By contrast, here's an equirectangular projection of the same
shot. Less "fishy" than the original, although straight lines don't stay
straight. At least the whole shot is viewable.
http://www.ee.vt.edu/~mythtv/PESO/imgp3342_defished.jpg
I tend towards plain cylindrical projections for images of greater than about
140 degrees as I find that the apparent distortion is often less objectionable.
I've found that for extremely wide lenses like the 8mm fisheye,
the cylindrical projection makes a better rendition horizontally, but
stretches too much vertically at the top and bottom. For wide, short
panos (e.g. 360 degree full-circle), I prefer cylindrical as well.
>> Enough babbling... just figured I'd encourage anyone who hasn't
played with hugin or its other panoramic ilk to play. This correction was
trivial.... set the lens at 8mm, 1.5 crop, and choose how big I want the
output.
The nice thing with Hugin is given a few images with sufficient overlap the
distortion parameters of any lens can be determined and this profile then saved
so that the distortion correction can be applied to discrete images. I also use
Hugin to produce panos, for rotation and perspective correction, to correct
lenses geometric distortion to align images that I wish to overlay and
manipulate and to re-map images to alternate projections, it's very flexible
once understood.
I've generally just hit "auto optimize" and used it for panos. Do
you just copy the final lens parameters that it produces and make a
PTscript? I've never used it for lens correction by itself... only in
optimizing panos.
Once the tools will do CA correction, it'll be even more
interesting. Maybe even integrated within the RAW converter.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
