[hugin-ptx] when to sharpen?
This probably an FAQ, but I couldn't find an answer: when do you sharpen spherical panoramas? Before compositing (i.e. sharpen the original images) or afterwards, and if so, using what type of projection (I need to output equirectangular in the end)? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] when to sharpen?
On 11 Sep 2012 07:54, TvE tvoneic...@gmail.com wrote: This probably an FAQ, but I couldn't find an answer: when do you sharpen spherical panoramas? Before compositing (i.e. sharpen the original images) or afterwards, and if so, using what type of projection (I need to output equirectangular in the end)? Sharpening doesn't survive remapping very well, so you should apply it to your final image at the intended display resolution. So for a cubic panorama it is the individual cubefaces that you sharpen etc... -- Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] when to sharpen?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:09:50AM -0400, Bruno Postle wrote: Sharpening doesn't survive remapping very well, so you should apply it to Right! It looks to me that the remapping takes the average of two surrounding pixels, on average. i.e. with an image that COULD map 1 to 1, every source pixel will still be smeared out over two destination pixels minimum. (or the other way around: every destination pixel is the average of two source pixels). If my math intuition is good, the -0.5 2 -0.5 convolution is the inverse of 0,1,1,0. Such a convolution might be possible to build into the remapping operation to keep the images as sharp as the original. The core of the problem is that you want to prevent aliasing effects. It is quite possible that 50 source pixels map to 49 destination pixels. This means that at one point (say at 0 and 49 destination pixels) they line up perfectly. While at another (that would be around 25 pixels) each destination pixel is halfway inbetween two source pixels. If you do it the obvious way, you'd just copy pixels 0, 1, 48, 49 to get a sharp image, but near pixels 24 and 25 you'd have to take the average of 24, 25 to get destination pixel 24, and then average 25,26 to get destination pixel 25. This would probably lead to visible artefacts. So there is some smart stuff in there to take a similar average near the point where just copying would be more obvious. I've described things as if they are one-dimensional. Things get a bit more complicated in two dimensions. Roger. -- ** r.e.wo...@bitwizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** **Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Help aligning multiple panoramas
Thanks for your reply, Carlos. Aligning the resulting equirectangular projections is an option, but I was hoping to avoid having to filter the images twice, so as to keep the most sharpness. Cheers, lensfun On Monday, September 10, 2012 5:18:53 AM UTC-7, Cartola wrote: Have you tried to align them after they are finished? Don't know if this is the best option, but I did it in this case here: http://wp.me/p1AGa0-ih The second picture was taken more than one year after the other and I aligned the two equirectangular at the end. I did it manually into hugin, but it is probably an easy task to automate. Cheers, Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) http://cartola.org/360 http://www.panoforum.com.br/ 2012/9/10 panfun stuffa...@gmail.com javascript: Hi, I just started using hugin recently, and while I've been reading a lot, I could use some help/guidance from the experts here. Case at hand: I have multiple 360 panoramas, taken from the same position, at different times of day, using a motorized head. However, there are slight rotation differences between each set of pictures (and probably the whole rig moved a little bit). I have a papywizard template that I've used to set up a generic .pto to read in Hugin. Now, I can go in and add CPs, optimize, etc, and get a good panorama for each one of the sets, but if I do each one separately, they are all slightly different (in rotation, but also different areas get warped differently). Ultimately, I'd need all panoramas to line up perfectly with each other. Ant tips for the best way to go about that? I've tried extracting rotation differences for each set, and then using that to modify the master .pto file to create a rotated one for each set. But by the time I add CPs and optimize, I still get panoramas that don't line up with each other. Help! and Thanks! panfun -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com javascript: For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Help aligning multiple panoramas
Hmm, not sure why my previous message got deleted. Here it is again: Thanks, Carlos. Aligning the resulting equirectangular projections is indeed an option, but I was hoping to find a way to do it within the stitching process, to avoid loosing any quality by double-processing the source images. Something like, solve one panorama, and then use its orientation and CPs as a constraint to solve the others. Is something like that possible? Thanks again, lensfun On Monday, September 10, 2012 5:18:53 AM UTC-7, Cartola wrote: Have you tried to align them after they are finished? Don't know if this is the best option, but I did it in this case here: http://wp.me/p1AGa0-ih The second picture was taken more than one year after the other and I aligned the two equirectangular at the end. I did it manually into hugin, but it is probably an easy task to automate. Cheers, Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) http://cartola.org/360 http://www.panoforum.com.br/ 2012/9/10 panfun stuffa...@gmail.com javascript: Hi, I just started using hugin recently, and while I've been reading a lot, I could use some help/guidance from the experts here. Case at hand: I have multiple 360 panoramas, taken from the same position, at different times of day, using a motorized head. However, there are slight rotation differences between each set of pictures (and probably the whole rig moved a little bit). I have a papywizard template that I've used to set up a generic .pto to read in Hugin. Now, I can go in and add CPs, optimize, etc, and get a good panorama for each one of the sets, but if I do each one separately, they are all slightly different (in rotation, but also different areas get warped differently). Ultimately, I'd need all panoramas to line up perfectly with each other. Ant tips for the best way to go about that? I've tried extracting rotation differences for each set, and then using that to modify the master .pto file to create a rotated one for each set. But by the time I add CPs and optimize, I still get panoramas that don't line up with each other. Help! and Thanks! panfun -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com javascript: For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Help aligning multiple panoramas
On 10 September 2012 22:08, panfun stuffandc...@gmail.com wrote: Aligning the resulting equirectangular projections is indeed an option, but I was hoping to find a way to do it within the stitching process, to avoid loosing any quality by double-processing the source images. Something like, solve one panorama, and then use its orientation and CPs as a constraint to solve the others. Just put all your photos for all panoramas in one project and align them together. Then stitch it several times, enabling one set of photos at a time. Though the loss of data from remapping a second time is negligible, so I wouldn't worry about this very much. -- Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] when to sharpen?
On 11 September 2012 10:03, Rogier Wolff rew-googlegro...@bitwizard.nl wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:09:50AM -0400, Bruno Postle wrote: Sharpening doesn't survive remapping very well, so you should apply it to If my math intuition is good, the -0.5 2 -0.5 convolution is the inverse of 0,1,1,0. Such a convolution might be possible to build into the remapping operation to keep the images as sharp as the original. Artificially 'sharpened' images are a special case, you don't find this kind of data in 'normal' photos, these don't really suffer any loss of focus in the standard remapping used by Hugin. -- Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] when to sharpen?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:38:55AM +0100, Bruno Postle wrote: On 11 September 2012 10:03, Rogier Wolff rew-googlegro...@bitwizard.nl wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:09:50AM -0400, Bruno Postle wrote: Sharpening doesn't survive remapping very well, so you should apply it to If my math intuition is good, the -0.5 2 -0.5 convolution is the inverse of 0,1,1,0. Such a convolution might be possible to build into the remapping operation to keep the images as sharp as the original. Artificially 'sharpened' images are a special case, you don't find this kind of data in 'normal' photos, these don't really suffer any loss of focus in the standard remapping used by Hugin. IMHO, when I click optimal size it recommends a size where each source pixel maps to at least one remapped pixel. Bluntly said: If I take three portrait 2500x4000 images and align them next to each other, my optimal size will have a height of 4000 pixels (plus whatever is needed because they don't align perfectly). In this situation, I have the impression I can clearly see that the remapped images are softer, fuzzier than the originals. Roger. -- ** r.e.wo...@bitwizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** **Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] HDR panorama - how to make it with Hugin?
Have you seen this tutorial? http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/enfuse-360/en.shtml Cheers, Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) http://cartola.org/360 http://www.panoforum.com.br/ 2012/9/11 AKS-Gmail-IMAP aksei...@gmail.com I am not an expert at all in this but I can say I've done it both ways as you say. I've first HDR merged the bracketed shots using an outside program and then used Hugin to stitch the pano. More recently in one similar to yours in number of shots and homemade panohead I threw all the images into Hugin using a manual process that split the control point matching into two categories. I control point matched the bracketed image trios within each trio. So for example for the normal exposure image A the corresponding -A and +A exposure images had control points matching only to image A. The second matching category matched control points amongst all the normal exposure images. The matching was done manually in all cases as I found the automatic feature produced way to many points that utterly swamped the calculations. I am sure there are all sorts of Hugin parameters to automate or avoid much of this method or to create the pano as should be done in a totally different fashion. The result of the last mentioned method was very good. On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:36 AM, GigiG pierluigi.gio...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, until now I enjoyed with some panoramas with Hugin and I would like to know how to proceed further in order to obtain an HDR panorama. I'm rather confused on this and I don't know how to use Hugin correctly. In principle I have a series of Nikon .NEF raw images, 3 bracketed shots (1.7EV step) for each of the 28 panorama shots taken with a selfmade simple panohead (10 shots for the first row, 8 for the +\-45° second and third rows each, one zenith and one nadir, at 18mm focal length), for a total of 84 images. Now, what should I do with Hugin to merge the bracketed shots and combine the panorama? Is it possible to do everything togheter in Hugin? or do I need to merge every 3 bracketed shots before (using another tool like Picturenaut) and then make the panorama in Hugin with the resulting 28 HDRIs? If the resulting panorama will be an HDR image, how can be visualized? Ii normally use DevalVR for viewing panos. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Help aligning multiple panoramas
2012/9/11 Bruno Postle brunopos...@googlemail.com Though the loss of data from remapping a second time is negligible, so I wouldn't worry about this very much. I share this opinion. Another option (besides stitch all toguether as Bruno said) is to use the equirectangular just to align the next set of images, keeping it as anchor and don't stitch it again. Cheers, Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) http://cartola.org/360 http://www.panoforum.com.br/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Re: missing areas in equirectangular projection
This looks similar to an older bug with the masking code. Can you send the .pto project so we can confirm it? (no need to send the photos). It's not related to the masking code. The issue with the posted project is the use of the translation parameters. If the images go over the 180° border the translation parameter does not work. This is a limitation of the currently chosen approach. Set all translation parameters to 0 and work without translation. Or if you need to use the translation use the proposed workaround: A workaround might be to rotate the whole panorama 90° down and stitch the panorama with the nadir in the centre. Then you can load this single image in another Hugin project and flip it back. Thomas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Hugin nominee for project of the month
Hugin has been nominated for the project of the month October by sourceforge. See http://sourceforge.net/blog/potm_102012_vote/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Re: missing areas in equirectangular projection
I'm seeing a similar problem in 2012.0.0RC1 (2012.0.0.0fc00635e11f built by Matthew Petroff). I'm attaching the project file. Same issue here. Your nadir image has non-zero translation parameters. Set the translation parameters for the nadir image to 0. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Re: missing areas in equirectangular projection
Thomas, can you clarify what you mean by go over the 180 degree border? Do you mean that I have a panorama that covers more than 180 degrees in some direction? Or that some images cross the nadir or the zenith point? Is there some explanation of what the limitation of the currently chosen approach is? Thanks! On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:10:37 AM UTC-7, T. Modes wrote: This looks similar to an older bug with the masking code. Can you send the .pto project so we can confirm it? (no need to send the photos). It's not related to the masking code. The issue with the posted project is the use of the translation parameters. If the images go over the 180° border the translation parameter does not work. This is a limitation of the currently chosen approach. Set all translation parameters to 0 and work without translation. Or if you need to use the translation use the proposed workaround: A workaround might be to rotate the whole panorama 90° down and stitch the panorama with the nadir in the centre. Then you can load this single image in another Hugin project and flip it back. Thomas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] when to sharpen?
With any image processing it is always recommended that sharpening is the last thing you do. Any adjustments after that affect the perception of sharpness that the eye sees. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld -Original Message- From: Felix Hagemann felix.hagem...@gmail.com Sender: hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:49:42 To: hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com Reply-To: hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [hugin-ptx] when to sharpen? On 11 September 2012 08:54, TvE wrote: This probably an FAQ, but I couldn't find an answer: when do you sharpen spherical panoramas? Before compositing (i.e. sharpen the original images) or afterwards, and if so, using what type of projection (I need to output equirectangular in the end)? I've been experimenting with the projection to do the sharpening on quite some time ago. I was mainly trying to sort out if there is a practical difference between: (i) Sharpening the final equirectangular. In theory this should be a bad idea due to the messed up neighbourhoods near the poles. (ii) Create six rectilinear 90x90 images, sharpen those and reassemble to an equirectangular. While the difference images showed some very minor differences I was unable to distinguish the images created by those two methods visually. I've been sharpening equirects ever since... Felix -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: missing areas in equirectangular projection
On Tue 11-Sep-2012 at 11:52 -0700, TvE wrote: Thomas, can you clarify what you mean by go over the 180 degree border? Do you mean that I have a panorama that covers more than 180 degrees in some direction? Or that some images cross the nadir or the zenith point? The mosaic/translation code maps photos into a flat surface. You can think of this surface as a 'virtual' rectilinear photo that sits exactly in the middle of the panorama canvas. This virtual rectilinear photo can be used as part of a 360° spherical panorama, but it still has to be in the middle, and it has to be less than 180°. So you can include a multiple-viewpoint mosaic of a wall mural in a 360° panorama, but the middle of the panorama canvas, the 'view direction', has to be pointing at the nearest part of the mural, perpendicular to the wall. Similarly you can include a view of the ground taken from multiple viewpoints into a 360° panorama, but the nadir has to be in the middle of the canvas, not at the bottom. This isn't too much of a problem, it is a simple process to load the equirectangular output into a new Hugin project and level it. On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:10:37 AM UTC-7, T. Modes wrote: This looks similar to an older bug with the masking code. Can you send the .pto project so we can confirm it? (no need to send the photos). It's not related to the masking code. The issue with the posted project is the use of the translation parameters. If the images go over the 180° border the translation parameter does not work. This is a limitation of the currently chosen approach. Set all translation parameters to 0 and work without translation. -- Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] when to sharpen?
On Tue 11-Sep-2012 at 13:09 +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:38:55AM +0100, Bruno Postle wrote: Artificially 'sharpened' images are a special case, you don't find this kind of data in 'normal' photos, these don't really suffer any loss of focus in the standard remapping used by Hugin. IMHO, when I click optimal size it recommends a size where each source pixel maps to at least one remapped pixel. Bluntly said: If I take three portrait 2500x4000 images and align them next to each other, my optimal size will have a height of 4000 pixels (plus whatever is needed because they don't align perfectly). In this situation, I have the impression I can clearly see that the remapped images are softer, fuzzier than the originals. Are these photos sharpened? You can see this effect by drawing a one pixel line in an image, then remapping it in Hugin, it will become 'fuzzy', but remap it again and it won't get any fuzzier. Real, unsharpened, photos don't have hard edges like this, there is always a transition between two colours - This is nothing to do with the quality of the lens. -- Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: missing areas in equirectangular projection
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:28:11 PM UTC-7, Bruno Postle wrote: On Tue 11-Sep-2012 at 11:52 -0700, TvE wrote: Thomas, can you clarify what you mean by go over the 180 degree border? Do you mean that I have a panorama that covers more than 180 degrees in some direction? Or that some images cross the nadir or the zenith point? Similarly you can include a view of the ground taken from multiple viewpoints into a 360° panorama, but the nadir has to be in the middle of the canvas, not at the bottom. This isn't too much of a problem, it is a simple process to load the equirectangular output into a new Hugin project and level it. I tried doing this for a *spherical* panorama and wasn't particularly successful. Basically, from the conventional equirectangular projection showing the main feature area I applied a 90 degree tilt to bring the nadir into the center. But if I optimize after that with translation enabled I still get garbage. Is that what you suggested, and if not, can you provide concrete steps or an example? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Hugin and other free panoramic software group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
