Hi Greg,
in my opinion better is relative. If you want more quality and zoom
possibility then the most narrow angle the lens has, more close to these
objectives you will be. If you want an easy stitch, using less images will
make you achieve the final result in less time, then the more open angle
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:32:33 PM UTC-5, Harry van der Wolf wrote:
By the way: are you THE Phil Harvey, or is it just a coincident that you
have the same first name?
That's no coincidence. :)
- Phil
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Kevin -
Am Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 12:54:03 UTC+1 schrieb kevin360:
I reduced the number of input images to 2 and it still segfaults.
Nice job! Two is perfect for testing.
If the images aren't too large, do you think it
makes sense to supply them to us? I'd like to
reproduce your
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Bruno Postle br...@postle.net wrote:
On Mon 26-Nov-2012 at 09:12 +, Michael Witten wrote:
When PNG is set as the output format in the Stitcher tab, the output
inexplicably includes the Image Offset (the oFFs) chunk:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Monkey wrote:
On Monday, 26 November 2012 08:59:50 UTC, Michael Witten wrote:
When PNG is set as the output format in the Stitcher tab, the output
inexplicably includes the Image Offset (the oFFs) chunk:
Not sure I see the problem - it is valid information
On 28 November 2012 12:10, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)
cartol...@gmail.com wrote:
Going back to your specific example, I don't think 9mm will have a much
narrow angle than an 8mm lens. Do you have their fov to compare? Probably
you will use the same number of images to stitch and will
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Caleb Anderson robotris...@gmail.com
wrote:
I gave that a quick shot with some quickly placed control points. It gives
some really weird results when using 360x180 source images. It definitely
did not want me to keep the images in one stack.
If it's valid information, then why doesn't the TIFF output include
it? Indeed, if it's valid information then NOT having it in the TIFF
output is a bug; either way, there is a bug in one of the outputs.
Ah, well, you never actually said it was doing anything like that - I
thought you
But there seems to be a problem under ubuntu, too: This is what the
Nightly Builds for lucid and maverick for both i386 and amd64 moan about:
Trying to fix in repository. But can't test, because I did not see the
error.
Thomas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Wed 28-Nov-2012 at 11:25 -0600, Caleb Anderson wrote:
I do get better results if I only link the first image to all subsequent
images, instead of each image with each other. That actually makes sense
when I think about it.
However, I still get the strange lens/projection issue, even when
Hi Thomas
On 28.11.2012 20:42, T. Modes wrote:
Trying to fix in repository. But can't test, because I did not see the
error.
I will give it a whirl on my lucid testbox and let you know how it
turned out.
In any case, thank you *very much* for your time and effort. Due to the
age and the
I added my images and, in the popup on add, set to equirectangular and hfov
of 360. Then I added control points and used the optimize tab to optimize
positions only.
Nona with gpu refused to output remapped images. Turning off gpu output
'properly'. (that is, the gl preview did show the same
Hi Thomas
On 28.11.2012 20:42, T. Modes wrote:
Trying to fix in repository. But can't test, because I did not see the
error.
On a up to date lucid installation, the current hugin default branch
compiled without any error messages using a gcc v4.4.3
Thanks!
Regards
Stefan Peter
--
In
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Caleb Anderson robotris...@gmail.comwrote:
Nona with gpu refused to output remapped images. Turning off gpu output
'properly'. (that is, the gl preview did show the same poorly projected
output)
Err, forgot to finish my thought. Turning off gpu output spit
On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 17:18:57 +0100, Felix Hagemann wrote:
On 28 November 2012 12:10, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)
cartol...@gmail.com wrote:
Going back to your specific example, I don't think 9mm will have a
much narrow angle than an 8mm lens. Do you have their fov to
2012/11/29 Greg 'groggy' Lehey groog...@gmail.com
Partially. The 9 mm has:
Horizontal FOV: 87.73°
Diagonal FOV: 100.49°
Vertical FOV:71.68°
I don't have a formula for fisheyes, so I can't give the output of my
program, but I'm told
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 10:29:19 +0800, RizThon wrote:
2012/11/29 Greg 'groggy' Lehey groog...@gmail.com
Partially. The 9 mm has:
Horizontal FOV: 87.73°
Diagonal FOV: 100.49°
Vertical FOV:71.68°
I don't have a formula for
Indeed. This is what has been puzzling me. There are two different 8
mm fisheyes available for Olympus: the relatively expensive 8 mm f/3.5
from Olympus, and the 8 mm f/3.5 from various rebadgers (Bower,
Samyang, Rokinon). The former costs about $800 and has a full 180°
diagonal angle of
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 13:43:46 +0800, RizThon wrote:
Indeed. This is what has been puzzling me. There are two different 8
mm fisheyes available for Olympus: the relatively expensive 8 mm f/3.5
from Olympus, and the 8 mm f/3.5 from various rebadgers (Bower,
Samyang, Rokinon). The
Hi Sir Bruno,
Good Day.
My apology for this very late reply but I thought my question had not been
answered until
I revisited this forum again.
I am designing now a (XYZ Cartesian Robots) Planetary Scanner , and the
objective of my project was to scan large materials (nes paper, maps ,
20 matches
Mail list logo
