The number of noisy&speckled pixels won't get smaller by averaging, but the amplitude will average out a bit, and I suspect that Huffman encoding will work better with that. Admittedly, I haven't tested how much of an effect I'll get with that; OTOH I see people recommend that approach. The other option would be taking the median. Whatever works best *shrug*.
Longer exposure isn't something I can control with a scanner... ... anyway: I'd really prefer if I got some guidance about the existing tools, instead of attempts at talking me out of the approach I'm currently experimenting with. Most tools come with a single page of man text that tells me fairly litte, and nothing about what they actually do; did I just miss the pages with details about what they do and what each option does, or are image processing tools generally intended to be used in an experiment-and-see fashion? Because that multitude of tools and options is overwhelming, and I don't want to spend months trying to find out what the strengths and limits of each tool and each option are... -- 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 hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/70c0854b-6728-4798-9440-38f6910cf77e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
