On 2011-02-04 10:13 PM, Jim Watters wrote:
On 2011-02-04 5:53 PM, Bruno Postle wrote:
On Fri 04-Feb-2011 at 16:36 +0100, David Haberthür wrote:
Why would PSB (a quick google detour hinted it's PhotoShop) be desired? Is a
layered TIFF not something you can import into PhotoShop?
I believe
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Yuval Levy goo...@levy.ch wrote:
hg up -C BRANCH_NAME
Do not do -C, use -c. If you use -C it will blindly remove your local
changes. -c will warn you if you have
uncommitted ones.
--
--dmg
---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org
--
You received
Jim Watters wrote:
On 2011-02-04 10:13 PM, Jim Watters wrote:
On 2011-02-04 5:53 PM, Bruno Postle wrote:
On Fri 04-Feb-2011 at 16:36 +0100, David Haberthür wrote:
Why would PSB (a quick google detour hinted it's PhotoShop) be
desired? Is a layered TIFF not something you can import into
On 2011-02-09 9:02 AM, Yuval Levy wrote:
On February 9, 2011 06:47:18 am Jim Watters wrote:
Now that panotools is switch to Mercurial.
Can someone give a quick overview of Mercurial using TortoiseHg GUI?
there is some applicable information at [0]
Thank you.
The next main differences is
On a related topic (large images): any interest to continue the VIPS project
idea from a few years ago? maybe using GEGL? that would complement the new
file format nicely.
Yuv
I think I should chime in with some findings about GEGL and why I
think it's not a good idea to use it. We have
On 2011-02-04 10:13 PM, Jim Watters wrote:
On Fri 04-Feb-2011 at 16:36 +0100, David Haberthür wrote:
Do you have any idea if there are (free/libre) libraries that can write
according to Adobes Specifications?
http://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml/
Looking at the document
On February 9, 2011 05:34:25 am Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:
I think I should chime in with some findings about GEGL and why I
think it's not a good idea to use it.
can you record these findings somewhere where they don't get lost (wiki,
blueprint, etc.)?
thanks for sharing
Yuv
signature.asc
On February 9, 2011 06:47:18 am Jim Watters wrote:
Now that panotools is switch to Mercurial.
Can someone give a quick overview of Mercurial using TortoiseHg GUI?
there is some applicable information at [0]
the first main difference, coming from subversion, is that your commits and
checkouts
On February 8, 2011 09:12:10 pm Roger Howard wrote:
I've lurked on the list for several years and I've seen
it made abundantly clear that Hugin will be what it is, not what others
want it to be.
actually: Hugin is to you what you make it for yourself. Nobody will ever
prevent you from going
Sorry but there is always some kind of problem further down the line.
Maybe GIMP will support PSB files eventually.
Until then, can we nuzzle satan a bit and just have PSB output which
currently requires photoshop to open/edit ? :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On a related topic (large images): any interest to continue the VIPS project
idea from a few years ago? maybe using GEGL? that would complement the new
file format nicely.
I've added some bits and pieces of the old GSOC-stuff to
Hey Bruno
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 23:09, Bruno Postle br...@postle.net wrote:
On Mon 07-Feb-2011 at 12:21 -0800, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
PSB because that is the only sane way to make large gigapixels. I have
made numerous images larger than 4GB and the only real way to edit them is
if they are
i'm not aware of any program that can generate a tiff larger than 4gb which
can then be opened by any other program.
not to be snarky, but what is wrong with supporting photoshop users? it is a
standard. and gimp should have PSB support.
honestly, try making large gigapixels. if you're stuck
On Tue 08-Feb-2011 at 10:46 -0800, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
i'm not aware of any program that can generate a tiff larger than 4gb which
can then be opened by any other program.
I understand that if you use a libtiff with 'bigtiff' support this
just works.
not to be snarky, but what is wrong
On Feb 8, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Bruno Postle wrote:
On Tue 08-Feb-2011 at 10:46 -0800, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
i'm not aware of any program that can generate a tiff larger than 4gb which
can then be opened by any other program.
I understand that if you use a libtiff with 'bigtiff' support this
On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:27 AM, David Haberthür wrote:
Hey Bruno
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 23:09, Bruno Postle br...@postle.net wrote:
On Mon 07-Feb-2011 at 12:21 -0800, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
PSB because that is the only sane way to make large gigapixels. I have
made numerous images larger
On Tue 08-Feb-2011 at 13:51 -0800, Roger Howard wrote:
On Feb 8, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Bruno Postle wrote:
PSB isn't a 'standard', until a few months ago adobe were
actively trying to prevent tools like GIMP from supporting PSB.
Has Adobe ever gone after PTGUI? I've never heard that Adobe was
Ok, thanks Roger for your ideas.
The fact is that today, there is no longer this nastiness around
implementing PSB support - right?
Bruno, I didn't mean to say that PSB is a standard, I meant to say that
Photoshop itself is a standard (like it or not)
And hey, at least they have a large file
On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Bruno Postle wrote:
On Tue 08-Feb-2011 at 13:51 -0800, Roger Howard wrote:
On Feb 8, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Bruno Postle wrote:
PSB isn't a 'standard', until a few months ago adobe were actively
trying to prevent tools like GIMP from supporting PSB.
Has Adobe
On Tue 08-Feb-2011 at 14:01 -0800, Roger Howard wrote:
I believe you can build both IM and GIMP with bigtiff support by
linking against the libtiff 4.x
So it's possible to:
Generate huge PSB (from Hugin or whatever)
Convert PSB to BigTIFF using IM (IM has had PSB support since
March 2010)
On February 8, 2011 05:37:06 pm Roger Howard wrote:
I was under the impression - maybe just guessing - that PSB support was
added without the official Adobe specification. I know ImageMagick added
it without - there's no reason IM, Hugin, or GIMP can't add support
through a cleanroom
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 05:58:06PM -0500, Yuval Levy wrote:
On February 8, 2011 05:37:06 pm Roger Howard wrote:
I was under the impression - maybe just guessing - that PSB support was
added without the official Adobe specification. I know ImageMagick added
it without - there's no reason
On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
On February 8, 2011 05:37:06 pm Roger Howard wrote:
I was under the impression - maybe just guessing - that PSB support was
added without the official Adobe specification. I know ImageMagick added
it without - there's no reason IM, Hugin, or GIMP
Whether by reverse engineering (is that what you mean with cleanroom?) or
by
following the specs to the letter, one important ingredient is lacking:
motivation.
Roger I'm not even sure it would require reverse engineering, as that work
has already been done in ImageMagick, for
PSB because that is the only sane way to make large gigapixels. I have made
numerous images larger than 4GB and the only real way to edit them is if
they are PSB format.
On Friday, February 4, 2011 4:36:10 PM UTC+1, David Haberthür wrote:
On 01.02.2011, at 15:59, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
i
On Mon 07-Feb-2011 at 12:21 -0800, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
PSB because that is the only sane way to make large gigapixels. I
have made numerous images larger than 4GB and the only real way to
edit them is if they are PSB format.
This is a problem if the only tool that can edit PSB files is
On February 7, 2011 05:09:51 pm Bruno Postle wrote:
On Mon 07-Feb-2011 at 12:21 -0800, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
PSB because that is the only sane way to make large gigapixels. I
have made numerous images larger than 4GB and the only real way to
edit them is if they are PSB format.
This is a
Hey Thomas.
Deliberately not copied over are
-http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2008_ideas#Lens_DatabaseIs this still
relevant? How does Lensfun et al. do?
Yes, still relevant.
-http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2010_ideas#Zooming_for_fast_preview
Still relevant?
Yes. The fast preview window
On 01.02.2011, at 15:59, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
i agree about raw input / dng output - it's no business of hugin.
what about PSB output?
In the end I also agree about the RAW input, it's best left to other software.
Why would PSB (a quick google detour hinted it's PhotoShop) be desired? Is a
On Fri 04-Feb-2011 at 16:36 +0100, David Haberthür wrote:
On 01.02.2011, at 15:59, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
i agree about raw input / dng output - it's no business of
hugin.
what about PSB output?
In the end I also agree about the RAW input, it's best left to
other software.
There would
On 2011-02-04 5:53 PM, Bruno Postle wrote:
On Fri 04-Feb-2011 at 16:36 +0100, David Haberthür wrote:
Why would PSB (a quick google detour hinted it's PhotoShop) be desired? Is a
layered TIFF not something you can import into PhotoShop?
I believe Photoshop does not recognize cropped tiff
Gnome Nomad schrieb am 02.02.11 05:11:
(...) I think the most the wiki could benefit from is listing some
common raw formats and names of programs that can convert them.
I just searched for 'raw' in the panotools wiki -
http://wiki.panotools.org/RAW
In the pragraph External links follow the
Carl von Einem wrote:
Gnome Nomad schrieb am 02.02.11 05:11:
(...) I think the most the wiki could benefit from is listing some
common raw formats and names of programs that can convert them.
I just searched for 'raw' in the panotools wiki -
http://wiki.panotools.org/RAW
In the pragraph
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:30:28PM -0800, T. Modes wrote:
-http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2009_idea#hugin_RAW_support
Here I don't know.
I don't think that hugin should move to support raw formats.
On the input side, users should convert images to the appropriate
bit-depth tiff files, and
i agree about raw input / dng output - it's no business of hugin.
what about PSB output?
--
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:
Rogier Wolff wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:30:28PM -0800, T. Modes wrote:
-http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2009_idea#hugin_RAW_support
Here I don't know.
I don't think that hugin should move to support raw formats.
There is one plausible (but only just) reason.
I was looking into
On 1 Feb., 15:35, Rogier Wolff rew-googlegro...@bitwizard.nl wrote:
On the other hand, Hugin might be expanded to allow input-plugins. If
we specify that an input-plugin should accept the filename as the
first argument and should provide PPM output on its standard out,
users can specify
Rogier Wolff wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:30:28PM -0800, T. Modes wrote:
-http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2009_idea#hugin_RAW_support
Here I don't know.
I don't think that hugin should move to support raw formats.
I agree. There are plenty of programs around to convert various raw
kfj wrote:
On 1 Feb., 15:35, Rogier Wolff rew-googlegro...@bitwizard.nl wrote:
On the other hand, Hugin might be expanded to allow input-plugins. If
we specify that an input-plugin should accept the filename as the
first argument and should provide PPM output on its standard out,
users can
Hi Habi,
Deliberately not copied over are
-http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2008_ideas#Lens_DatabaseIs this still
relevant? How does Lensfun et al. do?
Yes, still relevant.
-http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2009_idea#hugin_RAW_support
Here I don't know.
40 matches
Mail list logo
