[hugin-ptx] Get out your most beautiful "Hugin pictures"

[Yuval Levy]

 is now accepting entries until April 20.

Participate in an unusual print exhibition, show your work.

Some stunning entries are already in the gallery and newer ones are in 
the pipeline. We have a printing partner and almost everything is ready 
for a great exhibition, starting May 6 at École Polythecnique de 
Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Yuv

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

[Yuval Levy]

dmg wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Steve Wesemeyer
>  wrote:
>> Would it be possible to externalize this and maybe other magic numbers(if
>> there are any) into a config file so that people can change that rather than
>> having to recompile the library?
>>
>> Cheers,
> 
> Hugin can maintain a fork of the library, and decide to do whatever it wants.

a waste of time if you ask me. the instructions and information on how 
to  tweak and compile the library are widely available, and there are 
people who offer tweaked binaries for download.

The whole overhead of writing/reading a configuration to a file... oh 
well, if somebody is interested, they can provide a patch (which takes 
much longer than digging the information, tweaking and compiling the 
library).

Yuv

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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]

Sorry for my earlier response.

I'm not an authority on Hugin since I have not studied its source code
but since nobody is responding to your post, I can volunteer to
explain with my experience in numerical methods.

Without any clue as to the FOV of an image, Hugin must have been hard
coded to give 35mm as the initial estimate, and it is a good value
indeed. The closer this estimate to the actual FOV, the faster pano
tools will optimise. Most pano pictures use wide angle lenses of at
most 35mm.




On Apr 11, 2:55 pm, alf  wrote:
> 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 size2272x1704
> without exif data (simply save in PPM format for example) and upon
> loading it give it a focal length of35mm and a crop factor of1.
> Hugin automatically fills the fov entry box with52.62degrees.
>
> On Apr11,5:17 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 a360x180, it is360degrees 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 Apr9,9:27 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: hugin and fisheye

[dmg]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Steve Wesemeyer
 wrote:
>
> Would it be possible to externalize this and maybe other magic numbers(if
> there are any) into a config file so that people can change that rather than
> having to recompile the library?
>
> Cheers,

Hugin can maintain a fork of the library, and decide to do whatever it wants.

-- 
--dmg

---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org

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

[Steve Wesemeyer]

Hiya,

>
> > So I think it is absurd to reinstate this limitation.  The only
> > practical effect is to make people who want to use fisheye lenses have
> > to build libpano for themselves.
>
> which is not really a big issue. Until there is a Panotools Foundation that
> can isolate the developers from liability, there is no other way.
>

Would it be possible to externalize this and maybe other magic numbers(if 
there are any) into a config file so that people can change that rather than 
having to recompile the library?

Cheers,
 Steve

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

[dmg]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Tom Sharpless  wrote:
> Hey Daniel
>
> 1) Helmut did not get sued; only threatened.

I don't know the details, but I'd ask, why did he disappear from libpano?

> 2) Ipix's patent has been found invalid in at least one court of law.

non in the united states.

> 3) Ipix is dead.

The patent has new owner.

> So I think it is absurd to reinstate this limitation.  The only
> practical effect is to make people who want to use fisheye lenses have
> to build libpano for themselves.

which is not really a big issue. Until there is a Panotools Foundation that can
isolate the developers from liability, there is no other way.

-dmg

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

[Carl von Einem]

michael crane wrote:
> 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

I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that 2) would be a good enough
reason for the limitation as we have it now (I'd love to see an
unlimited version for sure). If this is/was the one patent that actually
could be used against developers:
2a. Ipix had more than one patent
2b. That patent was only revoked in Europe, see

and also
3. Ipix' intellectual property has new owners now

Carl

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: panoramas from low-quality movies

[Harry van der Wolf]

2009/4/12 Gerry Patterson 

>
>
>
>>
> Hello,
>
> This bug was reported a while ago (long time now) and at the time we were
> in a string freeze.  As a result, I couldn't change the message reported to
> the user. So a debug message was created instead.   The limitation is from
> wxWidgets, specifically the wxExecute() call.  Perhaps a newer version of
> wxwidgets doesn't have this problem.
>

I'm now at wxwidgets 2.8.10 which is the latest WxWidgets version (apart
from svn). I tried with and without the testing code if
(arguments.GetCount() > 127), but it still fails with 127+ parameters.



> I believe the %s parameter causes hugin to generate temporary .pto file
> that is passed to the control point finder.  I'll take a look to confirm
> this.
>

>
> I am unfamiliar with the plug-in architecture that is being used on the Mac
> OSX bundle so no info there.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> - Gerry
>
>
>

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

[Bart.van.Andel]

> I agree, it's looking like it's an Enblend error that's causing the
> problems.
> The intermediate files are clean, they don't show the errors at all.

That's great, so it's not Hugin itself. Now the next step is to find
out what causes the trouble (not purely the resolution, as your other
test proved).


> As for
> Smartblend, it only runs under windows from what I can tell and don't
> have a windows box, so I can't check to see if it would fix the
> problem.

Well, actually it does run on Linux, with Wine. See the 3rd post in
this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx/browse_thread/thread/b11d91ad0280ace0

I haven't tried it (I'm using Windows myself), but if you succeed, I'd
love to see the result!


> As for the output resolution, it is correct.  The camera used is a
> Canon 50D,
> so the images are 3168x4752.  The pano contains 112 images, mostly
> contained
> in a two row setup (the obelisk as you said adding a couple more
> images to the
> height).  It's either 54 or 55 images for each row in the horizontal
> direction.

Ah yes, I see now, I forgot the factor of 1/2 which I had actually
drawn on paper... Sorry!


Best,
Bart
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: panoramas from low-quality movies

[Gerry Patterson]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Harry van der Wolf wrote:

> As I already expected it has to do with the number of arguments. In
> "AutoCtrlPointCreator.cpp" you can find the following code that is used when
> specifying too many command line parameters
>
> wxArrayString arguments = wxCmdLineParser::ConvertStringToArgs(
> autopanoArgs);
> if (arguments.GetCount() > 127) {
> DEBUG_ERROR("Too many arguments for call to wxExecute()");
>  DEBUG_ERROR("Try using the %s parameter in preferences");
> wxMessageBox( _("Could not execute command: " + autopanoExe),
> _("wxExecute Error"), wxOK | wxICON_ERROR, parent);
>  return cps;
> }
>
> It currently can't be changed as it is the maximum number of arguments for
> an external command. I could only apply a patch that makes the error message
> a little clearer.
> wxMessageBox( _("Too many arguments (images). Try using the %s
> parameter in preferences.\n\n Could not execute command: " + autopanoExe),
> _("wxExecute Error"), wxOK | wxICON_ERROR, parent);
>
>
> The mentioned %s parameter (%s -- input panotools script) currently doesn't
> work with the plugin structure due to design. I can't get it to work either
> using the "alternative"  autopano-sift program", not on osx and neither on
> ubuntu. But that might be due to the fact that I don't know how to specify
> the %s script. I assumed that when opening the images and directly saving it
> to a .pto, this .pto was automatically the "input panotools script". But
> obviously it isn't.
>
> Anyone that can shine some light on this?
> If %s is an automatic parameter then where does it get it's value?
>
> Harry
>
>
Hello,

This bug was reported a while ago (long time now) and at the time we were in
a string freeze.  As a result, I couldn't change the message reported to the
user. So a debug message was created instead.   The limitation is from
wxWidgets, specifically the wxExecute() call.  Perhaps a newer version of
wxwidgets doesn't have this problem.  I believe the %s parameter causes
hugin to generate temporary .pto file that is passed to the control point
finder.  I'll take a look to confirm this.

I am unfamiliar with the plug-in architecture that is being used on the Mac
OSX bundle so no info there.

Best Regards,

- Gerry

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: panoramas from low-quality movies

[Harry van der Wolf]

2009/4/12 Bart.van.Andel 

>
> On 11 apr, 10:07, Harry van der Wolf  wrote:
> > I assume the variable for the parameters (that holds the images) is
> > dimensioned to small. The value of a maximum of 128 (4bits) parameters,
> > automatically comes to mind.
>
> It´s probably a minor detail, but 128 (or actually, 127) is 7 bits,
> not 4, as (2^7) - 1 = 127.


You are totally right. 128 is half of 256 (8bits), but that doesn't make it
4bit, so I made a stupid mistake.

As they say: There are 10 groups of people. Those who understand binary and
those who don't.
I thought I was in the first group, but obviously I'm not   :-)

Harry

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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]

I agree, it's looking like it's an Enblend error that's causing the
problems.
The intermediate files are clean, they don't show the errors at all.
As for
Smartblend, it only runs under windows from what I can tell and don't
have a windows box, so I can't check to see if it would fix the
problem.

I did try another test.  I was thinking that maybe the problem is the
fact
that the stitch is so wide, so I took another pano I have with only
maybe 8
images and changed the output size to be 95000x14000 to see what would
result.  That came out corect, no ghosting problems.  So not sure if
it's the
number of images, the resolution, or some combo in between.

As for the output resolution, it is correct.  The camera used is a
Canon 50D,
so the images are 3168x4752.  The pano contains 112 images, mostly
contained
in a two row setup (the obelisk as you said adding a couple more
images to the
height).  It's either 54 or 55 images for each row in the horizontal
direction.




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

[Bart.van.Andel]

Looks to me like Enblend causes the trouble. Most obvious in the sky,
the artifacts seem to be caused by a low frequency blending error
(which explains the wide bands). The errors should not be visible in
the intermediate files generated by Hugin during the process, could
you confirm this? You could try using Smartblend instead of Enblend,
just make sure you set the options right before you do, otherwise
you'll be waiting 6-8 hours ending up with an error and no final
output. Of course you could also have Hugin keep the intermediate
files and perform the last step (the final blending) manually, so you
can try different options without having to recompute the intermediate
images every time.

Besides, I'm wondering if the resolution you chose for the output
really makes sense. As far as I can see from the output, there are
only two series of images overlapping vertically about 50 percent
(except for the obelisk), spanning about half of the final image.
Unless the vertical resolution of the images is about 10,000 real
pixels, this is nonsense. And remember, a 12MP point-and-shoot camera
may deliver 4000x3000 pixels, but at 100% zoom you can see that it
does not really contain that much detail / information.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: panoramas from low-quality movies

[Bart.van.Andel]

On 11 apr, 10:07, Harry van der Wolf  wrote:
> I assume the variable for the parameters (that holds the images) is
> dimensioned to small. The value of a maximum of 128 (4bits) parameters,
> automatically comes to mind.

It´s probably a minor detail, but 128 (or actually, 127) is 7 bits,
not 4, as (2^7) - 1 = 127.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: panoramas from low-quality movies

[Harry van der Wolf]

As I already expected it has to do with the number of arguments. In
"AutoCtrlPointCreator.cpp" you can find the following code that is used when
specifying too many command line parameters

wxArrayString arguments = wxCmdLineParser::ConvertStringToArgs(
autopanoArgs);
if (arguments.GetCount() > 127) {
DEBUG_ERROR("Too many arguments for call to wxExecute()");
DEBUG_ERROR("Try using the %s parameter in preferences");
wxMessageBox( _("Could not execute command: " + autopanoExe),
_("wxExecute Error"), wxOK | wxICON_ERROR, parent);
return cps;
}

It currently can't be changed as it is the maximum number of arguments for
an external command. I could only apply a patch that makes the error message
a little clearer.
wxMessageBox( _("Too many arguments (images). Try using the %s
parameter in preferences.\n\n Could not execute command: " + autopanoExe),
_("wxExecute Error"), wxOK | wxICON_ERROR, parent);


The mentioned %s parameter (%s -- input panotools script) currently doesn't
work with the plugin structure due to design. I can't get it to work either
using the "alternative"  autopano-sift program", not on osx and neither on
ubuntu. But that might be due to the fact that I don't know how to specify
the %s script. I assumed that when opening the images and directly saving it
to a .pto, this .pto was automatically the "input panotools script". But
obviously it isn't.

Anyone that can shine some light on this?
If %s is an automatic parameter then where does it get it's value?

Harry



2009/4/11 Harry van der Wolf 

> Hi Habi,
>
> I can reproduce the problem. Both on my macbook as well as my ubuntu
> server.
>
> I first renamed them to p001.png - p166.png [1] and moved them to /tmp, to
> see whether the command line length could be a problem. It's not that: not
> on osx and neither on ubuntu.
>
> I think it has to do with the number of images (parameters) that hugin
> needs to parse to the autopano control. If I run panomatic from the command
> line with your 166 images like "panomatic -o habi.pto *.png", it works fine
> (it takes long, but it works fine).
>
> I assume the variable for the parameters (that holds the images) is
> dimensioned to small. The value of a maximum of 128 (4bits) parameters,
> automatically comes to mind. "(system command) panomatic -o %o %i", where
> "(system command) panomatic -o o%" are the first four parameters, leaving
> room for 127 -4 =123 prameters (=123 images).
>
> I did a quick of the source code but I'm such a lousy C++ programmer that I
> couldn't find it.
>
> Can you file a bug (or feature request) for it? I'm not sure whether this
> can be expanded to say 256 or 1024 or ...
>
> Harry
>
>
> [1]: I wrote a automatic finder extension for that one about 1½ year ago to
> easily rename large sets of photo's. Select a whole set of photos,
> right-click and specify a prefix. Maybe I should post it here?
>
>
> 2009/4/10 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 "

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

[Lukáš Jirkovský]

2009/4/10 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.

Thats strange. Unfortunately I've no idea what else can cause this.

> Have people been able to stitch very wide panoramas before, one that's
> over 95,000 pixels wide?

AFAIK there are people which used hugin for very large panoramas
(several Gigapixels). But you can try to resize input images to a
smaller scale. I know that it's not clear way how to get rid of this
problem, but if it helps we will know where the problems is and maybe
we would be able to fix it.

> If they have, then it's gotta be something
> on my end, maybe I'm using an older library or something.

I'm not sure about this. Libraries which are used for work with images
(optimization etc.) are bundled within hugin source.

Lukáš

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