Hello, here is Saturday already. The image processing is one thing. I have made my own sidecar for that and this is subjective. I did it with the help of RawTherapee team member heckflosse, who corrected the 400D support in RawTherapee. I did not spend time to make similar processing in ACR.
My idea is to fit the Hugin result better. This needs more bending, if you like. More morphing. It's the opposite of cropping, but I think it's similar to the image slices morphing in the stitching process. The goal is to take a bit more from the source images. In this particular case, for instance, I'd like to be able to alter the result boundary in the left bottom part by stretching it from the curved border it is now to a straight line. And so with all the other corners. I am aware this means a bit of deforming, but it's acceptable if some value could determine how much. Maybe to go partially, like half way, from the curve it is now to some less curvy shape, in order to take some more from the pixels left out at this point. See? On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:42:17 AM UTC+3, GnomeNomad wrote: > > Hmm, autocrop would have cropped it to a rectangle, yes? Did you > autocrop, change the zoom on the image, then not autocrop again? > > I would have output the image as 48-bit TIFF and processed it in > LuminanceHDR. But it still looks better than what Adobe seems to have > come out with. > > Or did you do the processing, then feed the finished image into Hugin > for stretching or something? Sorry, it's Friday and I may be confused. > > On 8/1/19 10:51 PM, Mihai Dobrescu wrote: > > Autocrop did not do enough, meaning, as explained before, it let the > > image not rectangular and omitted too much compared to what I need (ACR > > is for reference, but can morph the image to the desired rectangle, > > having a slider for the morphing adjustment). > > The feature would be very useful if missing and should not be a big deal > > as long as it morphs the images for stretching to the control points. > > > > As for the image treatment, I have created a profile in RawTherapee and > > served it to Hugin (for the colours, sharpness exposure and so on). > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:42:31 AM UTC+3, GnomeNomad wrote: > > > > On August 1, 2019 6:08:26 PM HST, Mihai Dobrescu > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hello, how the stitched image could be fit as in Photoshop/Adobe > > Camera > > >RAW? > > > > > >Here is how the ACR image is morphed to fit: > > *IMG_2682-2690_Pano.jpeg* > > >Here is how I've managed to do it in Hugin: *IMG_2682 - > > >IMG_2690_blended_fused.jpeg* > > >Note, ACR/PS produce a larger jpg. The ACR one is 17.1 MB, at a > > quality > > > > > >level of 98, but I had to reduce its quality in order to attach > it. > > > > > >The idea is to get as much as possible from the resulting pixels. > > >For example, the left and the right sides are stretched vertically > to > > >cover > > >all the rectangle area in the resulted image. > > >Also, it is taken more from the bush in the approximately > > middle-lower > > >part. Here is why: > > > > > > > > >Thank you in advance! > > > > > >Mike > > > > Autocrop in Hugin? > > > > By the way, I think Hugin's blended-fused version handled the > > exposure much better than Photoshop did. > > > -- > David W. Jones > [email protected] <javascript:> > wandering the landscape of god > http://dancingtreefrog.com > -- 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/d4bf8be5-1b57-44a1-90b6-7c180723fd0d%40googlegroups.com.
