Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[johnfi...@gmail.com]

Those tools look like they would be great to have.
So I went down the rabbit hole of try to install that, then try to install 
the thing its install script needs, then try to install the thing needed by 
the thing needed, then fail.
Open source on Windows is often a nightmare.



On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 7:21:13 PM UTC-5 Luís Henrique Camargo 
Quiroz wrote:

>
>Hi John,
>
>Bruno uses ptodummy to create images for the pto file. It is just one 
> of the very useful tools from Panotools-Script: 
> https://metacpan.org/dist/Panotools-Script
>I will just intall those tools in a new system now ;)
>
>regards,
>
>Luís Henrique
>
>
> Em seg., 27 de dez. de 2021 às 20:38, johnfi...@gmail.com <
> johnfi...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Wow.
>> How do you work with a .pto file without images?  Create dummy images 
>> with all the correct names?  Or something simpler?
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 6:03:18 PM UTC-5 bruno...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 15:22, Jon Schewe  wrote:
>>>

 With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling 
 Hugin to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and 
 told 
 me that the average distance between all control points was zero. At this 
 point the project appears to be in an unusable state.


 Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may be obvious 
 what the problem is.



 Attached.

>>>
>>> I needed to change the output projection from cylindrical to 
>>> rectilinear, the panorama angle of view to 120 degrees, and the canvas size 
>>> to a more reasonable 1 pixels. The angle of view of 69 degrees for the 
>>> input photos seemed credible.
>>>
>>> As already noted, for some reason all the photos were assigned to the 
>>> same stack, so I gave them all a separate stack in the photos tab (I've 
>>> never seen this problem in a project before).
>>>
>>> I deleted all the horizontal and vertical control points, these 
>>> shouldn't be necessary for a mosaic unless there are a lack of other 
>>> features to use for alignment. You may want to reintroduce a handful, just 
>>> to straighten things up a bit.
>>>
>>> I set optimise -> custom parameters in the photos tab, and then in the 
>>> optimiser tab optimised just X and Y (except the first anchor image) to get 
>>> an initial layout, then I added in the Z parameter for all images (except 
>>> the anchor image) and optimised again. At this point I had a maximum error 
>>> of about 200 pixels which shows that this initial layout is more or less ok.
>>>
>>> Then I added in yaw, pitch and roll for all images (I didn't optimise 
>>> roll for the anchor, otherwise the whole panorama might spin without a 
>>> horizontal or vertical control point). This got the maximum error down to 
>>> 120 pixels, so better but not great.
>>>
>>> Then I optimised the angle of view of your lens, which reduced from 69 
>>> degrees to 20 degrees - this is a big difference, if Hugin detected 69 
>>> degrees in the first place then this would be a bug.
>>>
>>> I deleted some obviously bad control points: when a pair of images has a 
>>> good spread of control points, but one of them has a much higher error 
>>> distance, this is a sign that this point needs deleting.
>>>
>>> So after all this, the average error is 10 pixels and the maximum error 
>>> is 45, this may be the best you can get with this panorama.
>>>
>>> Attached, resulting PTO project.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Bruno
>>>
>> -- 
>>
> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/265b7090-9719-4225-bc00-c9cb8d1c850bn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> Luis Henrique Camargo Quiroz
> http://luishcq.br.tripod.com - http://www.christusrex.org/www2/cantgreg
> http://panoramaslh.net/
>

-- 
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/63fbf8b5-b2f0-4203-981a-9835187a04aan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Luís Henrique Camargo Quiroz]

   Hi John,

   Bruno uses ptodummy to create images for the pto file. It is just one of
the very useful tools from Panotools-Script:
https://metacpan.org/dist/Panotools-Script
   I will just intall those tools in a new system now ;)

   regards,

   Luís Henrique


Em seg., 27 de dez. de 2021 às 20:38, johnfi...@gmail.com <
johnfine2...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Wow.
> How do you work with a .pto file without images?  Create dummy images with
> all the correct names?  Or something simpler?
>
>
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 6:03:18 PM UTC-5 bruno...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 15:22, Jon Schewe  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling
>>> Hugin to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and told
>>> me that the average distance between all control points was zero. At this
>>> point the project appears to be in an unusable state.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may be obvious
>>> what the problem is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Attached.
>>>
>>
>> I needed to change the output projection from cylindrical to rectilinear,
>> the panorama angle of view to 120 degrees, and the canvas size to a more
>> reasonable 1 pixels. The angle of view of 69 degrees for the input
>> photos seemed credible.
>>
>> As already noted, for some reason all the photos were assigned to the
>> same stack, so I gave them all a separate stack in the photos tab (I've
>> never seen this problem in a project before).
>>
>> I deleted all the horizontal and vertical control points, these shouldn't
>> be necessary for a mosaic unless there are a lack of other features to use
>> for alignment. You may want to reintroduce a handful, just to straighten
>> things up a bit.
>>
>> I set optimise -> custom parameters in the photos tab, and then in the
>> optimiser tab optimised just X and Y (except the first anchor image) to get
>> an initial layout, then I added in the Z parameter for all images (except
>> the anchor image) and optimised again. At this point I had a maximum error
>> of about 200 pixels which shows that this initial layout is more or less ok.
>>
>> Then I added in yaw, pitch and roll for all images (I didn't optimise
>> roll for the anchor, otherwise the whole panorama might spin without a
>> horizontal or vertical control point). This got the maximum error down to
>> 120 pixels, so better but not great.
>>
>> Then I optimised the angle of view of your lens, which reduced from 69
>> degrees to 20 degrees - this is a big difference, if Hugin detected 69
>> degrees in the first place then this would be a bug.
>>
>> I deleted some obviously bad control points: when a pair of images has a
>> good spread of control points, but one of them has a much higher error
>> distance, this is a sign that this point needs deleting.
>>
>> So after all this, the average error is 10 pixels and the maximum error
>> is 45, this may be the best you can get with this panorama.
>>
>> Attached, resulting PTO project.
>>
>> --
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruno
>>
> --
> 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/265b7090-9719-4225-bc00-c9cb8d1c850bn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
-- 
Luis Henrique Camargo Quiroz
http://luishcq.br.tripod.com - http://www.christusrex.org/www2/cantgreg
http://panoramaslh.net/

-- 
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/CAEKSoZaRmQ3LTkTKwkESxD9v7FCw6g%3DbUjwoskYs9Hdsb2BVZw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[johnfi...@gmail.com]

Wow.
How do you work with a .pto file without images?  Create dummy images with 
all the correct names?  Or something simpler?


On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 6:03:18 PM UTC-5 bruno...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 15:22, Jon Schewe  wrote:
>
>>
>> With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling Hugin 
>> to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and told me 
>> that the average distance between all control points was zero. At this 
>> point the project appears to be in an unusable state.
>>
>>
>> Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may be obvious 
>> what the problem is.
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached.
>>
>
> I needed to change the output projection from cylindrical to rectilinear, 
> the panorama angle of view to 120 degrees, and the canvas size to a more 
> reasonable 1 pixels. The angle of view of 69 degrees for the input 
> photos seemed credible.
>
> As already noted, for some reason all the photos were assigned to the same 
> stack, so I gave them all a separate stack in the photos tab (I've never 
> seen this problem in a project before).
>
> I deleted all the horizontal and vertical control points, these shouldn't 
> be necessary for a mosaic unless there are a lack of other features to use 
> for alignment. You may want to reintroduce a handful, just to straighten 
> things up a bit.
>
> I set optimise -> custom parameters in the photos tab, and then in the 
> optimiser tab optimised just X and Y (except the first anchor image) to get 
> an initial layout, then I added in the Z parameter for all images (except 
> the anchor image) and optimised again. At this point I had a maximum error 
> of about 200 pixels which shows that this initial layout is more or less ok.
>
> Then I added in yaw, pitch and roll for all images (I didn't optimise roll 
> for the anchor, otherwise the whole panorama might spin without a 
> horizontal or vertical control point). This got the maximum error down to 
> 120 pixels, so better but not great.
>
> Then I optimised the angle of view of your lens, which reduced from 69 
> degrees to 20 degrees - this is a big difference, if Hugin detected 69 
> degrees in the first place then this would be a bug.
>
> I deleted some obviously bad control points: when a pair of images has a 
> good spread of control points, but one of them has a much higher error 
> distance, this is a sign that this point needs deleting.
>
> So after all this, the average error is 10 pixels and the maximum error is 
> 45, this may be the best you can get with this panorama.
>
> Attached, resulting PTO project.
>
> -- 
> Bruno
>
>
> -- 
> Bruno
>

-- 
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/265b7090-9719-4225-bc00-c9cb8d1c850bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[johnfi...@gmail.com]

I forgot to mention:  In the optimizer tab, you can right click at the top 
of any parameter column to select or deselect the whole column.  That will 
save you a lot of clicks when working with a large number of images.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 4:39:49 PM UTC-5 johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:

> I hope you paid attention to the various advice Bruno gave you during this 
> thread.
>
> One part of that, likely important, that I knew nothing about before this 
> thread, but now think I understand (and hope you do to):
>
> You should use the custom parameters selection together with the optimize 
> tab in Hugin to optimize the major parameters of your project before the 
> various other parameters.  In an ordinary panorama, yaw (and in some cases 
> pitch) are the major parameters.  But the way you took the original photos 
> makes those very minor parameters.  Translation X and Y (and probably Z) 
> are your major parameters.  So you want to optimize those first, probably 
> save the .pto file after optimizing those, then optimize including other 
> parameters: yay, pitch, roll and maybe view and maybe barrel and maybe some 
> of the others.
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 3:45:27 PM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:
>
>> Thank you. That loads and will optimize now. Based on the initial results 
>> I'm not so sure that Hugin will be able to get itself out of this state. I 
>> have a lot of manual control points that I'd rather not recreate, but may 
>> need to. 
>>
>> Lesson learned, save the project with a new name after all changes.
>>
>> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 11:35 -0800, johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Oops.  I should have realized that would happen (Never before tried to 
>> work with a .pto without images).
>>
>> Did you add control points by hand or just let the program add them 
>> automatically?
>> If automatically, you have no serious value in the .pto file, so unless 
>> this is pure learning (preparation for recovery from future accidents) 
>> starting over might be easier.  But in case you do have value in the .pto 
>> file, here is the correction to that field of view problem.  I wouldn't bet 
>> that was my only error, but maybe:
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:27:31 PM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:
>>
>> Thank you. I tried loading it and then doing an optimization and just get 
>> "Field of View must be positive". The FOV has positive values in it, so I'm 
>> not sure what it's upset about.
>>
>> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 10:43 -0800, johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I was curious enough (after not seeing a reply to your attached .pto file 
>> from Bruno, to look up something I'd seen before but forgotten.
>> In the documentation of "i" lines in the .pto file it says:
>>
>> # Parameters in different images can be linked using '='
>> # followed by the image number starting with 0. 
>> # Example 'v=0' sets horizontal field of view as in
>> # image number 0. This feature works for the variables
>> # v, a, b, c, (r, p, y with caution) d, e, g, and t
>>
>> In your .pto file, each image other than the anchor has a line like:
>>
>> i w4608 h3456 f0 v=0 Ra=0 Rb=0 Rc=0 Rd=0 Re=0 Eev3.85299770079307 Er1 Eb1 
>> r=0 p=0 y=0 TrX=0 TrY=0 TrZ=0 Tpy=0 Tpp=0 j0 a=0 b=0 c=0 d=0 e=0 g=0 t=0 
>> Va=0 Vb=0 Vc=0 Vd=0 Vx=0 Vy=0  Vm5 n"IMG_20210728_114219.jpg"
>>
>> All those = in that line force every parameter to match the parameters of 
>> the anchor image, so optimize can't optimize anything.
>>
>> Inside Hugin, I don't know how to undo all that.  In a text editor, it is 
>> trivial to undo (global replace of =0 with 0 in the section holding all the 
>> i lines.  I don't know if the result of that is correct enough to get you 
>> back on track.  But I'll attach it in case it helps.
>>
>> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:22:19 AM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 14:52 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 12:47 Jon Schewe, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling Hugin 
>> to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and told me 
>> that the average distance between all control points was zero. At this 
>> point the project appears to be in an unusable state.
>>
>>
>> Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may be obvious 
>> what the problem is.
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached.
>>
>>

-- 
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/0a566fe8-9924-4254-b703-0c3c29358697n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[johnfi...@gmail.com]

I hope you paid attention to the various advice Bruno gave you during this 
thread.

One part of that, likely important, that I knew nothing about before this 
thread, but now think I understand (and hope you do to):

You should use the custom parameters selection together with the optimize 
tab in Hugin to optimize the major parameters of your project before the 
various other parameters.  In an ordinary panorama, yaw (and in some cases 
pitch) are the major parameters.  But the way you took the original photos 
makes those very minor parameters.  Translation X and Y (and probably Z) 
are your major parameters.  So you want to optimize those first, probably 
save the .pto file after optimizing those, then optimize including other 
parameters: yay, pitch, roll and maybe view and maybe barrel and maybe some 
of the others.



On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 3:45:27 PM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:

> Thank you. That loads and will optimize now. Based on the initial results 
> I'm not so sure that Hugin will be able to get itself out of this state. I 
> have a lot of manual control points that I'd rather not recreate, but may 
> need to. 
>
> Lesson learned, save the project with a new name after all changes.
>
> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 11:35 -0800, johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Oops.  I should have realized that would happen (Never before tried to 
> work with a .pto without images).
>
> Did you add control points by hand or just let the program add them 
> automatically?
> If automatically, you have no serious value in the .pto file, so unless 
> this is pure learning (preparation for recovery from future accidents) 
> starting over might be easier.  But in case you do have value in the .pto 
> file, here is the correction to that field of view problem.  I wouldn't bet 
> that was my only error, but maybe:
>
>
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:27:31 PM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:
>
> Thank you. I tried loading it and then doing an optimization and just get 
> "Field of View must be positive". The FOV has positive values in it, so I'm 
> not sure what it's upset about.
>
> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 10:43 -0800, johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I was curious enough (after not seeing a reply to your attached .pto file 
> from Bruno, to look up something I'd seen before but forgotten.
> In the documentation of "i" lines in the .pto file it says:
>
> # Parameters in different images can be linked using '='
> # followed by the image number starting with 0. 
> # Example 'v=0' sets horizontal field of view as in
> # image number 0. This feature works for the variables
> # v, a, b, c, (r, p, y with caution) d, e, g, and t
>
> In your .pto file, each image other than the anchor has a line like:
>
> i w4608 h3456 f0 v=0 Ra=0 Rb=0 Rc=0 Rd=0 Re=0 Eev3.85299770079307 Er1 Eb1 
> r=0 p=0 y=0 TrX=0 TrY=0 TrZ=0 Tpy=0 Tpp=0 j0 a=0 b=0 c=0 d=0 e=0 g=0 t=0 
> Va=0 Vb=0 Vc=0 Vd=0 Vx=0 Vy=0  Vm5 n"IMG_20210728_114219.jpg"
>
> All those = in that line force every parameter to match the parameters of 
> the anchor image, so optimize can't optimize anything.
>
> Inside Hugin, I don't know how to undo all that.  In a text editor, it is 
> trivial to undo (global replace of =0 with 0 in the section holding all the 
> i lines.  I don't know if the result of that is correct enough to get you 
> back on track.  But I'll attach it in case it helps.
>
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:22:19 AM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 14:52 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 12:47 Jon Schewe, wrote:
>
>
>
> With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling Hugin 
> to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and told me 
> that the average distance between all control points was zero. At this 
> point the project appears to be in an unusable state.
>
>
> Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may be obvious 
> what the problem is.
>
>
>
> Attached.
>
>

-- 
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/baf66f78-7b72-4067-b3f3-1c4330129058n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Jon Schewe]

Thank you. That loads and will optimize now. Based on the initial
results I'm not so sure that Hugin will be able to get itself out of
this state. I have a lot of manual control points that I'd rather not
recreate, but may need to. 
Lesson learned, save the project with a new name after all changes.
On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 11:35 -0800, johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oops.  I should have realized that would happen (Never before tried
> to work with a .pto without images).
> 
> Did you add control points by hand or just let the program add them
> automatically?
> If automatically, you have no serious value in the .pto file, so
> unless this is pure learning (preparation for recovery from future
> accidents) starting over might be easier.  But in case you do have
> value in the .pto file, here is the correction to that field of view
> problem.  I wouldn't bet that was my only error, but maybe:
> 
> 
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:27:31 PM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:
> > Thank you. I tried loading it and then doing an optimization and
> > just get "Field of View must be positive". The FOV has positive
> > values in it, so I'm not sure what it's upset about.
> > 
> > On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 10:43 -0800, johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I was curious enough (after not seeing a reply to your attached
> > > .pto file from Bruno, to look up something I'd seen before but
> > > forgotten.In the documentation of "i" lines in the .pto file it
> > > says:
> > > 
> > > #  Parameters in different images can be linked using '='
> > > #  followed by the image number starting with 0. 
> > > #  Example 'v=0' sets horizontal field of view as
> > > in#  image number 0. This feature works for the
> > > variables#  v, a, b, c, (r, p, y with caution) d, e, g, and t
> > > In your .pto file, each image other than the anchor has a line
> > > like:
> > > i w4608 h3456 f0 v=0 Ra=0 Rb=0 Rc=0 Rd=0 Re=0 Eev3.85299770079307
> > > Er1 Eb1 r=0 p=0 y=0 TrX=0 TrY=0 TrZ=0 Tpy=0 Tpp=0 j0 a=0 b=0 c=0
> > > d=0 e=0 g=0 t=0 Va=0 Vb=0 Vc=0 Vd=0 Vx=0 Vy=0  Vm5
> > > n"IMG_20210728_114219.jpg"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > All those = in that line force every parameter to match the
> > > parameters of the anchor image, so optimize can't optimize
> > > anything.
> > > Inside Hugin, I don't know how to undo all that.  In a text
> > > editor, it is trivial to undo (global replace of =0 with 0 in the
> > > section holding all the i lines.  I don't know if the result of
> > > that is correct enough to get you back on track.  But I'll attach
> > > it in case it helps.
> > > On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:22:19 AM UTC-5 Jon Schewe
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 14:52 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 12:47 Jon Schewe, wrote:
> > > > > > With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by
> > > > > > telling Hugin to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It
> > > > > > ran the optimize and told me that the average distance
> > > > > > between all control points was zero. At this point the
> > > > > > project appears to be in an unusable state.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may
> > > > > be obvious what the problem is.
> > > > 
> > > > Attached.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 

-- 
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/e62364f2babe3c960a775d5eb735c3daedaa30b8.camel%40mtu.net.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Jon Schewe]

Thank you. I tried loading it and then doing an optimization and just
get "Field of View must be positive". The FOV has positive values in
it, so I'm not sure what it's upset about.
On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 10:43 -0800, johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was curious enough (after not seeing a reply to your attached .pto
> file from Bruno, to look up something I'd seen before but
> forgotten.In the documentation of "i" lines in the .pto file it says:
> 
> #  Parameters in different images can be linked using '='
> #  followed by the image number starting with 0. 
> #  Example 'v=0' sets horizontal field of view as in#  image
> number 0. This feature works for the variables#  v, a, b, c, (r,
> p, y with caution) d, e, g, and t
> In your .pto file, each image other than the anchor has a line like:
> i w4608 h3456 f0 v=0 Ra=0 Rb=0 Rc=0 Rd=0 Re=0 Eev3.85299770079307 Er1
> Eb1 r=0 p=0 y=0 TrX=0 TrY=0 TrZ=0 Tpy=0 Tpp=0 j0 a=0 b=0 c=0 d=0 e=0
> g=0 t=0 Va=0 Vb=0 Vc=0 Vd=0 Vx=0 Vy=0  Vm5 n"IMG_20210728_114219.jpg"
> 
> 
> All those = in that line force every parameter to match the
> parameters of the anchor image, so optimize can't optimize anything.
> Inside Hugin, I don't know how to undo all that.  In a text editor,
> it is trivial to undo (global replace of =0 with 0 in the section
> holding all the i lines.  I don't know if the result of that is
> correct enough to get you back on track.  But I'll attach it in case
> it helps.
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:22:19 AM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 14:52 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
> > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 12:47 Jon Schewe, wrote:
> > > > With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by
> > > > telling Hugin to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran
> > > > the optimize and told me that the average distance between all
> > > > control points was zero. At this point the project appears to
> > > > be in an unusable state.
> > > 
> > > Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may be
> > > obvious what the problem is.
> > 
> > Attached.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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/81dd2308-3a0a-4aaf-aa82-6add529fef36n%40googlegroups.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 hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/1f69436d157b63bbd9df2618075874b84ea9df59.camel%40mtu.net.

Re: [hugin-ptx] help for new user

[Bruno Postle]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 18:38 dgjohnston, wrote:

>
> Bruno … thanks for your quick responses on this forum.  It is very much
> appreciated.
> 1. Am I correct in saying that when hugin optimizes for translation that
> the canvas always stays at 0,0,1 and then the x,y,z values basically move
> the camera position of each photo so that the control points line up as
> best as possible?
>

Yes

2. When hugin optimizes for translation is there one photo that stays at
> Z=0?
>

Usually yes, the anchor photo will stay at 0,0,0, but you can put it
wherever you like, and dragging the set around the preview in 'mosaic' mode
will change the xy values

-- 
Bruno

>

-- 
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/CAJV99Zhg4%2BJghX3PGxwZ8DxF%2B2uFOZsKzaWYF2Mh2Sbq0eNAjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Bruno Postle]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 15:43 johnfi...@gmail.com, wrote:

>
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 9:56:13 AM UTC-5 bruno...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>  all the images are projected is at a Z distance of 1.
>>
>
> I'm taking that as the definition of the units X, Y and Z are all in.  I
> want to use some math to verify that I understand what that means.
>
> I suddenly realize I don't know whether we normally talk about "angle of
> view" horizontally or diagonally.  I'm more comfortable with horizontal.
>

panotools/Hugin uses the horizontal angle of view in degrees. There is a
quirk which is that the lens parameters are mapped to the narrowest
dimension of the image which is not the width for landscape images.

If I'm doing my trig correctly, the width of the field of view matches its
> distance when the angle of view is 53.13 degrees.  If that was the total
> angle of view of the resulting mosaic, then the X value of each photo would
> range from -0.5 though +0.5 based on the fraction of full mosiac width that
> each component photo is off center.
> For a narrower angle of view, those X numbers would be smaller (as in the
> test I mentioned in which 0.1 was a "large" value for X).
>
> The range -0.5 to 0.5 would be shifted if the anchor image were off
> center, and could also be increased or decreased if the yaw were nonzero.
>
> For a rough understanding of the scale of X, Y have I got that right?
>

Yes I think so

-- 
Bruno

>

-- 
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/CAJV99ZjKiY51ec6Zk6FK6Pi%3DUEn_7UbbBGSqguG5iPAUS_ROMg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] help for new user

[dgjohnston]

> On Dec 27, 2021, at 11:21 AM, Bruno Postle  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 15:37 Donald Johnston, wrote:
> Bruno, when hugin loads a number of photos does it base its initial Z value 
> for the output camera on the photo marked as the anchor? 
> And then optimize other Z values to that?
> 
> The xyz values for the viewpoint of the output panorama are always 0,0,0. 
> When you create a new project, all the photos are initially assigned 0,0,0 as 
> well, since the assumption is that you are not doing any translation/mosaic 
> trickery.

Bruno … thanks for your quick responses on this forum.  It is very much 
appreciated.
1. Am I correct in saying that when hugin optimizes for translation 
that the canvas always stays at 0,0,1 and then the x,y,z values basically move 
the camera position of each photo so that the control points line up as best as 
possible?
2. When hugin optimizes for translation is there one photo that stays 
at Z=0?
Don J.

> 
> -- 
> Bruno
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJV99Zj8KUb8ezKExwEOa4DNGH1vhnyEFP_ssFoYzyCzSZ4ukg%40mail.gmail.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 hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/594F9DF9-6BC8-42FC-9EAE-0596971E44D2%40accesscomm.ca.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Bruno Postle]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 15:37 Donald Johnston, wrote:

> Bruno, when hugin loads a number of photos does it base its initial Z
> value for the output camera on the photo marked as the anchor?
> And then optimize other Z values to that?
>

The xyz values for the viewpoint of the output panorama are always 0,0,0.
When you create a new project, all the photos are initially assigned 0,0,0
as well, since the assumption is that you are not doing any
translation/mosaic trickery.

-- 
Bruno

>

-- 
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/CAJV99Zj8KUb8ezKExwEOa4DNGH1vhnyEFP_ssFoYzyCzSZ4ukg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[johnfi...@gmail.com]

The images are merged together in a stack.  That is almost certainly 
wrong.  I don't know why that happened nor how to undo it.

I don't know how to learn more that the above from a .pto file without the 
images (I'm not at all the expert that Bruno apparently is).

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:22:19 AM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:

> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 14:52 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 12:47 Jon Schewe, wrote:
>
>
>
> With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling Hugin 
> to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and told me 
> that the average distance between all control points was zero. At this 
> point the project appears to be in an unusable state.
>
>
> Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may be obvious 
> what the problem is.
>
>
>
> Attached.
>
>

-- 
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/2e4772a8-a22f-4ebc-b08f-1ee87d821a06n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: Filling a clear blue sky

[Jeff Welty]

For those interested -- new and improved code on github.  The old CIE sky 
model as the basis for the sky has been discarded in favor of modeling 
H,S,V components separately as functions of X, and Y from the input image.  
The CIE sun illuminance model is added, but it is still and early attempt 
and is at best "experimental".  The results are far superior than the 
previous method.  Look in the examples subdirectory to see how it is 
working -- along with a shell script that shows the exact command line 
parameters I used.

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 7:30:40 AM UTC-8 Jeff Welty wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
>
> That new Cmake works perfectly now.   Thanks very much.
>
> I hope all those uint's are now found.
>
> I made a significant improvement last night -- I directly modelled each of 
> the sky H,S,V compoents as functions of pixel x and y from existing 
> pixels.  I had tried that approach before but with a much simpler model.   
> The results are now MUCH better.  It has lost the feature to have a little 
> "sun glow" from the edge of the frame, and I intend to add that back in.   
> For now, it's Christmas Eve and time to be with my family.   Happy Holidays!
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
> On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 12:21:10 AM UTC-8 T. Modes wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> you seem using a very old version of CMake. I tried to fix the remaining 
>> issue, so it should also work with the older version.
>>
>> Also I found 4 more deprecated uint32 - this is also included in the 
>> patch.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/dfacc160-759c-4093-8a48-ff0118ed580dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[johnfi...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 9:56:13 AM UTC-5 bruno...@gmail.com wrote:

>  all the images are projected is at a Z distance of 1.
>
 
I'm taking that as the definition of the units X, Y and Z are all in.  I 
want to use some math to verify that I understand what that means.

I suddenly realize I don't know whether we normally talk about "angle of 
view" horizontally or diagonally.  I'm more comfortable with horizontal.
If I'm doing my trig correctly, the width of the field of view matches its 
distance when the angle of view is 53.13 degrees.  If that was the total 
angle of view of the resulting mosaic, then the X value of each photo would 
range from -0.5 though +0.5 based on the fraction of full mosiac width that 
each component photo is off center.
For a narrower angle of view, those X numbers would be smaller (as in the 
test I mentioned in which 0.1 was a "large" value for X).

The range -0.5 to 0.5 would be shifted if the anchor image were off center, 
and could also be increased or decreased if the yaw were nonzero.

For a rough understanding of the scale of X, Y have I got that right?

-- 
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/2829074f-8f13-4763-9a8b-064b980f6902n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Donald Johnston]

Bruno, when hugin loads a number of photos does it base its initial Z value for 
the output camera on the photo marked as the anchor? 
And then optimize other Z values to that?

⁣Don J​

On Dec. 27, 2021, 8:56 a.m., at 8:56 a.m., Bruno Postle  
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 13:24 johnfi...@gmail.com,
>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> X and Y should hold the major values BUT I don't yet understand what
>units
>> they are in:  In the test I just ran, they must be quite big units
>because
>> a value of 0.1 is big.
>>
>
>The 'camera' for the output panorama is at 0,0,0 and the canvas where
>all
>the images are projected is at a Z distance of 1. So for a mosaic, each
>of
>the photos are likely to have a Z value between 0 and 1.
>
>-- 
>Bruno
>
>>
>
>-- 
>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/CAJV99Zivm1wuc0agw4GOOEEVHxhhdUqjaeLJgO4za%3DtLhkddfw%40mail.gmail.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 hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/bb2969b8-6ce0-448a-8368-6a8966633c7b%40accesscomm.ca.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Bruno Postle]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 13:41 johnfi...@gmail.com, 
wrote:

> " you will need to use all of these, but not all at once - this can
> confuse the optimiser. "
>
> I want to understand that detail.  Photos tab: Optimize Geometric: the
> calculate button:
> Does it start from zero when you click it or does it start from wherever
> any previous optimize finished?  Your statement, that I want to understand,
> implies that previous values of its outputs influence it.
>

It starts at the previous values, so if you are stuck in a local minima you
may have to reset all the values and start from the beginning.

In other kinds of software, a typical optimizer can find a local optimum in
> the parameter space that might be much worse than the global optimum, so
> the starting point can make a big difference.  I don't know whether that is
> what you mean by "confuse".
>

Yes, the simplest way to get stuck in a local minima is by having angle of
view for all photos at 0 (this is so easy that Hugin has various built-in
workarounds to avoid this).

There other ways to get stuck, particularly barrel distortion can be so
extreme that only resetting it all to 0 will get you out.

-- 
Bruno

-- 
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/CAJV99Zj-HfnP6%3DJX1Xfe9%3DXXGPguxMaPCHGjxXuD6SxhMx_GQA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Bruno Postle]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 13:24 johnfi...@gmail.com, 
wrote:

>
> X and Y should hold the major values BUT I don't yet understand what units
> they are in:  In the test I just ran, they must be quite big units because
> a value of 0.1 is big.
>

The 'camera' for the output panorama is at 0,0,0 and the canvas where all
the images are projected is at a Z distance of 1. So for a mosaic, each of
the photos are likely to have a Z value between 0 and 1.

-- 
Bruno

>

-- 
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/CAJV99Zivm1wuc0agw4GOOEEVHxhhdUqjaeLJgO4za%3DtLhkddfw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Bruno Postle]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 12:47 Jon Schewe, wrote:

>
> When I specify recilinear as the output projection I get a warning from
> Hugin "With a wide field of view, panoramas with rectilinear projection get
> very stretched towards the edges. For a very wide panorama, try
> equirectangular projection instead. You could also try Panini projection.".
>
> Am I correct this warning doesn't apply because what I'm creating is
> technically a "mosaic" instead of a "panorama"?
>

Yes, but with a mosaic the z values of the camera/photo positions can be
closer to the 'canvas' than the panorama viewpoint, in which case the
panorama angle of view can be anything.

>
With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling Hugin
> to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and told me
> that the average distance between all control points was zero. At this
> point the project appears to be in an unusable state.
>

Maybe attach a PTO project (no need for the images), it may be obvious what
the problem is.

-- 
Bruno

-- 
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/CAJV99ZhYMzrBG2ynRMRgG5f%3DYtQfqioT4jG9GwyhVe1vfJk0%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[johnfi...@gmail.com]

" you will need to use all of these, but not all at once - this can confuse 
the optimiser. "

I want to understand that detail.  Photos tab: Optimize Geometric: the 
calculate button:
Does it start from zero when you click it or does it start from wherever 
any previous optimize finished?  Your statement, that I want to understand, 
implies that previous values of its outputs influence it.

In other kinds of software, a typical optimizer can find a local optimum in 
the parameter space that might be much worse than the global optimum, so 
the starting point can make a big difference.  I don't know whether that is 
what you mean by "confuse".
I tried to find such an effect with a simple experiment and failed.  But 
likely because the experiment was too simple (If what you meant was a local 
optimum problem, not all sets of images and control points would even have 
any local optima).


On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 7:20:48 PM UTC-5 bruno...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Dec 2021, 23:57 Jon Schewe, wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there a good reference for what the following terms mean to Hugin?
>> Position
>> View
>> Translation
>> Barrel
>>
>
> Position is roll, pitch and yaw.
> View is the horizontal lens angle of view.
> Translation is xyz position of the camera.
> Barrel is the radial barrel (or pincushion) distortion of the lens.
>
> For your document assembly project, you will need to use all of these, but 
> not all at once - this can confuse the optimiser. I suggest starting with 
> translation, then adding position, then view and finally add barrel.
>
> -- 
> Bruno
>
>
>>

-- 
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/915994e2-9a62-4cce-94a2-e6d569e861c8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[johnfi...@gmail.com]

I'm trying to learn a bit more myself, as well as hopefully help.

One thing that likely will help explain what is happening:  In expert 
interface, in the photos tab, in the radio buttons on the right, select 
"positions".  Some of the data displayed there should help explain what is 
going wrong.  You can also double click any row and edit the values.

If I understand correctly, yaw, pitch and roll are in degrees.  They should 
all be near zero, but degrees are a small unit, so values like 1 to 5 may 
be considered near zero.

X and Y should hold the major values BUT I don't yet understand what units 
they are in:  In the test I just ran, they must be quite big units because 
a value of 0.1 is big.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 7:47:01 AM UTC-5 Jon Schewe wrote:

> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 09:28 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 00:33 Jon Schewe, wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 00:20 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I did find that telling Hugin to use separate lenses for each of the 2 
> images helps quite a bit. 
> I stumbled upon this tutorial that suggested using 2 lenses 
> http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/scans/en.shtml
>
>
> This is a similar case, but you have handheld photos taken with a camera 
> (generally called a 'mosaic'), so you have to optimise rotation as well as 
> translation.
>
> Note also that you are assembling your images into a plane, so you need to 
> set the output projection to rectilinear, not equirectangular.
>
>
> When I specify recilinear as the output projection I get a warning from 
> Hugin "With a wide field of view, panoramas with rectilinear projection get 
> very stretched towards the edges. For a very wide panorama, try 
> equirectangular projection instead. You could also try Panini projection.".
>
> Am I correct this warning doesn't apply because what I'm creating is 
> technically a "mosaic" instead of a "panorama"?
>
>
> As far as applying translations and images ending up on top of each other. 
> I've gotten my project into a state where Hugin believes that all images 
> are on top of each other at the same location. To fix this I'm trying to 
> optimize just 3 of the images by specifying "only use control points 
> between activated images" and only have 3 images shown. Each of the images 
> has plenty of control points linking them and all of the control points 
> look good. However I get one image at the pole of the sphere and the other 
> two in the center (where they belong). See the attached screenshot from the 
> layout window. 
>
> With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling Hugin 
> to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and told me 
> that the average distance between all control points was zero. At this 
> point the project appears to be in an unusable state.
>
>

-- 
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/7217a42e-30b9-4c4f-95ba-e9838e2aa939n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Jon Schewe]

On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 09:28 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 00:33 Jon Schewe, wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 00:20 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
> > > 
> > I did find that telling Hugin to use separate lenses for each of
> > the 2 images helps quite a bit. I stumbled upon this tutorial that
> > suggested using 2 lenses 
> > http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/scans/en.shtml
> 
> This is a similar case, but you have handheld photos taken with a
> camera (generally called a 'mosaic'), so you have to optimise
> rotation as well as translation.
> 
> Note also that you are assembling your images into a plane, so you
> need to set the output projection to rectilinear, not
> equirectangular.

When I specify recilinear as the output projection I get a warning from
Hugin "With a wide field of view, panoramas with rectilinear projection
get very stretched towards the edges. For a very wide panorama, try
equirectangular projection instead. You could also try Panini
projection.".

Am I correct this warning doesn't apply because what I'm creating is
technically a "mosaic" instead of a "panorama"?


As far as applying translations and images ending up on top of each
other. I've gotten my project into a state where Hugin believes that
all images are on top of each other at the same location. To fix this
I'm trying to optimize just 3 of the images by specifying "only use
control points between activated images" and only have 3 images shown.
Each of the images has plenty of control points linking them and all of
the control points look good. However I get one image at the pole of
the sphere and the other two in the center (where they belong). See the
attached screenshot from the layout window. 

With a small experiment I managed to get into this state by telling
Hugin to optimize X, Y, Z only for the images. It ran the optimize and
told me that the average distance between all control points was zero.
At this point the project appears to be in an unusable state.


-- 
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/cfa5fbbffbfff2c075966d78d8330d3e1e1d7298.camel%40mtu.net.

Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: help for new user

[Bruno Postle]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, 00:33 Jon Schewe, wrote:

> On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 00:20 +, Bruno Postle wrote:
>
>
> For your document assembly project, you will need to use all of these, but
> not all at once - this can confuse the optimiser. I suggest starting with
> translation, then adding position, then view and finally add barrel
>
>
> That helps, let me restate to make sure I understand.
>
> Position refers to how the camera is rotated relative to the paper. So
> assuming the center of the camera is always at the center of each image and
> the distance to the image is the same, this corrects for how the camera may
> have rotated around a point.
>

Yes

View seems like it would be also covered by the position if using the same
> camera for all images. Am I correct?
>

The angle of view is the width of the lens, so a telephoto lens might have
an angle of view of 5°, or a wide-angle lens might have an angle of view of
70°.

>
Translation is how the center of the camera has changed relative to the
> center of the image. Am I correct that x and y are left/right and up/down
> and z is the distance the camera is from the object?
>
> Barrel fixes straight lines being curved.
>

Yes and yes.

I did find that telling Hugin to use separate lenses for each of the 2
> images helps quite a bit.
> I stumbled upon this tutorial that suggested using 2 lenses
> http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/scans/en.shtml
>

This is a similar case, but you have handheld photos taken with a camera
(generally called a 'mosaic'), so you have to optimise rotation as well as
translation.

Note also that you are assembling your images into a plane, so you need to
set the output projection to rectilinear, not equirectangular.

-- 
Bruno

-- 
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/CAJV99Zjqd_GZx8bFQm69tbiKv6vDYZcSk9ycW7Qxy0GnssNQnA%40mail.gmail.com.