Bart van Andel wrote: > When this is done internally (e.g., as an intermediate kind of file), > I don't see a problem. Hugin could just blend the images into an eqr > and then remap later. > > However I think the end user should be bothered with as little steps > as possible to get the desired output. I support this. Usually I need only one projection in the end and I believe I can choose it quite well in the fast preview. Only cropping more precisely is done later with other tools. As long as I don't see anything of this intermediate step and it doesn't take too much additional time it is OK. (Of course, when I want different projections from one panorama I find it stupid to repeat remapping.)
> By the way, if cylindrical projection is the desired output, isn't > there a risk of compressing the zenit and nadir too much when using > eqr as an intermediate format? Just curious, [...] Me too, that's what I fear as well. Isn't it a particular strength of PT to calculate *one* operation that has to be done to each pixel out of all the different deformations and transformations so there are no subsequent steps that might deteriorate quality? regards Joachim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
