-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 03.01.2012 15:04, schrieb Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola): > Hi, > > well, maybe someone else can help with the automated CPs finding, > because I really dont use it. I usually put them manually as I also > has never liked the automated results. > > What I can see is that I have reduced the biggest CP distance to 14 > doing a "everything without translation" optimization. After looking > to the CPs table (the buttom beside the preview one) and listing CPs > in order of distance I looked at CP #1, which has the biggest > distance. The image really looks like having some little parallax > problem, but I don't really know how does it affects the auto CP > finding. I usually also don't like CPs over trees and sky, as they > can move from one shoot to the other. I guess there is a way to > filter CPs in the sky (celeste) but don't know about automatically > remove them from trees.
Thanks! I've re-developed the images from RAW-files and did fix the light values a bit. After that I got better results (although the CPs were still only in the bushy area). > I with we could have an option to specify regions where we would > like CPs. Maybe with this an automation would be easier. I am > almost sure many people do panoramas automatically. In my short > experience, even when I generated CPs automatically and used them, I > had to manually remove some, so the automation would not be > possible. That's why I still do CPs manually. I can live with removing some points but adding them is too fiddly for my liking. > After writing up to this point I decided to try another thing: remove the > CPs you added manually (20, 21, 22) and reset the project to execute the > optimization I usually do. I got better results, so, if you have obtained > the points 1-19 automatically then you can automate it :) These were indeed obtained automatically. > I usually do optimizations progressively. I first do a Position (y, > p, r), and after this I do a (y, p, r, v) and to finish I do an > "everything without translation". Doing this in your project gave me > a max distance of 5 pixels and a good final image. I put the project > attached. Thanks, with the above optimisation (develop from raw) I got it down to 2 pts and a reasonable fit. Unfortunately the other images didn't get aligned. I need to practise taking more photos. I am now blaming the fact that the CPs aren't in the foreground on parallax and maybe some blurring. 1/45 should work fine but the inbuilt pentax share reduction may not have lked the short focal length. Cheers, Gerhard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk8EIL8ACgkQfg6TFvELooRiyACfa1KUHf2YTVnxJ2UHWs0imYxD PNEAoJ5VF0ExEFObwgoelESbDn2roMh0 =4CxU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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