On 5 Dez., 21:40, Yuval Levy <goo...@levy.ch> wrote:
[kfj]> > I suppose this is the price to be paid [kfj]> > when using separate tools for separate parts of the panorama process. > > not really. Thomas has shown that with good design you can have the best of > both world, e.g. cpfind and celeste. They started life as separate tools and > you can use them both as separate tools and within the GUI process. > This makes me curious. Are you saying that cpfind and celeste are closer integrated than just being separate processes executed by hugin to do their bit and then deliver back a result? My current conception of the hugin setup is that all the various tools can share data only via files and command line arguments, but they don't share memory or code (apart from, on some platforms, using the same shared libraries). Please correct me if I'm wrong! It seems to me that enblend could only produce seam data by opening all the (nona-warped) files, calculating where it would put the seams, and then maybe produce some output it could pass back to hugin so hugin could show where the seams are, which data then would somehow have to be translated into masks (on the unwarped original images) if enblend were to be made to change anything about where it should put the seems. As an interaction, this sounds very cumbersome to me (in fact, it sounds pretty much like a one-way road). with regards Kay -- 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
