Hi David,
just to add my thoughts.
1. I use --wExposure=1 --wSaturation=0 --wContrast=0 with enfuse to
minimise haloes.
2. Although I am a fan of enfuse (see "Image Blending with enfuse"
at http://www.lightspacewater.net/Tutorials/) there are times
when tonemapping works better.
http://viewat.org/?hd=1&i=en&id_aut=139&id_pn=3210&sec=pn shows a
panorama composed of images preblended with enfuse from 6 2-stop
exposure bracketed jpegs -- parameters as in 1.
http://viewat.org/?hd=1&i=en&id_aut=139&id_pn=3226&sec=pn uses
the same inmages merged to hdr with Debvec's hdrmerge and Erik
Reinhard's tm_photographic.
The images a quite similar in quality, but, if you look straight
up, the rendering of the silver leaves agains the sky is _much_
better with the tone-mapped version, whereas enfuse turns some
leaves black.
Does anlyone know how to stop enfude doing that? Or is it
inhernet in the method.
3. There are cases where the above tonemapping approach is not as
good as enfuse:
Moving water -- tonemapping leaves "black holes", enfuse gives
really nice results.
Moving clouds.
Direct sun.
4. As I said in an earlier email, I am planning to change my
approach by using 3 bracketed 14bit raws in place of 6 jpegs.
I am in the process of comparing extracting multiple jpegs using
dcraw -b followed by enfuse and using pfstools to generate an
exr followed by tm_photographic. I'll report back when I have
definite results. I'll also hopefully have stm in use by then.
Peter.
Peter Gawthrop
pe...@gawthrop.net
http://www.lightspacewater.net
From: David Brodsky <tre...@sinister.cz>
Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: HDR post processing.
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:36:57 +0100
>
> Hi,
>
> Erik Krause wrote:
> > D. Beynon wrote:
> >
> >> I have been spending some of my free time over the last few months
> >> working on a command line based HDRI processing/tone mapping toolkit
> >
> > Is there really anyone using HDR tonemapping to get a viewable panorama
> > after there was enfuse? I see the necessity of HDR merging to get
> > panoramas for image based lighting, but I never saw a result of HDR
> > tonemapping (whatever algorithm) that surpasses an enfused result in
> > terms of natural appearance except maybe after long tweaking.
>
> That may be true, but enfuse introduces "flare" around objects with sky
> as a background. I've made quick preview that can be visible on
> http://trekie.sinister.cz/enfuse.jpg and
> http://trekie.sinister.cz/enfuse2.jpg (higher contrast). I've labelled
> parts of the image (source exp, enfuse and tonemap) and marked areas on
> which this effect can be seen.
>
> The tonemap part is just for comparison, I haven't tweaked it much. I
> don't like answering questions like: "Why does this building shines?"
>
> Is there an easy way to get rid of this effect?
>
> Regards,
>
> David Brodsky
>
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
> http://www.netintelligence.com/email
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
