2011/11/5 kfj <_...@yahoo.com> > > > On 5 Nov., 07:22, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <groog...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Have you tried hugin masks? > > > > As I was going to say. But in my experience, only exclude masks > > work. Has anybody got include masks to work as well? > > They work for me as well, though I don't use them so much. It only > took me a while to understand what precisely they do and how to employ > that. Include masks basically put exclude masks on all other images > that coincide with the mask and leave the image with the include mask > unmasked. That's the only way to do it since the blending stage has no > notion of masks, only of alpha channels, so you can only take away > bits from images. And that's also the reason why overlapping include > masks don't work - you get holes in the pano. The content is taken > from the bit that's masked with the include mask, excluding all other > content other images could provide for that area. >
So that's what was happening sometimes when I used include masks. Couldn't Hugin rather use a more intuitive logic: merge the parts where two include masks overlap? This could be achieved by setting the alpha channel to 0 only if the pixel is not part of an include mask. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org -- 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
