Have you thought of using a piece of glass over the section you are photographing to get rid of the 3rd dimension (flatten the folds). Then you have to light it from an angle to ensure there is no glare. Take a look at this article on building a cheap book scanner. They aren't using any special type of glass. http://m.instructables.com/id/Bargain-Price-Book-Scanner-From-A-Cardboard-Box/
On May 28, 2015 2:07 AM, bugbear <[email protected]> wrote: > > Roger Broadie wrote: > > Hello Paul, > > > > I thought your panorama was pretty good, but I don’t think you have fully > > overcome the problems of parallax resulting from creases and folds. The > > main cause, I suspect, is the camera tilt of 6 deg plus or minus from the > > vertical that the pitch values of the optimiser imply. > > I think that 3D items can cause trouble, even if the camera is shooting > perfectly vertical. While the camera may be perfectly > vertical w.r.t item directly beneath it, it is (of course) at an angle to > items at the edge of its FOV. When the camera > is translated in X,Y, (possibly Z), the item is now at a different point in > the new FOV. > > Diagram attached. > > > > > So while I would not normally expect to include the Plane Yaw and Pitch > > parameters in a truly planar photomosaic, it did seem worth trying them > > here. They do seem to help. > > Yes - if the map is NOT a true plane, but compose of multiple planes (or at > least may be thought of as such) > the sub-plane parameters may help, at least "on average". > > > I attach panoa.pto, based on your file, which takes that approach and also > > includes some tuning of the control points and fuller lens optimisation. > > But I hung on to the h and v points, because I think they are one of > > Hugin’s strengths. I have resolved some remaining glitches, either with > > added control points – automatic control point finders seem to find > > otherwise featureless areas of grid-lines difficult to deal with – or with > > masking, but have not tried fully to resolve problems with the > > grid-square P25, where the different shapes of the square as captured in > > e.g. images 17 and 23 illustrate graphically the problems of the parallax > > present in places in your images. The end result yields an average error > > of 1.2 pixels and a maximum of 3.2, for a panorama matching that of > > pano.pto in size. > > Thanks for the observation - I'll go look! > > > > > Broadly, I agree with Terry Duell (Wed, 27 May 2015 at 10:13:42 +1000) that > > the mosaic mode is working OK. He has given us a pto file (Wed, 27 May > > 2015 at 12:34:56 +1000) that does not use the Plane Yaw and Pitch > > parameters. It has an error of 0.5 average and 2.9 maximum, but is for a > > panorama of only about half the width of yours. Still pretty good, though, > > even at the full size. > > Agreed - thank for you effort and thoughts. > > My problem of how to best capture a 1816 map remains, of course. :-) > > BugBear > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/5566CCBF.2070501%40papermule.co.uk. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/9c0be29c-0941-4f1f-94c6-6b638c1626a3%40email.android.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
