I seem to remember that a combination of the g&t (shear) and r (roll) parameters will correct for squashed images.
But introducing more optimisation variables is not always helpful. If you can calibrate the distortion by scanning a ruler or similar, you will get much more consistent results by pre-processing all your scans with an image editor before using Hugin. -- Bruno On 31 January 2017 01:30:48 GMT+00:00, John Eklund wrote: >I'm scanning maps in patches for later stitching and realized that many > >flatbed scanners give slightly non-square pixels. (When scanning a >circle I >get an oval). Hugin has no ability to optimize for this parameter. My >solution would be to manually adjust each image in Photoshop before >loading >into Hugin. Is there no elegant way of correcting this? Any ideas? > >Some old HP models are very poor in this regard. My Canon Canoscan >4400F >gives perfect square pixels but I had to replace it because when >painstakingly dismounting the lid, I introduced dust somewhere which >resulted in colored lines that I have been unable to get rid of despite > >cleaning repeatedly. I then bought a used Canoscan 8800F. It outputs >very >slightly non-square pixels, though not much at all so I figured I can >live >with it. Still, I assume it should be impossible to get a perfect >stitch. > >Are we really certain that all cameras have square pixels? -- 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/25DEE393-C69B-40C1-BC13-FF0BC9428FB3%40postle.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
