The grey ones aren't selectable, everything is fine. (I actually like this
more than Windows, where folder can suddenly seem empty)
Niklas
Am Donnerstag, 27. Juni 2019 17:45:19 UTC+2 schrieb T. Modes:
>
> Hi Niklas,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019 23:10:51 UTC+2 schrieb Niklas Mischkulnig:
>>
>>
Hi Niklas,
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019 23:10:51 UTC+2 schrieb Niklas Mischkulnig:
>
> Yes, that works:
>
Ok, that looks better. But it seems that the file open dialog behaves
different on Mac OS X. When you select another file type the other files
are only grey out - can you still select the
Yes, that works:
[image: Bildschirmfoto 2019-06-26 um 23.09.15.png]
Niklas
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019 21:32:44 UTC+2 schrieb T. Modes:
>
> Hi Niklas,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019 20:39:41 UTC+2 schrieb T. Modes:
>>
>> Now the add raw dialog is called when a raw file is selected in the add
Hi Niklas,
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019 20:39:41 UTC+2 schrieb T. Modes:
>
> Now the add raw dialog is called when a raw file is selected in the add
> images dialog (this is detected by using the selected file type filter.)
> Not sure why the this is missing in your screen shot - according to
>
Wasn't there an "Add Raw Image" dialog once? Using the normal one for
images adds only the tiny embedded
thumbnails for me (NEF files), rather than throwing an exception (not ideal
either).
The "Add Image" dialog:
[image: Bildschirmfoto 2019-06-26 um 18.51.55.png]
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni
Am Dienstag, 25. Juni 2019 23:30:19 UTC+2 schrieb Michael Kraul:
>
>
> When adding a RAW file this will not be decoded
>
>
Have you set the file filter in the add files dialog to raw files?
--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You
Ah yes, thx for reply.
I was looking at that as well. Adobe is using its own DNG converter
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html
I heard good things about it, but too bad for me that its only win/osx
again and it is yet again another layer of conversion. That is why i
Am 12.07.2018 um 17:05 schrieb Albert Szostkiewicz:
Could you elaborate please? what is your choice of converter that is giving
you best result ?
"decent converter" is not a suggestion.
I use Adobe Camera Raw, since I happen to own a Photoshop CS6 license.
Lightroom uses the same raw
> Use a decent raw converter and convert to 16 bit TIFF.
Could you elaborate please? what is your choice of converter that is giving
you best result ?
"decent converter" is not a suggestion.
Thanks.
> To be clear, you're using PTGui not merely to develop the raw images,
> but also to stitch/fuse
Am Donnerstag, 12. Juli 2018 08:45:47 UTC+2 schrieb Groogle:
>
> > Other than the work required (which may be non-trivial, balanced
> > against the fact that the Hugin developers have other things they
> > want to do, not to mention lives outside of Hugin), there's no
> > reason Hugin couldn't
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:57:26 -0700, Albert Szostkiewicz wrote:
>> PTGui uses only a fraction of that possibilities. I'd never shoot raw
>> only for PTGui's raw import. It's not worth the hassle at all.
>
> What is your suggested workflow then ?
To be clear, you're using PTGui not merely to
Am 12.07.2018 um 15:57 schrieb Albert Szostkiewicz:
What is your suggested workflow then ?
Use a decent raw converter and convert to 16 bit TIFF.
--
Erik Krause
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
A list of frequently
> PTGui uses only a fraction of that possibilities. I'd never shoot raw
> only for PTGui's raw import. It's not worth the hassle at all.
What is your suggested workflow then ?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:18 AM Erik Krause wrote:
> Am 12.07.2018 um 08:46 schrieb Albert Szostkiewicz:
> > I know
Am 12.07.2018 um 08:46 schrieb Albert Szostkiewicz:
I know that PTGui is using dcraw, and there is nothing wrong with it. It is
also not true that dcraw will strip all dynamic range data. You can check
its possibilities here (https://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/)
PTGui uses only a fraction
wow, I did not expect such big and aggressive response :)
I did not meant to offend hugin hardcore fans :)
I know that PTGui is using dcraw, and there is nothing wrong with it. It is
also not true that dcraw will strip all dynamic range data. You can check
its possibilities here
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 8:29:20 -0400, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:15:19 +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 at 8:10:08 -0700, Albert Szostkiewicz wrote:
>>> As much as I wish to stay with Linux (which is my main operating
>>> system) and Hougin
On 07/11/2018 11:17 AM, Marcel Brouillet wrote:
> I read about demosaic-ing and did my RAW-101 class :-). I'm still a noob on
> this. I understand the process would involve a RAW sticher, the PTO being
> generated on some initial set of (rough) converted files. Yet...
> Vladimir, why do you have
2018-07-11 18:19 UTC+02:00, Vladimir Nadvornik :
> On 07/11/2018 10:07 AM, Erik Krause wrote:
>> Am 10.07.2018 um 17:10 schrieb Albert Szostkiewicz:
>>> Personally I am interested in stitching 360 full, true HDR images. I am
>>> hoping to stitch and get as much of original data as I can. With
On 07/11/2018 10:07 AM, Erik Krause wrote:
> Am 10.07.2018 um 17:10 schrieb Albert Szostkiewicz:
>> Personally I am interested in stitching 360 full, true HDR images. I am
>> hoping to stitch and get as much of original data as I can. With PtGui for
>> eg. I am able to throw my Canon RAWs directly
Am 11.07.2018 um 11:09 schrieb David W. Jones:
Well, I think dcraw actually is a dedicated raw converter (it doesn't
do anything else) and certainly seems to offer a lot of command line
options (including dead or hot pixels, noise reduction, highlight
clipping/no
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:15:19 +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 at 8:10:08 -0700, Albert Szostkiewicz wrote:
>> As much as I wish to stay with Linux (which is my main operating
>> system) and Hougin Open software, currently I am forced to run PtGui
>> via wine to do my
I read about demosaic-ing and did my RAW-101 class :-). I'm still a noob on
this. I understand the process would involve a RAW sticher, the PTO being
generated on some initial set of (rough) converted files. Yet...
Vladimir, why do you have the need to separate the colors ? Can't the
stitching
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
Note that the Unix (and thus Linux) way is to have multiple programs,
each able to perform one function and perform it well. It looks like
you're looking for the opposite.
Agreed - making a monolith is not the Unix way.
But allowing programs to work together in a
On July 10, 2018 10:07:07 PM HST, Erik Krause wrote:
>Am 10.07.2018 um 17:10 schrieb Albert Szostkiewicz:
>> Personally I am interested in stitching 360 full, true HDR images. I
>am
>> hoping to stitch and get as much of original data as I can. With
>PtGui for
>> eg. I am able to throw my Canon
Greg 'groggy' Lehey writes:
> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 at 8:10:08 -0700, Albert Szostkiewicz wrote:
>> It streamlines simple work that has to be done without requirement
>> of 3rd party software in the process.
>
> It still requires mouse pushing. If you're looking for automatic raw
>
Am 10.07.2018 um 17:10 schrieb Albert Szostkiewicz:
Personally I am interested in stitching 360 full, true HDR images. I am
hoping to stitch and get as much of original data as I can. With PtGui for
eg. I am able to throw my Canon RAWs directly and proper exposure merge is
being applied. With
On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 at 8:10:08 -0700, Albert Szostkiewicz wrote:
> Personally I am interested in stitching 360 full, true HDR images. I
> am hoping to stitch and get as much of original data as I can. With
> PtGui for eg. I am able to throw my Canon RAWs directly and proper
> exposure merge
Personally I am interested in stitching 360 full, true HDR images. I am
hoping to stitch and get as much of original data as I can. With PtGui for
eg. I am able to throw my Canon RAWs directly and proper exposure merge is
being applied. With Hugin I am forced to use 3rd party apps for conversion
On July 9, 2018 3:55:21 AM HST, Marcel Brouillet wrote:
>
>
>It shows my ignorance on what is in the raw format and what tasks the
>raw
>processor does. This being out of scope (not hugin related) let's not
>clutter this list, but I'd appreciate a recommended reading to
>understand
>what I'm
Also how should we handle bad pixels?
T. Modes schrieb am Mo., 9. Juli 2018, 21:18:
> Am Montag, 9. Juli 2018 16:02:06 UTC+2 schrieb nadv...@suse.cz:
>>
>> It might be possible to convert the mosaic data to independent channels
>> with transparency:
>>
>> source:
>>
>> RGRGRG
>> GBGBGB
>>
Am Montag, 9. Juli 2018 16:02:06 UTC+2 schrieb nadv...@suse.cz:
>
> It might be possible to convert the mosaic data to independent channels
> with transparency:
>
> source:
>
> RGRGRG
> GBGBGB
> RGRGRG
>
> to:
>
> RTRTRT
> TT
> RTRTRT
>
> TGTGTG
> GTGTGT
> TGTGTG
>
> TT
>
On 07/09/2018 03:18 PM, bugbear wrote:
> Marcel Brouillet wrote:
>> so merging RAW files seems to have sense to me.
>
> How (on earth) does one perform spatial interpolation on raw data that
> hasn't been de-mosaic'd ?!
>
> BugBear
>
Hi,
when I think about it...
It might be possible to
It shows my ignorance on what is in the raw format and what tasks the raw
processor does. This being out of scope (not hugin related) let's not
clutter this list, but I'd appreciate a recommended reading to understand
what I'm missing, if you have a good one.
Thanks you either way.
Le
Marcel Brouillet wrote:
so merging RAW files seems to have sense to me.
How (on earth) does one perform spatial interpolation on raw data that
hasn't been de-mosaic'd ?!
BugBear
--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You received
All the answers to this post assumed the raw processing is done before the
stitching (which would work on TIFF/JPG… files). I totally agree on the
objections.
However, does it make sense to* combine raw files into a raw output*, that
can further be processed in rawtherapy ?
Distortions,
35 matches
Mail list logo
