On 29 April 2011 01:37, Terry Duell <[email protected]> wrote: > Hullo Peter, > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:05:59 +1000, Peter Suetterlin > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Terry, >> >> haven't been reading the list for some time, but thought I reply anyhow. >> I'm a bit puzzled that when using a 512x512 instead of a 256x256 you get >> (really?) bad results when you get reasonable ones for the smaller one, >> even >> if it is contained in the larger one. With the concerns I had about (too >> strong) variations of the PSF over the FOV you still should get a >> reasonably >> reconstructed image in the small subpart that was used to derive it... > > I had initially thought that as well, but advice on the subject from a > signal processing group essentially said that the PSF will not be uniform > hence there won't be a good result. I was probably not doing it correctly. >
There might be some rules how the PSF changes through the image. You could try to derive PSF for several smaller regions and then try to extrapolate the PSF for the rest of an image using the information how PSF changed between this regions depending on their position in the image. However I'm afraid that there are probably more factors affecting PSF. I guess that, for example, the distance from the camera will change the PSF too. Lukas -- 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
