I hate to keep beating this rather lifeless horse...but...
I'm getting remarkably better results by fusing only the +2 and -2
exposures (omitting the middle exposure). Setting saturation weight
to 1 and exposure mu to .333 helps more.
--
Robert Krawitz
On October 31, 2010 06:22:00 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
I hate to keep beating this rather lifeless horse...but...
I'm getting remarkably better results by fusing only the +2 and -2
exposures (omitting the middle exposure). Setting saturation weight
to 1 and exposure mu to .333 helps more.
On October 28, 2010 09:18:54 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
I don't have Windows or a Mac (well, my wife does, but it's
underpowered for this purpose).
Photoshop (at least my old CS2, I did not feel a need to upgrade so far) works
pretty well with wine.
Yuv
signature.asc
Description: This is a
There's no such thing as a perfect stitch. There are _always_ going to
be some misaligned areas in your stitches (especially if you're shooting
fisheye, since there's no such thing as a NPP for fisheye lenses). You
can spend hours in hugin, fiddling with lens parameters and setting and
On Fri 29-Oct-2010 at 09:20 -0700, Bob Bright wrote:
Assuming that you'd rather do the latter, check out Bruno's tutorial at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Mending_parallax_errors_with_the_shear_tool
No doubt you'll want to adapt his technique to your own preferred
ways of working in the gimp or
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:20:36 -0700, Bob Bright wrote:
There's no such thing as a perfect stitch. There are _always_ going
to be some misaligned areas in your stitches (especially if you're
shooting fisheye, since there's no such thing as a NPP for fisheye
lenses). You can spend hours in
On October 27, 2010 07:07:19 am Robert Krawitz wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:01:24 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
On October 26, 2010 08:29:18 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6
good EXIF. probably vignetting to take into account at wider zoom
settings.
So the question is,
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:09:32 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
On October 27, 2010 07:07:19 am Robert Krawitz wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:01:24 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
On October 26, 2010 08:29:18 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6
good EXIF. probably vignetting to take into
On October 26, 2010 08:29:18 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6
good EXIF. probably vignetting to take into account at wider zoom settings.
Right, and *those* TIFFs are fine.
Good! I'm happy to see that we are making progress.
Now, here's where the problem is. If I just run
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:01:24 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
On October 26, 2010 08:29:18 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6
good EXIF. probably vignetting to take into account at wider zoom settings.
So the question is, should I do that by optimizing photometry in Hugin?
Now, here's
Robert Krawitz wrote:
An enfuse GUI (is luminance the right thing here?) would be very
helpful for this kind of thing, to visualize how the different
parameters affect the result.
An Enfuse Gui you say? If only we could come
up with a memorable or obvious name for such
a thing ;-)
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:18:23 +0100, paul womack wrote:
Robert Krawitz wrote:
An enfuse GUI (is luminance the right thing here?) would be very
helpful for this kind of thing, to visualize how the different
parameters affect the result.
An Enfuse Gui you say? If only we could come up with a
Try KImagefuser
http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse#Linux
On 26 October 2010 13:24, Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:18:23 +0100, paul womack wrote:
Robert Krawitz wrote:
An enfuse GUI (is luminance the right thing here?) would be very
helpful for this kind of
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:09:00 +0200, Tim Nugent wrote:
Try KImagefuser
http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse#Linux
Yup, found it.
I can certainly change what's happening, but whatever I do I cannot
seem to get the sky dark. What's more, *any* combination of settings
(using levels=1) yields that
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:22:16 -0400, Robert Krawitz wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:09:00 +0200, Tim Nugent wrote:
Try KImagefuser
http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse#Linux
Yup, found it.
I can certainly change what's happening, but whatever I do I cannot
seem to get the sky dark. What's
Engu
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 09:18 +0100, paul womack wrote:
Robert Krawitz wrote:
An enfuse GUI (is luminance the right thing here?) would be very
helpful for this kind of thing, to visualize how the different
parameters affect the result.
An Enfuse Gui you say? If only we could come
On October 24, 2010 11:57:09 am Robert Krawitz wrote:
The point was that when I used align_image_stack to generate an image
directly I got an average error worse than the worst point error I got
by hand. It may well have been a single point off, but if I use
align_image_stack directly
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:55:34 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
On October 24, 2010 11:57:09 am Robert Krawitz wrote:
The point was that when I used align_image_stack to generate an image
directly I got an average error worse than the worst point error I got
by hand. It may well have been a single
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:17:51 +0200, Carl von Einem wrote:
Robert Krawitz schrieb am 26.10.10 14:22:
I'm trying to fuse
* 0EV:
http://rlk.smugmug.com/Photography/enfuse-test/14365255_gYhFw#1064008497_nVtDY
* -2EV:
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
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:10:41 +0200, Felix Hagemann wrote:
On 24 October 2010 18:46, Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
* No exposure correction, low dynamic range: everything was good.
If I then enfused matching images with no exposure correction, I got
good results. Unfortunately,
I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what the enfuse options
--exposure-mu and --exposure-sigma actually do.
I've posted very small versions of all the shots on
http://rlk.smugmug.com/Photography/enfuse-test.
I'm trying to fuse
* 0EV:
On October 23, 2010 08:39:18 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
The optimizer when align_image_stack was run said there was on average
1 pixel error in the control points. Usually when I do this in Hugin
I get the worst case error under 0.5.
one of the things I've learned with experience is not to
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.
* No exposure correction, low dynamic range: everything was good.
If I then enfused matching images with no exposure
On 23 October 2010 04:54, Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
I'm trying to build panoramas with multiple exposures (-2, 0, +2), but
the results (particularly the sky) are much too pale. This is with
basically the 2010.3 release (maybe a few commits before, but nothing
in the hg log jumps
On Sat 23-Oct-2010 at 15:36 -0400, Robert Krawitz wrote:
This wound up being a big headache; the aligned image stacks didn't
contain any EXIF data to let anything figure out the HFOV.
Anyway, why is nona modifying the exposure? If I select output of No
exposure correction, low dynamic range,
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:54:47 +0100, Bruno Postle wrote:
On Sat 23-Oct-2010 at 15:36 -0400, Robert Krawitz wrote:
This wound up being a big headache; the aligned image stacks didn't
contain any EXIF data to let anything figure out the HFOV.
Anyway, why is nona modifying the exposure? If I
On October 22, 2010 11:49:03 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
These are two separate projects.
I start to understand. And I have the impression that you're the kind of user
that will be better off with more control over the process rather than with a
black box whose output is obviously not satisfying
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:15:11 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
I start to understand. And I have the impression that you're the
kind of user that will be better off with more control over the
process rather than with a black box whose output is obviously not
satisfying you.
Yep, when I know what's
On October 23, 2010 06:41:17 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
1. fused image
align_image_stack -a pre1 exposure[1-3].jpg
enfuse -o image1.jpg pre1*
...and at some point in there fine tune the stack -- I shot it
hand-held and even with 8 fps there's some motion.
no need to further fine tune the
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:26:31 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
On October 23, 2010 06:41:17 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
1. fused image
align_image_stack -a pre1 exposure[1-3].jpg
enfuse -o image1.jpg pre1*
...and at some point in there fine tune the stack -- I shot it
hand-held and even with 8 fps
I'm trying to build panoramas with multiple exposures (-2, 0, +2), but
the results (particularly the sky) are much too pale. This is with
basically the 2010.3 release (maybe a few commits before, but nothing
in the hg log jumps out at me).
This seems to be happening at the very start; nona is
On October 22, 2010 10:54:31 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
I'm trying to build panoramas with multiple exposures (-2, 0, +2), but
the results (particularly the sky) are much too pale. This is with
basically the 2010.3 release (maybe a few commits before, but nothing
in the hg log jumps out at me).
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:41:19 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
On October 22, 2010 10:54:31 pm Robert Krawitz wrote:
I'm trying to build panoramas with multiple exposures (-2, 0, +2), but
the results (particularly the sky) are much too pale. This is with
basically the 2010.3 release (maybe a few
34 matches
Mail list logo
