Hello Carlos,
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:14:12 +1100, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho (Cartola)
<cartol...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Maybe there can be some parallax, but I really believe it is very small,
based on what I've seen in another set of images with the same equipment,
where I specifically tried to evaluate it, and also in the fact that I am
being able to stitch it very well when doing the manual process - just
need those manual CPs in the bottom of the images.
Follows another PTO of the same 2 images sent before, optimized with
manual CPs, where the result is quite good IMHO.
Yes, that all works out very well, Much better than I managed here.
On this result I would agree that parallax isn't the issue.
Attached is also a crop of two images from a similar set (made with same
cam+lens+head+tripod) where I tried to evaluate the parallax. it makes
sense, but I think there is very few.
Also will maybe try with other set of images produced with a very well
calibrated equipment to see if the problem of detecting at the bottom
will also happen.
OK.
It might be useful to try a couple of test sets, one set with a similarly
spare set of features near the edges, and one set which has a good set of
features in those regions
Cheers,
--
Regards,
Terry Duell
--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/op.xbj6uiy9rs0ygh%40localhost.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
