Kay,
do you have any examples of images we can see (before / after) showing that
this really works? i'd love to see that :)
jeffrey
On Friday, May 6, 2011 2:28:37 PM UTC+2, kfj wrote:
On 19 Apr., 10:31, Erik Krause erik@gmx.de wrote:
You can also try slightly smaller values for
On 27 Jul., 10:16, Jeffrey Martin 360cit...@gmail.com wrote:
Kay,
do you have any examples of images we can see (before / after) showing that
this really works? i'd love to see that :)
Mysterious... here you've dug out a resopnse to a thread I made in
May. And lo and behold, calling enfuse
I agree, have a few panos where only 2 photos are useful out of a 3 shot 2EV
set.
So I have discarded the completely underexposed photos.
Enfuse works well, however I intend to make an HDR image but it won't stitch
when I remove one of the bracketed photos.
The details are in a new thread that I
On 19 Apr., 10:31, Erik Krause erik.kra...@gmx.de wrote:
You can also try slightly smaller values for -wSigma which would avoid
using completely over- or underexposed regions. But you might need
smaller exposure steps then...
enfuse also offers to completely ignore pixels above/below a
Enfuse works best on TWO images in my experience. Three if you have a lot of
dynamic range. Almost never do you need to run more than 3 images through
enfuse. Just use exposures that contain good bits. Definitely not the
too-dark and too-light ones. This is the difference between enfuse and
