Kay, do you have any examples of images we can see (before / after) showing that this really works? i'd love to see that :)
jeffrey On Friday, May 6, 2011 2:28:37 PM UTC+2, kfj wrote: > > > > On 19 Apr., 10:31, Erik Krause <erik....@gmx.de> wrote: > > > You can also try slightly smaller values for -wSigma which would avoid > > using completely over- or underexposed regions. But you might need > > smaller exposure steps then... > > enfuse also offers to completely ignore pixels above/below a certain > value. This may be more straightforward than to use than sigma and mu. > I haven't used this parameter, but I think the description is > unmistakable: > > Expert options: > --exposure- > cutoff=LOWERCUTOFF[:UPPERCUTOFF[:LOWERPROJECTOR[:UPPERPROJECTOR]]] > LOWERCUTOFF and UPPERCUTOFF are the values > below > or above of which pixels are weighted with > zero > weight in exposure weighting; append "%" > signs > for relative values; default: 0%:100%:anti- > value:value > > I just don't understand what the 'PROJECTOR' values are good for. I > think that maybe this option is new - it's not mentioned in the > enfuse.pdf I have, but enfuse --help lists it. > > 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
