[hugin-ptx] Re: fov computation from exifless data

[alf]

No. I didn't even run the optimization process. The fov I'm referring
to was computed in the file dialog after loading the images.
You can verify this by simply creating an image of size 2272 x 1704
without exif data (simply save in PPM format for example) and upon
loading it give it a focal length of 35 mm and a crop factor of 1.
Hugin automatically fills the fov entry box with 52.62 degrees.

On Apr 11, 5:17 am, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad" 
wrote:
> This data is from the optimisation process of the control points.
>
> This fov gives the least error in all the control points.
> hugin or any numeral method systems, need to know the boundaries for
> the fov or any data. In a 360x180, it is 360 degrees horizontally and
> 180% vertically.
>
> So it is good if you have a set of pictures linked with control points
> that wrap around vertically or horizontally. hugin will have
> additional data to adjust fov.
>
> hugin can still minimise the errors by giving estimates to the fov but
> these estimates may be completely wrong to a human being, but you can
> help hugin by giving it the initial estimates for the fov for hugin to
> quickly minimise the errors.
>
> On Apr 9, 9:27 pm, alf  wrote:
>
>
>
> > H, so here's the data for my camera
>
> > width2272
> > height1704
> > focal length (35mm equivalent)  35mm
>
> > From this only data Hugin gives me52.62degrees of FOV : I can not
> > understand where this number comes from
>
> > I tried the suggested Javascript with the same data and I get  176°
> > of hfov ! Obviously wrong because the script needs data to be
> > expressed in the same units (pixels), so the focal length should be in
> > pixels (?)
>
> > On Apr9,2:36 pm, Harry van der Wolf  wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I can explain it to you, but if you take a look at 
> > > , you can do some calculations 
> > > for
> > > yourself and see the calculation if you do a "view page source" (or 
> > > whatever
> > > the command in your browser is). It is in the simple javascript where you
> > > can find how to calculate the FOV, both HFOV and VFOW, based on the focal
> > > length.
>
> > > Please note that this calculation is for a rectilinear lens. I don't know
> > > the calculation for a fisheye lens (don't have one, never bothered to 
> > > know).
> > > I assume when you google you will find the answer soon enough.
>
> > > Harry
>
> > >2009/4/9alf 
>
> > > > I have some images without exif data, for which I know that the35mm
> > > > equivalent focal length was...35mm. I've seen that Hugin with this
> > > > data computes automatically a FOV when I input the images. How
> > > > possible, if the only thing the software knows is the focal length and
> > > > the image size in pixels  Can someone explain me how ? Thanks.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Re: Fisheye in a small room

[slaterson]

On Apr 8, 7:18 pm, Seth Berrier  wrote:
> I've done exactly this before:http://www.panoguide.com/gallery/547/

i have the same blue rug on my floor!  small world...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Re: patches

[Yulia Kotseruba]

On 2009/04/10, at 3:54, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:

>
> 2009/4/9 Yuv :
>>
>> On Apr 4, 11:22 pm, Yulia Kotseruba  wrote:
>>> basically, rm --version on mac doesn't exist, so the make check  
>>> always
>>> fails. If I understood it right and the idea was to test whether the
>>> rm command exists, maybe using which instead of --version will work
>>> better? I tested it on Mac and Linux. Don't have a Windows machine
>>> right now.
>>
>> does not work on Windows. Wrapping it in an #ifdef might help
>>
>> Yuv
>>>
>>
>
> Hi Yulia,
> First, I'd like to thank you for the patches. Second I think it would
> be better to use some other flag for rm which returns 0 than depend on
> more external commands. Does rm --help return 0 on Mac? If yes, it
> could be a solution.
>
> regards,
> Lukáš "stativ" Jirkovský

Hi Lukáš,

rm only returns 0 when it deletes something and there is nothing like  
--version there too. Failing rm was bugging me in the beginning so I  
decided to fix it. Using "which" with #ifdef seems to be working,  
although I agree that "which" is not the best alternative.

Yulia
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Re: fov computation from exifless data

[Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad]

This data is from the optimisation process of the control points.

This fov gives the least error in all the control points.
hugin or any numeral method systems, need to know the boundaries for
the fov or any data. In a 360x180, it is 360 degrees horizontally and
180% vertically.

So it is good if you have a set of pictures linked with control points
that wrap around vertically or horizontally. hugin will have
additional data to adjust fov.

hugin can still minimise the errors by giving estimates to the fov but
these estimates may be completely wrong to a human being, but you can
help hugin by giving it the initial estimates for the fov for hugin to
quickly minimise the errors.



On Apr 9, 9:27 pm, alf  wrote:
> H, so here's the data for my camera
>
> width2272
> height1704
> focal length (35mm equivalent)  35mm
>
> From this only data Hugin gives me52.62degrees of FOV : I can not
> understand where this number comes from
>
> I tried the suggested Javascript with the same data and I get  176°
> of hfov ! Obviously wrong because the script needs data to be
> expressed in the same units (pixels), so the focal length should be in
> pixels (?)
>
> On Apr9,2:36 pm, Harry van der Wolf  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I can explain it to you, but if you take a look at 
> > , you can do some calculations for
> > yourself and see the calculation if you do a "view page source" (or whatever
> > the command in your browser is). It is in the simple javascript where you
> > can find how to calculate the FOV, both HFOV and VFOW, based on the focal
> > length.
>
> > Please note that this calculation is for a rectilinear lens. I don't know
> > the calculation for a fisheye lens (don't have one, never bothered to know).
> > I assume when you google you will find the answer soon enough.
>
> > Harry
>
> >2009/4/9alf 
>
> > > I have some images without exif data, for which I know that the35mm
> > > equivalent focal length was...35mm. I've seen that Hugin with this
> > > data computes automatically a FOV when I input the images. How
> > > possible, if the only thing the software knows is the focal length and
> > > the image size in pixels  Can someone explain me how ? Thanks.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] panoramas from low-quality movies

[Habi]

hey all.

i have a follow-up on the old thread "YouTube Video to Panoramic" [1]:

today while skiing i was a bit bummed that i forgot my camera at home,
since the weather would have been perfect to shoot some mountain-
panoramas. nonetheless i've managed to shoot two panoramas which
turned out nicer than expected, with my phone and from a movie.
i've extracted the image sequence of the movies i've shot while
panning the nice scenery, and took a wild guess about the HFOV,
stitched the slices with hugin and was quite surprised how good the
panoramas turned out. if you'd like to see how it all was done, i've
explained it here: 
http://habi.gna.ch/2009/04/10/panoramas-from-low-quality-movies/

in the process of generating these panoramas i also stumbled over
something quite unexpected and wanted to ask here if this has happened
to somebody else. maybe we can narrow it down so i can file a correct
bug-report or note an error on my side.

when i've added all images from the movie to hugin (0.8.0-RC3 by Harry
on OS X 10.5.6) i got quite a weird behaviour:
trying to generate control points for all the images of the first
movie [2] didn't work, hugin complained that i couldn't execute (any)
of the feature matching scripts [3], which normally work like a charm.
weird, but on thinking a bit more i thought it wouldn't be a good idea
to stitch 166 images anyway. so in the end i resorted to stitching the
panoramas using only 20 or 32 images from the movies, which worked
well, as seen above.

on further inspection i stumbled over even more weirdness: reducing
the amount of imaged didn't really help until down to 124 images. in
this case standard OS X "fail"-dialo popped up [4], but hugin didn't
quit and worked on [also 4], or more precisely didn't do anything at
all. reducing the amount of images to 123 resulted in an almost
instantaneous crash of hugin, after pressing the "Create control
points button". i suspect an "overflow" with some internal counter but
would never be able to find anything in the code. i also suspect that
trying to stitch a panorama with more than 122 images was never
intended.

BTW: using 122 images works well and creates + 41000 control points
after about 15 minutes of searching. But I don't dare to optimize
these on my puny MacBook Pro :)

can somebody with more insight into the codebase and/or a similar set
of images confirm my error or debunk it?

wish you all a happy easter.
habi

[1]: 
http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx/browse_thread/thread/6268f15009f18eb9/
[2]: 166 images, if you want, you can download them here:
http://habi.gna.ch/tmp/pano1.zip it's a 33 MB .zip-file including all
slices
[3]: http://habi.gna.ch/tmp/166.png
[4]: http://habi.gna.ch/tmp/124a.png and http://habi.gna.ch/tmp/124b.png
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Re: hugin and fisheye

[michael crane]

2009/4/10 Tom Sharpless :
>
> Hey Daniel
>
> 1) Helmut did not get sued; only threatened.
> 2) Ipix's patent has been found invalid in at least one court of law.
> 3) Ipix is dead.

That's what I understood, has something changed ?
mick

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Re: Noise reduction with enfuse using image stacks

[Daniel Reetz]

> So I decided to add a chapter (ch. 5) on "noise reduction" to the ImageFuser
> online manual at 
> I wrote the exact same piece on the panotools wiki at
> . However, this one
> from the viewpoint of using enfuse and align_image_stack from the command
> line.
>
> Any comments or improvements are welcome.

Harry,

Thank you for putting this online. I've been using enfuse in much the
same way and it's so great to see this tutorial. I looked it over and
aside from some minor copyediting (eg: the first instance of
"camera's" should read "cameras", a mistake I often make, too), it
looks great.

It's also a nice demonstration of the versatility of these tools.
Sure, you can do this in any number of other applications, but they're
not all free, open-source, and nicely documented on the PanoTools
wiki. ;)

Cheers,
DR

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Re: getting strange blending errors for a very wide panorama

[kevin360]

It finished stitching and the same result.  Here it is:

http://www.bluelavalamp.net/enblend_comparison_2.jpg

The top and middle are the ones from before (see first message in
thread).  The last image is the same .pto file as the first, but with
the Photometric Optimizations all set to zero, so that's not causing
this problem.

Have people been able to stitch very wide panoramas before, one that's
over 95,000 pixels wide?  If they have, then it's gotta be something
on my end, maybe I'm using an older library or something.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Noise reduction with enfuse using image stacks

[Harry van der Wolf]

Hi all,

Almost all readers by now know that enfuse can be used for exposure fusion
[1] to increase the dynamic range and get greater detail and well balanced
exposure in your enfused resulting image.
An increasing number of readers also know that you can use enfuse for
increased Depth Of field (DOF) images, also known as focus stacks or focus
blends [2][3].

I also use enfuse quite often for noise reduction, both for normal photo's,
bracketed sets and darker panorama's.

I can't find any documentation related to that on the web, not even on the
enblend/enfuse project home page [4], so I assume it is a little known or
even unknown fact. I discovered it myself during the Christmas holidays when
making photo's indoors which had (severe) noise in them. Than I got the
golden idea (well, I think it was) to make an image stack and feed it into
enfuse (actually into my ImageFuser).
I assume this enfuse functionality is an undiscovered gem as it has never
been the purpose of the enfuse tool. It's just a nice side effect, and a
very effective one.
I think it is very nice functionality. I know most camera's nowadays have
noise reduction systems but I find these inferior to enfuse. I assume you
can even improve the result with the enfuse expert options, but this is also
an area I'm just beginning to discover.

So I decided to add a chapter (ch. 5) on "noise reduction" to the ImageFuser
online manual at 
I wrote the exact same piece on the panotools wiki at <
http://wiki.panotools.org/Noise_reduction_with_enfuse>. However, this one
from the viewpoint of using enfuse and align_image_stack from the command
line.

Any comments or improvements are welcome.

Hoi,
Harry

[1]: <
http://web4.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/j.kautz/publications/exposure_fusion.pdf>
[2]: <
http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse_reference_manual#Focus_Stacks_.E2.80.93_Depth-of-Field_Increase
>
[3]: <
http://edu-perez-en.blogspot.com/2009/01/greater-depth-field-macro.html>
[4]: http://enblend.sourceforge.net

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Re: getting strange blending errors for a very wide panorama

[kevin360]

On Apr 10, 2:45 am, Lukáš Jirkovský  wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> This is most likely caused by photometric optimization (to be exact by
> vignetting). The easiest way how how to fix the original not-cropped
> panorama is probably by removing the results of vignetting
> optimization. How to do it? Just open the panorama, go to the Camera
> and Lens tab, select all photos and under the Photometric tab (it's
> down on the screen) set all values under the Vignetting and Vignetting
> center shift to zero. Final stitch should look OK then.
>
> Lukáš

Ok, I'll try that.  I just reset the Vignetting and Vignetting Center
Shift to zero
and started up the stitch.  I'll let you know the result in 8-9 hours,
that's how
long it takes to stitch!

I'll admit, I'm not sure I understand why that will make a difference.
I understand vignetting and I could see if I was stitching at a
smaller size
then the full size of the panorama.  But here both are being stitched
at the
full size, the Field of View (208x41) and the Panorama Canvas Size
(104,014x20,504) I'm not changing, they are the same for both
stitches.
The only difference is how big of a piece of the full size I'm
stitching by
adjusting the Right Crop.

I guess what I don't quite understand is, if I have a panorama that's
4 images
wide by 1 image high and the Photometric Optimization was causing
these
cloud features.  Wouldn't I still see these cloud features if I
decided to only
stitch together 3 of the images instead of 4?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[hugin-ptx] Re: patches

[Lukáš Jirkovský]

2009/4/9 Yuv :
>
> On Apr 4, 11:22 pm, Yulia Kotseruba  wrote:
>> basically, rm --version on mac doesn't exist, so the make check always
>> fails. If I understood it right and the idea was to test whether the
>> rm command exists, maybe using which instead of --version will work
>> better? I tested it on Mac and Linux. Don't have a Windows machine
>> right now.
>
> does not work on Windows. Wrapping it in an #ifdef might help
>
> Yuv
> >
>

Hi Yulia,
First, I'd like to thank you for the patches. Second I think it would
be better to use some other flag for rm which returns 0 than depend on
more external commands. Does rm --help return 0 on Mac? If yes, it
could be a solution.

regards,
Lukáš "stativ" Jirkovský

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---