[hugin-ptx] Re: PTBatcherGUI single instance
> This is what I don't understand about the existing design. Surely > if the queue exists as a file or files on disk, then all you need to > do is modify the queue files. The queue processor shouldn't try to > keep the 'canonical' queue list in memory it should just refer to > the file all the time. This way multiple applications can add > projects to the queue without needing to communicate with another > process. > The queue is only loaded at startup of PTBatcherGUI. So I added code to watch the queue file and to load it again when changed outside. All changes within PTBatcherGUI are done in memory and then saved back to disk. I won't change the existing design so a done this workaround. > I'm not sure we need PTBatcher to be an entire command-line queue > manager if PTBatcherGUI already exists. I agree with you. We should think if we need PTBatcher really. Some comment: PTBatcherGUI supports the following command line parameter: PTBatcherGUI [switches] [project1.pto [prefix1]] [project2.pto [prefix2]] adds the projects to the queue (attention: no -a switch as in PTBatcher) switches -b runs batch immediately -p sets option "run batch projects in parallel" -d sets option "delete *.pto files after stitching" -o sets option "overwrite previous files without asking" -s sets option "shutdown computer after batch is complete" -v sets option "show verbose output when processing projects" > The other thing remaining now is that the 'Save project and send to > batch' button should launch PTBatcherGUI, probably this is what most > users would expect. > I'm working on it, it needs some testing if all cases works. I will commit it in the next days. Thomas --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Stereographic video
costing of the hardware is currently the show stopper for us that want to start doing panoramic videos and there is no software that can take a video file (like mp4), extract the fisheye/Equirectangular and convert them to flash video file currently it a three step process as in http://gardengnomesoftware.com/tutorial.php?movid=video missing is the extract the images from the video file the GardenGome timelaspe panorama video is shot with a normal camera the kpano one was done with a ladybug from http://www.ptgrey.com/products/spherical.asp On Apr 27, 1:10 pm, Tom Sharpless wrote: > My 2 cents: > > The Dizzy video frames were almost certainly shot in a spherical > mirror with the lens pointing straight down, which would give the > "little planet" view without any processing. Probably from a moving > car, whose nose and tail have been hidden under the vertical "stage" > on which the performer performs. > > The panos on the GardenGnome site, on the other hand, are true > panoramic movies, and very impressive. > > Now, is anyone yet able to make 3-D (that is, stereoscopic) > panoramas? or panoramic movies?? That _WOULD_BE_WAY_COOL_ > > -- Tom > > On Apr 22, 10:51 am, Dale Beams wrote: > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Layout panorama model (GSoC)
Bravo, James! This is something obviously useful that for some reason none of the stitchers I use provides. I think the most important target is focusing control point finding on areas of actual overlap -- that should not only eliminate the stupid impossible CPs we sometimes get, but more important, should dramatically cut CP generation time for every pano, and probably improve CP quality too. I concur with Bruno that the layout model should be explicitly spherical, and accommodate the various clever schemes panographers use to cover the sphere (e.g. with an 8mm fisheye, "up 15 deg, 3 around; turn 60 deg; down 15 deg, 3 around; down 90 deg, 1" ). Some people rotate the camera to put a corner of the frame near the pole, so you need to cater for the full Y,P,R coordinates, too. Of course there is no need to burden long-lens users with all that, to them it can just look like a rectangular array :->. Regards, Tom On Apr 26, 10:20 pm, James Legg wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 15:43 -0500, Gerry Patterson wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Gerry Patterson > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM, James Legg > > wrote: > > > Ideas are what I need at the moment. Perhaps when this > > thread has more > > responses you could summarise the ideas on the wiki? > > That would be > > helpful. :-) > > > I can try. It would probably be a good idea to get a page > > started or appended soon. I'll have to check about getting an > > account on the wiki. > > > - Gerry > > > Excuse my ignorance. Which wiki are we taking about here? I hunted > > around on wiki.panotools.org and couldn't find your proposal there. Is > > there another one? > > > I was going to start grabbing some of the ideas and putting them up > > there. > > > - Gerry > > Sorry, all my project proposals for this year are on my userpage, and > the one that got accepted was not the main focus of the > page:http://wiki.panotools.org/User:James_Legg > > I've made a new page that does what you were > expecting:http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2009_project_Layout_Model > > Thanks for your time! > > James --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Stereographic video
My 2 cents: The Dizzy video frames were almost certainly shot in a spherical mirror with the lens pointing straight down, which would give the "little planet" view without any processing. Probably from a moving car, whose nose and tail have been hidden under the vertical "stage" on which the performer performs. The panos on the GardenGnome site, on the other hand, are true panoramic movies, and very impressive. Now, is anyone yet able to make 3-D (that is, stereoscopic) panoramas? or panoramic movies?? That _WOULD_BE_WAY_COOL_ -- Tom On Apr 22, 10:51 am, Dale Beams wrote: > Immersive video, not there yet. > > These are great examples of video panoramas. On a side note to be truely > immersive it would need: > > 1. A spherical room or VR goggles. As impressive as this is (and it is > impressive) one is still limited to a flat view on a flat screen with a > cropped view 4:3(?). My peripheral vision is about 180 and it's out of my > peripheral vision I pick up a lot of information. The ability to move one's > head around while keeping the peripheral vision view is important. > 2. Truely sterographic (ie, 3D). True sterographic is filmed with two > cameras, about 3-4 inches apart allowing a green/red with 3D or sterographic > glasses. For films this means processing two sets of almost identical film. > With low end video equipment, the cost would be on the processing power of > the individual. > 3. Interactive. The ability to click within the panorama and get audio > feedback. Ie., seeing and individual with a clickable icon/box and clicking > on them to hear the audio from them. This would require more effort, as it > would require a "reporting" team to get audo interaction between two people > or about objects within the panorama. This is great for live events or > museams. > 4. "Live". This i see as almost impossible, but not quite. Stitching six > different "live" video feeds with small delays would make it truly a > immersive experience. The videographer could be fitted with a earpiece and > then under the control of a web viewer (one at a time) could be directed to > interview individuals or inspect objects. This would be truely live > television. > 5. The implications of "live" panoramas are enourmous. For example, a team > of indivudals with various "light" seeing cameras and and motion detection > technologoy (all of which are availabe to us - in linux no less :) ) could > walk through hostile situations with "an extra set of eyes" watching what > they are watching as a margin of saftey allowing the "human" factor to stay > involved. This would take field agents out of the field, put them behind the > saftey of a screen or panoramic room. > > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:59:05 -0700 > From: tom_a_spa...@yahoo.com.au > Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Stereographic video > To: hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com > > video panorama!! > we have been talking about it on panotoolsNG mailing list > here are some examples > > http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2vr_sample.php?demo=timelapsehttp://krpano.com/video/http://tinyurl.com/d6on38 > > tom_a_sparks > > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. > but instead use OpenDocument File Formats or > use > OpenOfficehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.orghttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html > > --- On Wed, 22/4/09, Leon Moctezuma wrote: > > From: Leon Moctezuma > Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Stereographic video > To: hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com > Received: Wednesday, 22 April, 2009, 12:32 PM > > What about this video?...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH_zW_B20XI... it has > a small description about how it was made, it looks pretty much like the > dizzee's video. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Jim Watters > wrote: > Yuval Levy wrote: > > dmg wrote: > > >> I wonder if it can be done with a rig of video cameras to cover the > >> 360 degrees. > > > i suspect they filmed with something like a Ladybug. It does the above. > > Or Immersive Media's Dodeca 2360 camera, that is used by Google street view. > > >> The frames split, remapped, and stitched, and rejoined into a video. > > > probably what they did. and they super-imposed the singer and the people > > after filiming them in studio, separately. > > > Yuv > > I have to agree. The light on the singer does not change when switching > > from evening to night. > > Once each frame is stitched to a pano it can be remapped easily. > > -- > > Jim Watters > > Yahoo ID: j1vvy ymsgr:sendIM?j1vvy > > jwatters @ photocreations . ca > > http://photocreations.ca > > -- > León Moctezuma > > The new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7: Faster, Safer, > Easier. Get it now. > > _ > Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with > you.http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Redisco... --~--~-~--~--
[hugin-ptx] Re: Layout panorama model (GSoC)
On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 15:43 -0500, Gerry Patterson wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Gerry Patterson > wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM, James Legg > wrote: > > > Ideas are what I need at the moment. Perhaps when this > thread has more > responses you could summarise the ideas on the wiki? > That would be > helpful. :-) > > > I can try. It would probably be a good idea to get a page > started or appended soon. I'll have to check about getting an > account on the wiki. > > > - Gerry > > Excuse my ignorance. Which wiki are we taking about here? I hunted > around on wiki.panotools.org and couldn't find your proposal there. Is > there another one? > > I was going to start grabbing some of the ideas and putting them up > there. > > - Gerry Sorry, all my project proposals for this year are on my userpage, and the one that got accepted was not the main focus of the page: http://wiki.panotools.org/User:James_Legg I've made a new page that does what you were expecting: http://wiki.panotools.org/SoC_2009_project_Layout_Model Thanks for your time! James --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: PTBatcherGUI single instance
On Wed 22-Apr-2009 at 22:39 -0700, T. Modes wrote: > >The changes were intended to synchronize PTBatcherGUI and PTBatcher. >Both are using the same queue. But when PTBatcherGUI was running and a >project was added or removed with command line (ptbatcher), >PTBatcherGUI doesn't reflect the changes in the running instance. You >had to restart PTBatcherGUI to see the changes. Currently I try to >reread the queue when the file was changed. This is what I don't understand about the existing design. Surely if the queue exists as a file or files on disk, then all you need to do is modify the queue files. The queue processor shouldn't try to keep the 'canonical' queue list in memory it should just refer to the file all the time. This way multiple applications can add projects to the queue without needing to communicate with another process. >Are there user (especially on linux) which are using PTBatcherGUI to >monitor the queue and manage the queue more likely with command line >ptbatcher? I'm not sure we need PTBatcher to be an entire command-line queue manager if PTBatcherGUI already exists. Much more useful would be a tool for simply adding projects to the queue, `PTBatcher -a` crashes when I try this: PTBatcher -a hugin.pto *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid next size (fast): 0x096ee4d8 *** Aborted ..but the same thing can now be done with your fixed PTBatcherGUI, so I wonder if PTBatcher command-line is needed at all. The other thing remaining now is that the 'Save project and send to batch' button should launch PTBatcherGUI, probably this is what most users would expect. -- Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Layout panorama model (GSoC)
On Sun 26-Apr-2009 at 15:28 -0500, Gerry Patterson wrote: > > As of rev 3805, Hugin will now compute the errors for the control > points on project load. I placed this in a separate function that > can be called in other places as well (say when ever an image is > moved or a CP is modified). Great, it seems to work here. -- Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: PTBatcherGUI single instance
On Sun 26-Apr-2009 at 02:49 -0700, T. Modes wrote: > >I commit the patch to trunk (svn 3802). PTBatcherGUI runs now only one >times (one instance). A second call is blocked and all command line >parameters are transfered to the first instance. Yes seems to work now, I can start PTBatcherGUI, add projects in the GUI, stitch them, add projects by running PTBatcherGUI with a project as an argument. The single instance stuff works ok, though it did once hang with no error. -- Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Layout panorama model (GSoC)
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Gerry Patterson wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM, James Legg wrote: > >> >> Ideas are what I need at the moment. Perhaps when this thread has more >> responses you could summarise the ideas on the wiki? That would be >> helpful. :-) >> >> > I can try. It would probably be a good idea to get a page started or > appended soon. I'll have to check about getting an account on the wiki. > > > - Gerry > Excuse my ignorance. Which wiki are we taking about here? I hunted around on wiki.panotools.org and couldn't find your proposal there. Is there another one? I was going to start grabbing some of the ideas and putting them up there. - 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: Layout panorama model (GSoC)
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Bruno Postle wrote: > > Note that hugin shows an 'error distance' for each control point, > this is actually supplied by the optimiser at the end of each > optimiser run (which is why all these fields are zeroed when you > reload a project). > > This is overdue for fixing, these distances could be calculated > on-demand by hugin. Also, any tool as you are suggesting that tries > to evaluate control points will need to do this calculation, as the > optimisation process is too slow for interactive use. > > I always thought that was weird. As of rev 3805, Hugin will now compute the errors for the control points on project load. I placed this in a separate function that can be called in other places as well (say when ever an image is moved or a CP is modified). Right now, it computes the errors for all of the control points. I am guessing this could be enhanced to only update particular CPs that would have changed. - 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: Hugin segfault on exposure optimisation
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 18:17, kevin wrote: > > Ok, here's a test of two images that is causing the seg fault: > > http://www.bluelavalamp.net/hugin/1.jpg > http://www.bluelavalamp.net/hugin/2.jpg > http://www.bluelavalamp.net/hugin/1-2.pto > > With that pto file and version 3736, if I just click on the exposure > tab and then Optimize Now, it runs fine. When it's loaded into > version 3757 it seg faults, here's the bottom of the seg fault: Again, I could not reproduce under another amd64 system. > Can I pull a specific SVN version out? I can try recompiling the 3736 > version to see if it suddenly doesn't work. If that happens then it's > pointing to some different library that I updated from slamd64. Yuv replied on the svn command. You can also do, from the hugin folder: svn up -r 3736 Have you managed to produce a backtrace? I'm no expert on this; what I usually do is gdb hugin and then: "run" when hugin segfaults you can type "bt" and will get a backtrace which will be more helpful (hopefully) Cheers, Seb --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
I've realized that this is most likely the bug #2629418 (https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2629418&group_id=77506&atid=550441). Unfortunately I'm not able to reproduce it with any of the panoramas. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
kevin wrote: > Can I pull a specific SVN version out? svn co -r 3736 https://hugin.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/hugin/hugin/trunk/ hugin thanks for the testing. 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: Alpha Channel Masking
Thanks Harry I look forward to that - I have kept the versions of the images with the Alpha Channel Masks and will give the new release a try with them. alll the best George On 26 Apr, 11:21, Harry van der Wolf wrote: > George, > > I'm on holiday now with very limited internet access (only html). > Christopher Spiel made a patch for malloc and also removed a couple of > memory leaks in enblend/enfuse. I already made a new build and next week > I'll release it with the new enblend/enfuse. Then you can test and hopefully > it works. > > Hoi, > Harry > > 2009/4/25 grow > > > > > I removed all the Alpha Channel masks and the stitch went to a > > successful conclusion bringing us back to the original point that > > the problem lay with the Alpha Channel. > > > all the best > > > George > > > On 25 Apr, 12:31, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Am Samstag 25 April 2009 schrieb grow: > > > > > Thanks Lukas, > > > > > I have tried stitching an 8,000 x 4,000 equirectangular with > > > > -m 1024 > > > > and with > > > > -m 2048 (having quit every other application and cleared out > > > > lots of RAM ) > > > > and each time the result is a crash that looks like the same old > > > > error. > > > > > Next I am going to try -m 512 > > > > > If anyone has a better idea - please shout! > > > > > all the best > > > > Yes, I have -m 400, and no problems. It seems to depend on the malloc > > > function, which may be unable to get more memory in _one_ chunk. > > > > > George > > > > Kornel > > > -- > > > Kornel Benko > > > kornel.be...@berlin.de > > > > signature.asc > > > < 1KViewDownload --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
Milan, I just downloaded your image and pto files and tested with my versions of hugin, I'm getting the seg fault between the versions like I did on my files. hugin 3736 works fine and it will optimize the photometrics, version 3757 and it seg faults. On Apr 26, 11:53 am, Milan Knížek wrote: > Seb Perez-D píše v Ne 26. 04. 2009 v 16:55 +0200:> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at > 16:40, kevin wrote: > > > > Well now both panos are seg faulting. I added some controls point, > > > did some optimizations and then went back to the photometric > > > optimization and it's seg faults every time. > > [...] > > > > This is using the same pto files, only difference is the version of > > > hugin. > > > Has the pto file been posted somewhere? > > I have uploaded the project files (images + pto + mk) to a temporary > directory on my website: > > http://www.milan-knizek.net/files/tmp/hugin_segfault.tar.gz > > I will recompile hugin with debugging symbols in Ubuntu 9.04 and let all > know (however, last time I did so, hugin worked perfectly, just very > slowly...). > > Thanks for testing and regards, > > Milan Knizek > knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) czhttp://www.milan-knizek.net- about > linux and photography --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
Ok, here's a test of two images that is causing the seg fault: http://www.bluelavalamp.net/hugin/1.jpg http://www.bluelavalamp.net/hugin/2.jpg http://www.bluelavalamp.net/hugin/1-2.pto With that pto file and version 3736, if I just click on the exposure tab and then Optimize Now, it runs fine. When it's loaded into version 3757 it seg faults, here's the bottom of the seg fault: Iter: 30, estimate: 1.86571056 -0.577746673 0.127052582 0.051741133 -0.0145448753 25.8396993 -61.8943233 51.3613552 13.796527 -- errors 0.00213988239 0.167745908 Iteration: 31, error: 12.655482: 40% Iteration: 32, error: 12.652851: 40% Iteration: 33, error: 12.652851: 40% Iteration: 34, error: 12.651156: 40% Iteration: 35, error: 12.651156: 40% Iteration: 36, error: 12.650727: 40% Iteration: 37, error: 12.650727: 40% Iteration: 38, error: 12.650497: 40% Iteration: 39, error: 12.650497: 40% Iteration: 40, error: 12.650028: 40% Iter: 40, estimate: 1.83180835 -0.962848661 -0.0326511736 0.00535002158 0.168368876 25.9923595 -62.0485801 51.1051495 13.7973138 -- errors 0.00201654042 0.167344524 Iteration: 41, error: 12.650028: 40% Iteration: 42, error: 12.650028: 40% Iteration: 43, error: 12.650028: 40% Iteration: 44, error: 12.650028: 40% Segmentation fault As for the question of did I compile them with the same compiler and library versions, maybe not. I keep my system updated with slamd64 - current and I know that the 3736 version was compiled on 03/15/09 and the 3757 was compiled on 03/24/09 (I used checkinstall to make the packages). From the slamd64 changelog there were a lot of updates on 03/17/09, so those versions were probably compiled against different library versions. Can I pull a specific SVN version out? I can try recompiling the 3736 version to see if it suddenly doesn't work. If that happens then it's pointing to some different library that I updated from slamd64. On Apr 26, 10:55 am, Seb Perez-D wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 16:40, kevin wrote: > > > Well now both panos are seg faulting. I added some controls point, > > did some optimizations and then went back to the photometric > > optimization and it's seg faults every time. > [...] > > > This is using the same pto files, only difference is the version of > > hugin. > > Has the pto file been posted somewhere? > > S --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 17:53, Milan Knížek wrote: > I have uploaded the project files (images + pto + mk) to a temporary > directory on my website: > > http://www.milan-knizek.net/files/tmp/hugin_segfault.tar.gz > Testing done under Kubuntu 9.04 amd64, Hugin SVN 3800. All exposure optimizations worked without crashing. Cheers, Seb --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
Seb Perez-D píše v Ne 26. 04. 2009 v 16:55 +0200: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 16:40, kevin wrote: > > > > Well now both panos are seg faulting. I added some controls point, > > did some optimizations and then went back to the photometric > > optimization and it's seg faults every time. > [...] > > > > This is using the same pto files, only difference is the version of > > hugin. > > Has the pto file been posted somewhere? > I have uploaded the project files (images + pto + mk) to a temporary directory on my website: http://www.milan-knizek.net/files/tmp/hugin_segfault.tar.gz I will recompile hugin with debugging symbols in Ubuntu 9.04 and let all know (however, last time I did so, hugin worked perfectly, just very slowly...). Thanks for testing and regards, Milan Knizek knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) cz http://www.milan-knizek.net - about linux and photography --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 16:40, kevin wrote: > > Well now both panos are seg faulting. I added some controls point, > did some optimizations and then went back to the photometric > optimization and it's seg faults every time. [...] > > This is using the same pto files, only difference is the version of > hugin. Has the pto file been posted somewhere? S --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
2009/4/26 kevin : > > Well now both panos are seg faulting. I added some controls point, > did some optimizations and then went back to the photometric > optimization and it's seg faults every time. > > I download the SVN version and make packages, luckily I kept around > the older packages so I just went back and found the point where it > works and where it starts seg faulting. > > SVN 3736 is good for both panos > SVN 3757 seg faults for both > > This is using the same pto files, only difference is the version of > hugin. > > > On Apr 26, 8:32 am, kevin wrote: >> I'm getting the same seg fault. I'm running slamd64 and it only seg >> faults during the photometric optimization. I shot two new panos >> last night and one will go through ok the other faults. I tried >> compiling a Debug version but that didn't make a difference. I'm >> running the SVN version 3800. >> >> Could it be one of the libraries we're using and that's why we get it >> but others don't? >> >> On Apr 25, 4:55 am, Milan Knížek wrote: >> >> > Milan Knížek píše v Po 02. 03. 2009 v 20:32 +0100: >> >> > > I am experiencing a segmentation fault with the current SVN version of >> > > hugin on Ubuntu 8.10 amd64 when running exposure optimisation (either >> > > with wizard or manually). >> >> > Anyone else hit by the bug? I tried on Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty amd64 and >> > still the same. >> >> > regards >> >> > Milan Knizek >> > knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) czhttp://www.milan-knizek.net-about >> > linux and photography > > > That's strange, because I don't see any change to photometric optimization between these two particular revisions. Did you compiled both of them with the same compiler and library versions? Anyway backtrace from GDB could help if you can get it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
Well now both panos are seg faulting. I added some controls point, did some optimizations and then went back to the photometric optimization and it's seg faults every time. I download the SVN version and make packages, luckily I kept around the older packages so I just went back and found the point where it works and where it starts seg faulting. SVN 3736 is good for both panos SVN 3757 seg faults for both This is using the same pto files, only difference is the version of hugin. On Apr 26, 8:32 am, kevin wrote: > I'm getting the same seg fault. I'm running slamd64 and it only seg > faults during the photometric optimization. I shot two new panos > last night and one will go through ok the other faults. I tried > compiling a Debug version but that didn't make a difference. I'm > running the SVN version 3800. > > Could it be one of the libraries we're using and that's why we get it > but others don't? > > On Apr 25, 4:55 am, Milan Knížek wrote: > > > Milan Knížek píše v Po 02. 03. 2009 v 20:32 +0100: > > > > I am experiencing a segmentation fault with the current SVN version of > > > hugin on Ubuntu 8.10 amd64 when running exposure optimisation (either > > > with wizard or manually). > > > Anyone else hit by the bug? I tried on Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty amd64 and > > still the same. > > > regards > > > Milan Knizek > > knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) czhttp://www.milan-knizek.net-about > > linux and photography --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 segfault on exposure optimisation
I'm getting the same seg fault. I'm running slamd64 and it only seg faults during the photometric optimization. I shot two new panos last night and one will go through ok the other faults. I tried compiling a Debug version but that didn't make a difference. I'm running the SVN version 3800. Could it be one of the libraries we're using and that's why we get it but others don't? On Apr 25, 4:55 am, Milan Knížek wrote: > Milan Knížek píše v Po 02. 03. 2009 v 20:32 +0100: > > > I am experiencing a segmentation fault with the current SVN version of > > hugin on Ubuntu 8.10 amd64 when running exposure optimisation (either > > with wizard or manually). > > Anyone else hit by the bug? I tried on Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty amd64 and > still the same. > > regards > > Milan Knizek > knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) czhttp://www.milan-knizek.net- about > linux and photography --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Layout panorama model (GSoC)
> * There can be brackets without stacks. For example, if shooting > by hand, you could take a row of pictures at one exposure, > change the exposure time and go back in the opposite direction. > It is unlikely that you can make stacks of the two different > exposures in this case. Therefore, instead of combining stacks > into a high dynamic range image and blending the stacks, it > would be suggested to blend the all images in each bracket > first, then combine the brackets to make the hdr image. Nice idea. I've done something similar by hand. Could you also consider a tolerance for the different brackets? This would help for the following method, which I used several times. Procedure: (mostly when there was a bright sky, but landscape rather dark) Shooting picture by hand, portrait mode, automatic exposure: first row - landscape, horizont at top border, second row - sky, horizont at bottom border Add all pictures to one project, optimize positions and exposure First stitch bottom row with one exposure setting, then second row with an other exposure setting. Finally enfuse both rows to final panorama. Pro: * wider _vertical_ field of view * good exposure in landscape and sky * less pictures are needed as when I would shoot 2 or more exposures for every position (picture count would be two or three times higher in this case) Contra: * doesn't work good with big trees over horizont (ghost removal for enfuse would help in this case, sometimes enblend instead of enfuse did a good job) Thomas --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Alpha Channel Masking
George, I'm on holiday now with very limited internet access (only html). Christopher Spiel made a patch for malloc and also removed a couple of memory leaks in enblend/enfuse. I already made a new build and next week I'll release it with the new enblend/enfuse. Then you can test and hopefully it works. Hoi, Harry 2009/4/25 grow > > I removed all the Alpha Channel masks and the stitch went to a > successful conclusion bringing us back to the original point that > the problem lay with the Alpha Channel. > > all the best > > George > > On 25 Apr, 12:31, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Samstag 25 April 2009 schrieb grow: > > > > > Thanks Lukas, > > > > > I have tried stitching an 8,000 x 4,000 equirectangular with > > > -m 1024 > > > and with > > > -m 2048 (having quit every other application and cleared out > > > lots of RAM ) > > > and each time the result is a crash that looks like the same old > > > error. > > > > > Next I am going to try -m 512 > > > > > If anyone has a better idea - please shout! > > > > > all the best > > > > Yes, I have -m 400, and no problems. It seems to depend on the malloc > > function, which may be unable to get more memory in _one_ chunk. > > > > > George > > > > Kornel > > -- > > Kornel Benko > > kornel.be...@berlin.de > > > > signature.asc > > < 1KViewDownload > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: PTBatcherGUI single instance
> So I recommend commiting this patch, as this fuctionality is very > necessary for the batch processor.. > > -- > Bruno I commit the patch to trunk (svn 3802). PTBatcherGUI runs now only one times (one instance). A second call is blocked and all command line parameters are transfered to the first instance. I also could found the bug with the synchronisation. PTBatcherGUI should now run again. I tested both points on Windows Vista and Ubuntu 9.04 (guess who installed ubuntu ;-) ). On both systems I noticed no problems. Thomas --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
