No, i use 4592x3448 pixel images. This are the result i get with nearest neighbour and poly3 direct from the original picrures.
<https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-bgJVkLwdBA4/UKpubfYdAtI/AAAAAAAAAHI/OuK967K-sQY/s1600/nearest0000.tif> <https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-u9TKze-Q3z8/UKpueH73xaI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/LTNB30WrOtQ/s1600/poly30000.tif> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-QPpqIE4IDwA/UKpuhBke9EI/AAAAAAAAAHY/Wmtk3JAzyx4/s1600/nearestbig0000.tif> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cheOJtn_550/UKpukqYuDuI/AAAAAAAAAHg/oixOKPw25-w/s1600/poly3big0000.tif> Am Montag, 19. November 2012 18:25:24 UTC+1 schrieb zarl: > > If you used the same kind of input images that I saw in your test zip > (heavily compressed JPGs with a size of only 769 x 1024 pixels each), > then no, I don't think you will see a big difference between these > interpolators. > > Do you really shoot at 769 x 1024? Does your camera support Tiff or Raw? > > Cheers, > Carl > > swissgregi schrieb am 19.11.12 18:05: > > I tested out the different nona interpolator settings in hugin. > > But all the options give me the exact same image output. So the settings > > have no effect. > > Does hugin give the wrong parameters to nona? > -- 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
