Congrats, Herb. I may check it out too. I would appreciate if you sometime can post paoramas made with this, preferably compared to sstitches done with Photovista.
They may blend differently. PTA blends by morphing (if you want it to). PhotoVista blends by making a "finger-like" assembly between the images. That's the reason why the "assemby-lines" are not visible - they are really "zig-zag lines". Also this is the reason why "floatating" objects or "half persons" may occur in the final image - showing legs of a moving person in one place and the torso in another. Regards Jens http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. oktober 2005 14:57 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PhotoVista 3.5 vs. PTAssembler the nodal point adapter would not have made a difference. Stitcher Express would have done it flawlessly. whenever i have buildings and straight lines, that is what i use. i just tried the new Panorama Factory 4.0 and bought it. it supports 16-bit TIFF files as input and does a good job of blending. 16-bit input is really important to me. Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:31 AM Subject: RE: PhotoVista 3.5 vs. PTAssembler > Thanks a lot for commenting. > I can't say that PTA works flawlessly all the time. Sometimes it even does > very strange things. I guess I'm too much of a beginner right now. But I > do > know, that I could not stitch the shown image flawlessly in PhotoVista. It > keept making small errors in stitching the buildings (some lines didn't > intersect properly), which I had to correct later in PS. Parlty due to the > fact that i did not use a Nodal Point adapter.
