Hello,
I have to second Bruno in noting the shortcomings of the current
camera model.
And my vote is also for implementing a mathematical model that well
describes real life images from real life lenses.
You are thinking of y = abs(x) = sqrt( x^^2). The first derivative
of y = x is +1
On Tue 11-Jan-2011 at 13:08 -0800, Klaus wrote:
I have to second Bruno in noting the shortcomings of the current
camera model.
Yes it has obvious technical shortcomings, but I'm not certain they
are actually a problem in practice. Switching Hugin to a different
system for would be very
On Jan 7, 10:29 pm, Tom Sharpless tksharpl...@gmail.com wrote:
Since I used a PT-
based stitcher, the results are polynomial coefficients describing the
deviation of the lenses' curves from the function r = f * theta,
where f is focal length, r and f are in pixels, and
theta is in
I recently wrote
Since I used a PT-
based stitcher, the results are polynomial coefficients describing the
deviation of the lenses' curves from the function r = f * theta,
where f is focal length, r and f are in pixels, and
theta is in radians. Or would be, except that the PT polynomial
I recently wrote
Since I used a PT-
based stitcher, the results are polynomial coefficients describing the
deviation of the lenses' curves from the function r = f * theta,
where f is focal length, r and f are in pixels, and
theta is in radians. Or would be, except that the PT polynomial
On 2011-01-03 7:31 AM, dmg wrote:
thinking aloud, the fact that the field of view changes when the image
is in landscape mode might have interesting repercussions during
optimization.
I wonder if a better solution would be to scale with respect to the
corner of the frame.
-dmg
This was being
On Jan 5, 11:09 pm, Tom Sharpless tksharpl...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW one of the best treatments of lens calibration and correction I've
seen is this article, brought to my attention last year by Michel
Thoby:http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/37251/1/03-0869.pdf.
It has a
On Jan 6, 11:07 am, Jeffrey Martin 360cit...@gmail.com wrote:
Right. If anything, Diagonal FOV should be used. But it's not. So on that
note, let's scrap it all and do it the right way :-)
'Doing it the right way' is not so easy in practice, because it has to
be based on reliable lens
Hi Aron
On Jan 7, 11:01 am, Aron H aron.hel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:09 pm, Tom Sharpless tksharpl...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW one of the best treatments of lens calibration and correction I've
seen is this article, brought to my attention last year by Michel
Rogier,
On Jan 6, 8:17 am, Rogier Wolff rew-googlegro...@bitwizard.nl wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:45:26AM -0800, Bart van Andel wrote:
On Thursday, January 6, 2011 5:09:06 AM UTC+1, Tom Sharpless wrote:
It has been pointed out that the polynomial should only consist of
even
I fully agree that this hFOV and vFOV nonsense should stop. It is really
annoying for beginners and experienced folks alike!
The distortion could be a function of angle and not proportion of
width of image. This would make discussions about whether to use
diagonal, width or height
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:45:26AM -0800, Bart van Andel wrote:
On Thursday, January 6, 2011 5:09:06 AM UTC+1, Tom Sharpless wrote:
It has been pointed out that the polynomial should only consist of
even numbered powers, both for speed and for mathematical soundness.
I'm not
On 6 Jan., 11:36, Jeffrey Martin 360cit...@gmail.com wrote:
I fully agree that this hFOV and vFOV nonsense should stop. It is really
annoying for beginners and experienced folks alike!
Particularly since the concept is implemented so myopically that it
can't even figure out that the same
Right. If anything, Diagonal FOV should be used. But it's not. So on that
note, let's scrap it all and do it the right way :-)
--
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
Hi All
On Jan 3, 5:45 pm, Bruno Postle br...@postle.net wrote:
On Mon 03-Jan-2011 at 10:49 -0800, Daniel M. German wrote:
...and abandon the a,b,c polynomial while we are at it. There are
definitely better lens models, the question is do we need the pain involved
with changing from the
On Mon 03-Jan-2011 at 03:31 -0800, Daniel M. German wrote:
thinking aloud, the fact that the field of view changes when the image
is in landscape mode might have interesting repercussions during
optimization.
In practice the polynomial changes the angular distance between
adjacent stitching
On 2011-01-03 7:31 AM, dmg wrote:
field of view changes when the image is in landscape mode might have
interesting repercussions during optimization.
I wonder if a better solution would be to scale with respect to the
corner of the frame.
This is something that new users stumble over. There
...and abandon the a,b,c polynomial while we are at it. There are
definitely better lens models, the question is do we need the pain involved
with changing from the existing model?
We can leave it as is, and provide a better model, but what would the
alternatives be?
--dmg
--
Bruno
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
