tx/2tf1oA1SskywqLwxEq-Ye9mLA8yt01yhoy0LZ3U5xq9uVAdZf42__LljmxoaZAvk-TdvJzqWjvA3hWqrEaz7MtE9yxdLkfnjbM4StFwdzV4%3D%40protonmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/2tf1oA1SskywqLwxEq-Ye9mLA8yt01yhoy0LZ3U5xq9uVAdZf42__LljmxoaZAvk-TdvJzqWjvA3hWqrEaz7MtE9yxdLkfnjbM4StFwdzV4%3D%40protonmail.com?utm_medium=email_s
On 20 March 2014 10:14, Pawel Rozenek wrote:
[...] Also it does not make a different
if the ball head it not adjusted exactly horizontally - then just a nadir
and zenith are not exactly where they should be. If you do not believe me, I
can make a short video showing how it works :)
While I
On 19 March 2014 08:04, Pawel Rozenek wrote:
[snip]
http://www.rozenek.com/images/forum/hugin-problem.jpg
It is NOT a problem with my bracket, because I designed a special bracket
just for my camera:
http://www.rozenek.com/a-new-version-of-the-panoramic-bracket-for-my-camera/
so I have got
Bob Mahar:
Picking a cluster of 4-6 adjacent shots gives similar results, and
stitching those intermediate shots same again.It just seems to be
completely ignoring the horizontal control points. There must be some
threshold I am violating angle wise. I was able to use Gimp to modify the
On 24 April 2013 21:19, Bruno Postle br...@postle.net wrote:
So I suggest you try a series of tests with different optimisation settings:
- roll, yaw and view
- roll, pitch and yaw
- roll, pitch, yaw and view
- everything
Let me add one more thing here: In my experience you need to add d
Hi,
regarding the distortion probably the easiest way to identify your
problem would be to let us look at a saved .pto file from such a hugin
session. And maybe one example photo.
Regarding the excesive overlap there is an easy but cumbersome fix:
You need to use masks so that each image
On 11 December 2012 10:57, Michael mane...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is an example of the original image, and the same part cropped from the
big stitched image.
A very late reply, but going through my unread mails I just saw your
example images and I have seen very similar, washed out colors when
Hi Poul,
basically you already found the projection parameters and saved them
to the pto file. If you have a look at the pto file your projection
parameters (actually lens and position) are within the i lines. If
you want to apply those for a large batch of images (assuming that
your cameras are
On 29 November 2012 02:32, Greg 'groggy' Lehey groog...@gmail.com wrote:
Where do you find that? I've tried this in the Camera and Lens tab
with a photo taken vertically with the 9 mm lens. If I select
Rectilinear it tells me 71.5° vertically, which presumably ignores
the fact that it's
On 28 November 2012 12:10, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)
cartol...@gmail.com wrote:
Going back to your specific example, I don't think 9mm will have a much
narrow angle than an 8mm lens. Do you have their fov to compare? Probably
you will use the same number of images to stitch and will
On 8 July 2012 07:11, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
I'm still investigating things, and there's a lot more to say. It
seems that both panomatic and cpfind will create control points on a
single image, and not even correctly. One example is at
Hello Giulio,
as I had similar problems in the past I tried a few different techniques to
see if those could give a better result.
I mainly tried three different routes:
(i)
Optimize exposure in each nominal exposure set separately and enfuse the
result. I got nicely blended skies but a very
Sorry, I just realized that I have made the quite large tif images
available. You can get much smaller ( 600kB each) jpg-version here:
(ii)
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_U6XBhxp9i1MDMwMTc0NzQtODZjNS00MmUyLWFhZTgtZjkxNWQ1MTJkNmE4
(iii)
I've been looking into the #hugin channel every now and then a few
years ago. It wasn't especially busy at the time but there were a
couple of people around. If I remember correctly then the channel was
set up by Dale Beams and he had administrator rights for it.
Dale, are you around? Do you know
Hi Thomas,
thanks for effort. Basically I see this as the foundation for a
feature that would be very, very welcome: Automatic loading of lens
profiles, either as hugin's ini files or even using lensfun...
I haven't had a chance to compile a development version but those are
the results using
Hi Kay,
this pretty much sounds like a known bug in enblend:
bugs.launchpad.net/enblend/+bug/785803
bugs.launchpad.net/enblend/+bug/766501
On 15 September 2011 14:41, kfj wrote:
P.S. it seems to have to do with masking. I threw out all masks from
the original project I first saw the problem
On 19 August 2011 07:58, Terry Duell wrote:
Can someone please try http://hugin.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/hugin/ and
report if you get the normal page showing who committed what to which
branch?
Same problem here, no matter which browser I use. Looking at
Hi Carlos others,
nice pano head you made and a very nice pano. I found just one or two
small stitching errors.
I'd like to thank Markku, that told me that it makes huge difference. Now I
have to agree with him. Even not calibrating it precisely I have already
done some panoramas in less
On 14 February 2011 15:14, voschix wrote:
After running fine-tune control points the control points list does
not show the correlation values, but still shows distances. In the
Windows versions that I have been using (the latest is 2010.4) this is
not the case.
This problem was present
On 1 February 2011 01:07, dmg wrote:
I just did a very simple tests. My computer has a SSD, hence I think
the results are skewed:
This is PTmender, run 3 times:
Voluntary Context Switches 2; real 2.72; sys 0.05
Voluntary Context Switches 2; real 2.73; sys 0.09
Voluntary Context Switches
On 1 January 2011 16:33, Yuval Levy wrote:
What advantage do you see in first blending the exposure layers and then
enfusing, rather than doing it the other way around (which is computationally
lighter)?
While I'm not Rick who was initially adressed above, I'd like to share a recent
Hi
On 3 December 2010 21:54, kfj wrote:
[...]
Additionally, it would be nice if the cropping actually was visible in
the masking dialog.
+1. I've been bitten by include masks in the cropped area as well.
Musing about this I did wonder whether the cropping feature is still
worth very much
On 24 October 2010 18:46, Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
One more experiment.
I tried creating remapped images in two ways:
* Exposure corrected, low dynamic range: the -2 exposure was much too
light, the +2 exposure was too dark.
This is expected as the exposure optimization
Hi,
On 7 April 2010 21:09, Ryan Johnson scov...@gmail.com wrote:
Error: no overlapping points found. Photometric optimization aborted
Any ideas what to do? There was no difficulty adding control points (the
horizon is plenty interesting)
I do see the same error with my relatively recent
On 17 March 2010 00:34, Bruno Postle br...@postle.net wrote:
The attached patch implements a Everything (not x,y,z) preset, which
does the job for me.
Thanks, I committed it, but I fear that this preset menu is already very
confusing.
Thanks for committing. I agree that the preset menu and
On 21 March 2010 11:58, Bruno Postle br...@postle.net wrote:
So here is a bit of code as a test. It needs Panotools::Script 0.24 and a
couple of standard perl modules.
What it does is to read a .pto project, find the first lens, gather some
lens and EXIF data, and submits it via HTTP
On 22 March 2010 00:34, Bruno Postle br...@postle.net wrote:
My panoramas tend to be shot with the camera in one hand and with a small
child hanging on to the other.
Same here (and my wife standing a few meters farther away with an
expression on her face that says You'd better be quick!!).
On 10 March 2010 23:42, Felix Hagemann felix.hagem...@gmail.com wrote:
What would others think of a new preset like Everything (without
XYZ) to make things a tad easier? Or maybe even add a new check box
which toggles XYZ for all presets?
The attached patch implements a Everything (not x,y,z
Hi all,
Due to the addition of the X,Y,Z parameters to the Optimizer tab and
their addition to the preset drop-down I found myself often optimizing
X,Y,Z without wanting to (out of habit used Everything) . If I want
the old Everything without X,Y,Z I need to select Positions, View
and Barrel
On 1 March 2010 14:44, Bruno Postle brunopos...@googlemail.com wrote:
You need to be using the 2.5.1 release or a recent snapshot (which
should be fixed but I haven't heard any reports of success or failure
yet).
Just to contribute one data point:
Using a snapshot from yesterday's trunk with
2009/1/12 Lukáš Jirkovský l.jirkov...@gmail.com:
Fortunately someone did more testing on the gcc side
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38625) and the cause was
found. I'm attaching small patch to configure.in against newest cvs
which adds necessary flag to CXXFLAGS when compiler
31 matches
Mail list logo
