciecam" option. This may have solved the problem! The two images were visually the same, so it appears that there are not any new artefacts introduced. I will continue with this option, trying a few other images and also some panoramas. I very much appreciate your suggestions an the time you have taken to respond. I also hope other users take this on board, that there may be some issues with rendered images on a pixel level using the "out of the box" default parameters. This is probably not much of an issue with most users, but as I am archiving some of these images in a photo library I wanted to make sure the quality is as good as possible. Again, many thanks. Dougal. On Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:53:22 PM UTC+13, cspiel wrote: > > Dougal - > > On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:58:08 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > --- snip -- > > It appeared to be the same build that I previously had as a beta > (2014.0.0), > > which I thought was a bit odd. > > This is a question to ask the guy who produced your installer > package. I am just an Enblend/Enfuse developer. > > > > I am also having trouble verifying the "latest" versions of > enblend/enfuse. > > The notion is not well defined. We already have two main > branches of Enblend/Enfuse development: "Stable Branch" and > "Development Branch". At the package level, i.e. when somebody > bundles Hugin with Enblend/Enfuse we get another bifurcation as "the > latest version" becomes something like "the latest version in the > Enblend/Enfuse Stable Branch that is compatible with the targeted > version of Hugin on the given platform". > > To make a long story short, the minimum revision I suggested for > Enblend certainly is not in any bundle yet, for it is close to the tip > of the Development Branch. It is a massive rewrite of the CIECAM > blending code to catch those falsely colored pixels in deep shadows. > > Some possible ways to go from here: > > - Force Enblend to blend inside the RGB-cube. This works with _any_ > version of Enblend or Enfuse, but may not cure your > problems. Moreover, it may introduce other artifacts, but you can > do this hic et nunc. > > - Ask a MacOS builder (on this list?) to create Enblend and Enfuse > binaries based on the tip of the Mercurial repo for you. She/he > will be able to tell you how to loop-in them on your system. > > > HTH, > Chris > > -- 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/8d8e8ea1-1b42-4c7d-a793-c627c022081d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
