-----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
