Oskar Sander wrote: > > Please. expand on the linear panorama stub anyone. I needed to illustrate > for myself how the model works, in order to understand how to optimize and > build projects. > > A 1, 2 3 how-to would be a very useful additon. > I was hoping to do this with my positive experience! Hasnt happened yet. Maybee a differnt subject matter and more time and it will be pos. I would have thought that the Author would have had all the know how to do this, but usually wiki/docs are left to the user (Good for us, after all they make all the goodies, cant expect them to do everything)
> 2010/5/11 Bruno Postle <br...@postle.net> > >> >> To prememt experimentation (optimizer hasnt produced a linear looking >>> thing >>> yet, so cant ask the q out of experience...) Are the mumors of a limited >>> FOV >>> still true? (i.e can we go off to infty in either direction) >>> >> >> It is limited to 180° which is 'infinity' for a rectilinear projection. >> > > However, that's the "panorama camera" limitation, not on the source > images. > > It should be possible to get around just by setting a synthetic smaller > FOV > of each image, shouldn't it? This will render a smaller scene to be seen > by > the panorama camera. When doing a panorama of for instance a mural i > would > expect that you would like to view it in the end as with the perspective > of > a normal lens, i.e. 60-50degrees, for not to get any WA distortion. A > ultra > wide angle rectilinear could be something below 90deg to put things into > perspective. 180deg will be very distorted in the rectilinear > projection. > I hope this nabble quote business works for normal group members. I have been trying in vain to get useful results, auto control point generation aside (panomatic only finds points in the cloud, celeste helpfully removes them.. repeat loop..) I am finding that all my images get a strange distotion through the middle, like the image is folded over itself, but this is overlayed over the image... damn annoying. does this after x,y,z optimisation. On the panomatic-et.al bandwagon, I have been _trying_ (emp. failing) to write a script to force panomatic to only connect points in a strip on the image, and only consider adjacent images. This was ok, using imagemagic to mask off the bits I dont want, but I cant figure out how to concatenate the output from panomatic for each pair of images so that hugin can use this. Any ideas? Is there any builtin functionality for this. (I remember years ago you could tell hugin that the set was ordered.... glad to see that dialogue gone... until now.) Unfortunately the panorama may be doomed, wide angles for linear panos put too much background info across too many frames. Will be a good experiment for the new mask tool and enblend 8) Thanks. Jasper -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Linear-Panorama-%28Photo-Mosaic%29%2C-new-workflow-X%2CY%2CZ--tp28505458p28577583.html Sent from the hugin ptx mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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
