On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:50:20 PM UTC-5 eljef...@gmail.com wrote:
> Okay, I just did that test. I have a different explanation -- the output
> results from the optimization report errors relative to the output
> horizontal field of view. I took a pto file, ran the optimization
Okay, I just did that test. I have a different explanation -- the output
results from the optimization report errors relative to the output
horizontal field of view. I took a pto file, ran the optimization (but
did not save the results). The max error was 3.023, then I made a copy of
the
Okay, I just did that test. I have a different explanation -- the output
results from the optimization report errors relative to the output
horizontal field of view. I took a pto file, ran the optimization (but
did not save the results). The max error was 3.023, then I made a copy of
the
John, yes indeed I did mean the output horizontal field of view. I did a
diff on the two files -- and literally the only differences are in the
output size (h w...) and v I am assuming the fov represented by v
should be the same regardless of final output resolution, so that seemed
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 6:26:54 PM UTC-5 eljef...@gmail.com wrote:
> In addition to the output size being different, the horizontal field of
> view is different -- for a.pto it is 360. For b.pto, it is 71. That is
> probably making a big difference in the final optimized minimum.
>
In addition to the output size being different, the horizontal field of
view is different -- for a.pto it is 360. For b.pto, it is 71. That is
probably making a big difference in the final optimized minimum.
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 9:08:07 AM UTC-8 johnfi...@gmail.com wrote:
> If I
