Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: So ow that I've used Hugin to make my panorama . . .
Panini is a viewer for multi-platform. Thomas is currently working on a new PaniniPro which will be a paid version. The previous free version is available for download and it does have a Mac version. And there is the PangeaVR plugin ( http://www.pangeasoft.net/pano/plugin/downloads.html) Harry -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: Vertical line detector
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:57:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnPW wrote: If I don't misunderstand your post . . . Yes, one wants a level horizon, but the horizon is an imaginary line and is only evident in certain perfect situations without obstructions (flat desert, seascape, etc.) In most natural situations like landscapes, the viewer's senses are not greatly offended by a slightly misaligned horizon and it can estimated and adjusted without difficulty. The manmade environment, where most pictures are taken, is positively chock full of obviously vertical and horizontal lines. When all these cues do not align properly it is can be offensively obvious and discordant, so you want them to be properly aligned. in a rectilinear projection, only a vertical line always appears vertical and straight (like the longitude lines on a globe.) The only horizontal line that is level and straight is the horizon (which really isn't a line at all since it's theoretical projection and is actually a huge circle. All the truly straight, non vertical lines actually appear slightly curved, to a greater or lesser extent. The only horizontal lines that appear close to straight are on objects that directly face the viewer, and only those that happen to be coincident with the horizon, and these only over a short distance. (Sorry if I have misunderstood and I'm stating the obvious to you.) I ask because I took a panorama from a tower in Provincetown, MA, at the tip of Cape Cod. About 3/4 of the horizon from that spot is the ocean, and a misalignment of 1 pixel was very apparent; I had to correct it by editing the final output. I suppose the proposed new Apple Inc. campus building (which will be huge and round with a round courtyard in the middle) would offer an opportunity to use horizontals for alignment. :-) http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/design/2011/8/apple_city_rendering_1.jpg On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu wrote: On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:04:03 +, Bruno Postle wrote: On Wed 02-Nov-2011 at 11:47 +0500, Emad ud din Bhatt wrote: can we use vertical line detector by Setting equirect pitch to 90 degree and than call vertical line detector. Than set pano pitch to -90 and call vertical line detector again? Yes (or roll), but you would have to manually change all the 'vertical control points' to 'horizontal'. This doesn't solve the fundamental problem: vertical lines are parallel, but horizontal lines generally are not - This is why horizontal control points have very limited use for levelling panoramas. I don't understand this -- usually one wants a level horizon? -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Re: Vertical line detector
Well that's one of those easy situations. When you can see the horizon clearly like that, horizontal CPs distributed about the pano on the horizon should give you great results. Contrary to how one might casually think, placing them far apart (with very wide angle images) produces diminishing accuracy. As they get closer to 180º apart the effect of minor errors in point placement is amplified, just as it would be by placing them closer to 0º apart. Was this at Long Point Light or were you up on a communications tower? On Nov 3, 7:15 am, Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu wrote: I ask because I took a panorama from a tower in Provincetown, MA, at the tip of Cape Cod. About 3/4 of the horizon from that spot is the ocean, and a misalignment of 1 pixel was very apparent; I had to correct it by editing the final 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Re: Vertical line detector
BTW my sig would have to be more like Unix doesn't dictate how I work, it dictates how I don't work (but only when I consciously try to use it.) ;-) I love that it's there, but I like having that Aqua interface softening the ride! -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Re: So ow that I've used Hugin to make my panorama . . .
Thanks for the info Harry. BTW, As I read these forums I've intensified my desire to be fair, honest, appreciative and not overly casual when speaking about panorama software. I've come to notice that most of the the people around here have had some hand in making it! Thanks to Thomas for his work. And to you Harry for compiling the Mac Hugin binary. Just yesterday I noticed your name on that little gem, ImageFuser. :-) On Nov 3, 6:51 am, Harry van der Wolf hvdw...@gmail.com wrote: Panini is a viewer for multi-platform. Thomas is currently working on a new PaniniPro which will be a paid version. The previous free version is available for download and it does have a Mac version. And there is the PangeaVR plugin (http://www.pangeasoft.net/pano/plugin/downloads.html) Harry -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: Vertical line detector
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT), JohnPW wrote: Well that's one of those easy situations. When you can see the horizon clearly like that, horizontal CPs distributed about the pano on the horizon should give you great results. Contrary to how one might casually think, placing them far apart (with very wide angle images) produces diminishing accuracy. As they get closer to 180º apart the effect of minor errors in point placement is amplified, just as it would be by placing them closer to 0º apart. One would think it would be simple, but it wasn't. There was one error of about 1 pixel I was never able to get rid of, and I had to play some games in GIMP to clean it up to my satisfaction. Even 1 pixel error is very noticeable for something like the sky-sae interface. Was this at Long Point Light or were you up on a communications tower? Provincetown Monument. See http://rlk.smugmug.com/Other/Landscapes/4851912_XB4SmT/1079379016_sm6Jy (the monument itself is http://rlk.smugmug.com/Travel/Provincetown-MA-October-2010/14616061_32XQRG/1087222681_A2kfU). -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] directions inside the source code needed.
Hi, I need directions finding something inside the source code. I've been grepping and searching for hours I find it annoying that when I cancel the optimization step I cannot apply the currently best results. [update: I might have been testing this in an older version. The problem seems seems fixed now, but I would still like to be able to find things in the source code ] For big panos the optimization step can take minutes to hours, and when you want to see a preliminary layout you don't need those last few micro-optimizations, a general reasonable layout is just fine. So I'm looking for the code that actually does the optimization, I think this is: pano.updateVariables in src/hugin_base/panotools/PanoToolsOptimizerWrapper.cpp (which is called from PTtools::optimize () which is called from void OptimizePanel::runOptimizer(const UIntSet imgs) in src/hugin1/hugin/OptimizePanel.cpp ) Things that normally work is that I grep for strings that are printed during an operation. So for example when the optimizer run finishes normally it asks Apply the changes?, which is a string that comes from OptimizePanel.cpp. However searching for strings that appear in the optimizing progress window (the one that shows cancel) doesn't give me any results. So even tough the problem I was trying to fix is already solved, I'd like to learn how you guys find these things in the source, or in this case specifically where is the code that generates the optimizing progress window? Roger. -- ** r.e.wo...@bitwizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** **Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work. -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Re: Vertical line detector
Ah the Pilgrim monument. I haven't been there. Very nice panoramas. They all look very well done to me. You clearly have very high production standards. When I was working for the NPS I did a similar style panorama from the top of the Cape Lookout Light (not even remotely as nice as yours though.) It was my first 360ş panorama and I wasn't sure it would work since I took it from the outer catwalk, but I figured the closest objects were far enough away that it wouldn't be a problem. It wasn't that great (3.5Mp jpegs, no fusion or TCA correction etc., but this was a few years ago and my colleagues (who had never seen stitched panos before) were amazed and perplexed by how I got such nice images using a little digital point and shoot (although the results would probably not be acceptable to anyone in this forum.) I stitched them together with well aged Apple QTVR Studio Software running on system 7 via Rosetta on a G3 PowerMac. Although the whole western sky was blown out, I was actually pleasantly surprised myself. I should go back and run it through Hugin. I'm sure there would be a little noticeable improvement. On Nov 3, 9:23 am, Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT), JohnPW wrote: Well that's one of those easy situations. When you can see the horizon clearly like that, horizontal CPs distributed about the pano on the horizon should give you great results. Contrary to how one might casually think, placing them far apart (with very wide angle images) produces diminishing accuracy. As they get closer to 180ş apart the effect of minor errors in point placement is amplified, just as it would be by placing them closer to 0ş apart. One would think it would be simple, but it wasn't. There was one error of about 1 pixel I was never able to get rid of, and I had to play some games in GIMP to clean it up to my satisfaction. Even 1 pixel error is very noticeable for something like the sky-sae interface. Was this at Long Point Light or were you up on a communications tower? Provincetown Monument. Seehttp://rlk.smugmug.com/Other/Landscapes/4851912_XB4SmT/1079379016_sm6Jy (the monument itself ishttp://rlk.smugmug.com/Travel/Provincetown-MA-October-2010/14616061_3...). -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Which EXIF data does Hugin need?
I'm trying to do a panorama from some .fpx files which contain fotographs that I shot many years ago with a Kodak DC210 which I don't have any more. However, as only very few programs read Kodak's .fpx format, I've converted the files into .jpg -- a process which omitted all meta data, sadly. So now, I'm trying to recreate the data as EXIF data in the jpg files by letting http://regex.info/exif.cgi tell me the meta data from the .fpx files. For the first file, the site tells me the following from the FlashPix meta data: Data Object ID13BC5A58-6B90-1B6B-12C9-0800201177F8 Data Object StatusExists, Not Purgeable Creating TransformSource Image Using Transforms Cached Image Height864 Cached Image Width1,152 Image Size1,152 × 864 Visible Outputs1 Maximum Image Index1 Maximum Transform Index0 Maximum Operation Index0 Code PageWindows Latin 1 (Western European) Revision Number1 Modify Date*2001:07:16* 14:58:45 10 years, 3 months, 16 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes, 54 seconds ago SoftwareDC210 Zoom (V05.00) Thumbnail Clip(20,784 bytes binary data) Subimage ColorRGB Subimage Numerical Format8-bit, Unsigned Decimation MethodNone (Full-sized Image) JPEG Tables(558 bytes binary data) Number Of Resolutions1 Max JPEG Table Index1 Comp Obj User Type Len16 Comp Obj User Type FlashPix_Object Code PageWindows Latin 1 (Western European) Code PageUnicode UTF-16, little endian File SourceDigital Camera Scene TypeOriginal Scene Software ReleaseDC210 Zoom (V05.00) MakeEastman Kodak Company Camera Model NameDC210 Zoom (V05.00) Create Date*2001:07:16* 14:58:45 10 years, 3 months, 16 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes, 54 seconds ago Exposure Time1/125 F Number4.0 Exposure ProgramProgram AE Brightness Value 5.5 Exposure Compensation0 Metering ModeCenter-weighted average Light Source Unknown Focal Length4.4 mm Max Aperture Value4.0 FlashNo Flash Exposure Index140 Per Picture Notes Sensing MethodOne-chip color area Subimage Width1,152 Subimage Height864 Subimage Tile Count252 Subimage Tile Width64 Subimage Tile Height64 Num Channels3 I seem to have reconstructed enough meta data to let Hugin know the focal length (4.4 mm), but not the focal length multiplicator. What do I need in the EXIF data to let Hugin determine this? Is there something else I need to put into the EXIF data? Thanks in advance, Thomas -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: Vertical line detector
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT), JohnPW wrote: Ah the Pilgrim monument. I haven't been there. Very nice panoramas. They all look very well done to me. You clearly have very high production standards. Thanks! When I was working for the NPS I did a similar style panorama from the top of the Cape Lookout Light (not even remotely as nice as yours though.) It was my first 360ş panorama and I wasn't sure it would work since I took it from the outer catwalk, but I figured the closest objects were far enough away that it wouldn't be a problem. It wasn't that great (3.5Mp jpegs, no fusion or TCA correction etc., but this was a few years ago and my colleagues (who had never seen stitched panos before) were amazed and perplexed by how I got such nice images using a little digital point and shoot (although the results would probably not be acceptable to anyone in this forum.) I stitched them together with well aged Apple QTVR Studio Software running on system 7 via Rosetta on a G3 PowerMac. Although the whole western sky was blown out, I was actually pleasantly surprised myself. I should go back and run it through Hugin. I'm sure there would be a little noticeable improvement. I had the same problem on the Pilgrim monument. There are only four spots, at the center of each side, where there's a clear view without glass and bars getting in the way. It's fortunate that I have an 8-16 mm lens; I don't think even a 10 or 11 mm lens would have provided enough overlap for a good stitch and a 12 mm lens probably wouldn't have been wide enough, period. I did have to fix some things up by hand where the parallax error was too great (the parking lot at the bottom had some problems that I had to fix manually, in addition to the horizon problem I mentioned earlier). I actually generally do use JPEGs, and I haven't done TCA correction or predefined lens models (which are likely to be accurate only at one particular focal length, anyway). And all too often I do them hand-held. But when I look at my panoramas, I generally don't see a lot of TCA problems. As for RAW vs. JPEG, the 7D does a very good job of in-camera processing. If the light's such that I'm going to have serious dynamic range problems, I probably need more than the additional one or two stops I'll get from my own RAW processing. The P-town panorama, for example, did have dynamic range problems, but simple exposure bracketing and fusion worked very well. For this one: http://rlk.smugmug.com/Other/Landscapes/4851912_XB4SmT/1488875261_xzm3Fzn I really did have to use RAW, though (and fix up a lot of sky by hand, also). There is one little trick I sometimes play that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere to reduce the aspect ratio and get more foreground detail. With wide angle lenses, the final output is somewhat torpedo or barrel shaped due to the projection onto a planar surface. I make a second pass with Hugin, treating the first stage panorama as having been shot by a cylindrical lens (like a Spinshot camera) of between 20 and 35 mm focal length and then re-projecting it as rectilinear, which applies a pincushion effect. Panorama stitching really is a lot of fun. -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Which EXIF data does Hugin need?
I don't know how to answer your question, but you can make hugin work without that. Many times I use images without any of those informations. You can just guess a possible value and then try to optimize the result until it gets ok. Cheers, Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) http://cartola.org/360 2011/11/3 Thomas Pryds tho...@pryds.eu I'm trying to do a panorama from some .fpx files which contain fotographs that I shot many years ago with a Kodak DC210 which I don't have any more. However, as only very few programs read Kodak's .fpx format, I've converted the files into .jpg -- a process which omitted all meta data, sadly. So now, I'm trying to recreate the data as EXIF data in the jpg files by letting http://regex.info/exif.cgi tell me the meta data from the .fpx files. For the first file, the site tells me the following from the FlashPix meta data: Data Object ID13BC5A58-6B90-1B6B-12C9-0800201177F8 Data Object StatusExists, Not Purgeable Creating TransformSource Image Using Transforms Cached Image Height864 Cached Image Width1,152 Image Size1,152 × 864 Visible Outputs1 Maximum Image Index1 Maximum Transform Index0 Maximum Operation Index0 Code PageWindows Latin 1 (Western European) Revision Number1 Modify Date*2001:07:16* 14:58:45 10 years, 3 months, 16 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes, 54 seconds ago SoftwareDC210 Zoom (V05.00) Thumbnail Clip(20,784 bytes binary data) Subimage ColorRGB Subimage Numerical Format8-bit, Unsigned Decimation MethodNone (Full-sized Image) JPEG Tables(558 bytes binary data) Number Of Resolutions1 Max JPEG Table Index1 Comp Obj User Type Len16 Comp Obj User TypeFlashPix_Object Code PageWindows Latin 1 (Western European) Code PageUnicode UTF-16, little endian File SourceDigital Camera Scene TypeOriginal Scene Software ReleaseDC210 Zoom (V05.00) MakeEastman Kodak Company Camera Model NameDC210 Zoom (V05.00) Create Date*2001:07:16*14:58 :45 10 years, 3 months, 16 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes, 54 seconds ago Exposure Time1/125 F Number4.0 Exposure ProgramProgram AE Brightness Value 5.5 Exposure Compensation0 Metering ModeCenter-weighted average Light SourceUnknown Focal Length4.4 mm Max Aperture Value4.0 FlashNo Flash Exposure Index140 Per Picture Notes Sensing MethodOne-chip color area Subimage Width1,152 Subimage Height864 Subimage Tile Count252 Subimage Tile Width64 Subimage Tile Height64 Num Channels3 I seem to have reconstructed enough meta data to let Hugin know the focal length (4.4 mm), but not the focal length multiplicator. What do I need in the EXIF data to let Hugin determine this? Is there something else I need to put into the EXIF data? Thanks in advance, Thomas -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Which EXIF data does Hugin need?
2011/11/3 Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola) cartol...@gmail.com I don't know how to answer your question, but you can make hugin work without that. Many times I use images without any of those informations. You can just guess a possible value and then try to optimize the result until it gets ok. Thanks. No matter which value I try, though, I get the images placed directly on top of each other, although lots of (correct) control points were found. So I figured Hugin is missing some other meta data value, but with your reply I'm beginning to think something else is wrong. I have no idea what that is, though. Thomas -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] Which EXIF data does Hugin need?
The placement of the images don't depend on those values. Those are related to the distortion of the images. The positioning of images are made using control points. You can try to solve your problem with less images and starting with only position optimization, like y,p,r to try to make the images move according to the control points. You can also try to pub manual control points, just to confirm you have only correct ones, just to try. Cheers, Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola) http://cartola.org/360 2011/11/3 Thomas Pryds tho...@pryds.eu 2011/11/3 Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola) cartol...@gmail.com I don't know how to answer your question, but you can make hugin work without that. Many times I use images without any of those informations. You can just guess a possible value and then try to optimize the result until it gets ok. Thanks. No matter which value I try, though, I get the images placed directly on top of each other, although lots of (correct) control points were found. So I figured Hugin is missing some other meta data value, but with your reply I'm beginning to think something else is wrong. I have no idea what that is, though. Thomas -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Re: [hugin-ptx] directions inside the source code needed.
On Thu 03-Nov-2011 at 14:51 +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote: So I'm looking for the code that actually does the optimization, I think this is: pano.updateVariables in src/hugin_base/panotools/PanoToolsOptimizerWrapper.cpp I think the optimisation is done using libpano13. -- Bruno -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] Re: Vertical line detector
So how do folks do their hand adjustments? . . . [I guess I should start a new topic for this.] On Nov 3, 12:47 pm, Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu wrote: I had the same problem on the Pilgrim monument. There are only four spots, at the center of each side, where there's a clear view without glass and bars getting in the way. It's fortunate that I have an 8-16 mm lens; I don't think even a 10 or 11 mm lens would have provided enough overlap for a good stitch and a 12 mm lens probably wouldn't have been wide enough, period. I did have to fix some things up by hand where the parallax error was too great (the parking lot at the bottom had some problems that I had to fix manually, in addition to the horizon problem I mentioned earlier). I actually generally do use JPEGs, and I haven't done TCA correction or predefined lens models (which are likely to be accurate only at one particular focal length, anyway). And all too often I do them hand-held. But when I look at my panoramas, I generally don't see a lot of TCA problems. As for RAW vs. JPEG, the 7D does a very good job of in-camera processing. If the light's such that I'm going to have serious dynamic range problems, I probably need more than the additional one or two stops I'll get from my own RAW processing. The P-town panorama, for example, did have dynamic range problems, but simple exposure bracketing and fusion worked very well. -- I have no choice but to use jpeg on my Nikon CP4500 (Tiff isn't really a reasonable choice time wise and the camera has no RAW.) For this one: http://rlk.smugmug.com/Other/Landscapes/4851912_XB4SmT/1488875261_xzm... I really did have to use RAW, though (and fix up a lot of sky by hand, also). There is one little trick I sometimes play that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere to reduce the aspect ratio and get more foreground detail. With wide angle lenses, the final output is somewhat torpedo or barrel shaped due to the projection onto a planar surface. I make a second pass with Hugin, treating the first stage panorama as having been shot by a cylindrical lens (like a Spinshot camera) of between 20 and 35 mm focal length and then re-projecting it as rectilinear, which applies a pincushion effect. -- I'd have to see to understand (my fault not yours.) Perhaps you should make a tutorial? :-) -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
[hugin-ptx] how do you do your hand adjustments of your panos?
In an earlier post Robert Krawitz was sharing some nice panoramas he did: http://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=http://rlk.smugmug.com/Other/Landscapes/4851912_XB4SmT/1488875261_xzmusg=AFQjCNEGlfZgOM7TUL0A2Cykj4HW1NPBnw and http://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=http://rlk.smugmug.com/Other/Landscapes/4851912_XB4SmT/1079379016_sm6Jyusg=AFQjCNHnbrlDK8xjM-rtD7prpZGrLPX2pA and mentioned that he needed to do some hand adjustments in Gimp to correct some stitching problems It occurred to me, so how do folks do their hand adjustments? . . . I have some images I recently took handheld on a small yacht sailing in San Francisco Bay. I had to put all the control points on stationary parts of the boat since anything else was in constant motion. It has made me want to do more hand blending and masking to make the (very mismatched) horizon less jarring and to fix a few things on the boat that moved. I was considering how best to do it. I have yet to try it, but I was thinking I should output the pano in two parts to, one with the even images and one with the odd (alternate source images so there is no image overlap between any of the source images within each one of the two panos.) My thought is that I can then combine the two panos as two base layers in a new file to make the complete combined pano. This will make registering the layers easier and then I can copy any more desirable part of either of these two layers to a higher layer for any possibly destructive editing and adjustment. After that I can just use alpha channels to finalize blending of the seams. Is this how most people do it? Is there a better way? Anybody have any helpful thoughts? -- 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: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
