Hi bugbear, As you notice, the mathematical lens model, despite its shortcoming, does a halfway decent job at about pixel or half pixel level. In a finished panoramic, you visually notice when images are misaligned at the seam line.
Hugin's sidekick enblend does a really good job in sorting out seam problems. Barrel correction is mathematically ok. The extra freedom parameters a and c give you work if you spread your CPs out, or in problematic cases you position them nearby the seam line. Issues do appear when you want to place your seam line away from the geometrical optimum placement. To avoid a car being cut in half for instance. The limitations also make it necessary that hugin / panotools have to provide different lens models, as rectangular and fisheye lenses cannot be unified. With two more odd polynomials they could. It is amazing how well a Taylor series with four odd terms can approximate tan()... I think I should do a proper write-up. But not tonight. And then there are real world problems like parallax errors, image noise and oversharpened source images. For the latter cases, when CPs become dodgy, hugin is good enough. It is in good cases that its limitations get apparent. Best regards Klaus -- 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/abb21bd1-6320-455f-b38f-b93efecd6e67%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
