A larger image works for me too; I upsampled each image from 3584x1792 to 4096x2048 before processing in Hugin, figuring that power-of-2 dimensions would be the very safest. And the rotated images came out perfect. Thus I was able to complete my workflow and process about 20 images in my current project. So my needs are satisfied, now that I inserted this upsample step in my workflow.
I don't have the PTO file under my fingers at the moment. I will try to upload it later. Cheers, Christopher On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-4, Cartola wrote: > > It looks really strange. I usually do that with bigger images with no > problem (12000x6000 usually). I also usually don't touch enblend options. > > Maybe you can make available for us your PTO hugin file and one original > image for testing. (don't attach). The difference from your steps is that I > usually don't stitch the remapped images, I go for the default option, > which uses enblend. The remapped images only transform originals with nona. > > Cheers, > > > Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) > http://cartola.org/360 > http://www.panoforum.com.br/ > > 2015-06-14 9:56 GMT-03:00 Christopher Bruns <[email protected] > <javascript:>>: > >> >> >> On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 4:29:15 AM UTC-4, dex Otaku wrote: >>> >>> Hi Christopher, >>> You might improve this by using the --wrap option of enblend. Add >>> --wrap to the enblend parameters on the stitch page in the main hugin >>> window. >>> See also: panini-renderer; search for 'panini' on sourceforge. That >>> tool might let you rotate and rerender more easily*. >>> >>> >> Thank you Dex for the helpful advice. "--wrap" looks like just the sort >> of thing for this sort of problem, especially since "--wrap=horizontal" is >> the default and correct parameter to --warp for this situation. >> >> Unfortunately, embarrassingly, it seems I asked the wrong question. I >> turns out that the "exposure discontinuity" I complained about, is rather a >> consequence of the fact that the leftmost and rightmost ~40 pixels of my >> input image are ignored from each edge. On a hunch, I resized my 3584x1792 >> input image to 2048x1024, ran the same process in hugin, and got a >> beautiful perfect reprojected image out. Thus I suspect something in the >> process is silently grumpy about the 3582x1792 image size. I will >> investigate this some more. >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/c4a8cf40-e134-429f-9482-7e27e1a4f6ce%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/c4a8cf40-e134-429f-9482-7e27e1a4f6ce%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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/c057402f-2b8a-4547-a1f1-0e96bc56955d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
