[hugin-ptx] Re: hugin-0.8.0_rc4 released
On Thu 18-Jun-2009 at 09:30 +0300, Rich wrote: >> >> * Fixes for Ev value bug that manifests as 'white' images. >this was not a critical bug, but annoying it was. I have no idea if your bug is fixed, it would be useful if you could try and reproduce it with this latest version. -- 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: Clouds in hi resolution pano (Celeste 2.0?)
Yuv escreveu: > hi all, > Hi! See point 2 below, please. > I'm currently dealing with a lot of clouds (when traveling quickly > through many locations I have no other choice than take the meteo > conditions as they are). Since the introduction of Celeste (that works > great, thanks Tim!) this is no longer an issue for the proper > alignment and stitching of everything but the clouds. However in multi- > rows high resolution shots the clouds end up being an issue at the > blending stage. The rows become visible. > > The lazy way to deal with this is to mask out the sky and replace it > with whatever photo editor is at hand, but the result inevitably looks > artificial (shade zones on the mountains and so). > > When Tim was coding Celeste, we sparred about what kind of mask should > Celeste generate around the clouds, if any. > > Now, having such a mask could be useful for the following idea, > assuming the clouds movement is constant throughout the photoshooting: > 1. generate control points for the static parts in the image. Use them > to position the images in relationship to one another and create the > master panoramas, using Celeste to prune CPs from the clouds and mask > the coulded areas. > 2. generate control points in the clouds (area masked by Celeste) and > calculate the translation related to the positioning in 1 (which is > the translation vector multiplied by the time differential between the > reference image and the current image) > Ok, but, if I don´t misunderstood: in the perhaps usual case of wind in mainly the same direction and speed, if someone take shots for a 360 deg panorama, the algorithm has to deal with many cases: clouds approaching the camera, then (say, rotating camera clockwise) coming from left, then going farther, then coming from right, and at 360=0 again towards the photographer. I think that any solution to this problem - cloud movement at 360 degrees apnos - would "distort" the sky somewhere in the result. But, in other cases, when clouds are always going in the same direction/speed, this solution is great! > 3. use the translated cloud images to generate an additional panorama > of the sky > 4. mask the sky out from the static panorama and add the sky panorama > as a layer > > there will be some areas of the sky that will be "empty" (e.g. when a > cloud moves behind an object or out from it), but those will be much > smaller areas to deal with in an image editor than generating the sky > artificially or dealing with the shift across all images. > > to do this we need: > - an additional category of CPs to compose the sky panorama (sky-CPs) > - a measurement of the displacement of those CPs related to the > position of the image in the static pano > - some math to average / optimize the displacement measures > - some glue/script to generate the second panorama > - a tool to mask the sky from the rest of the panorama (I don't think > that Celeste's mask are fine enough for that). > - some glue/script to add the mask and the sky to the resulting > panorama. > > does this sound logic? or have I missed something? should I record > this as a feature request? maybe a future GSoC project? > > Yuv > - > Thanks for your attention, Luís Henrique -- Luis Henrique Camargo Quiroz, M.Sc. - Internal Combustion Engines Group IPT - Sao Paulo State Technological Researches Institute phone: 55-11-37674391 fax: 55-11-37674010 www.ipt.br BRAZIL http://luishcq.tripod.com - http://www.christusrex.org/www2/cantgreg --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Clouds in hi resolution pano (Celeste 2.0?)
Wow! sounds complicated. I must admit my normal panorama shooting process does not require using Celeste. Wouldn't the simple solution be for Celeste to remove points if there is a mixture of cloud and non-cloud points joining two images. But if the only points[1] joining two images are cloud points then they should not be removed. [1] Requires at least 2 non-cloud point to be considered as having non-cloud points. Jim Watters Yuv wrote: > hi all, > > I'm currently dealing with a lot of clouds (when traveling quickly > through many locations I have no other choice than take the meteo > conditions as they are). Since the introduction of Celeste (that works > great, thanks Tim!) this is no longer an issue for the proper > alignment and stitching of everything but the clouds. However in multi- > rows high resolution shots the clouds end up being an issue at the > blending stage. The rows become visible. > > The lazy way to deal with this is to mask out the sky and replace it > with whatever photo editor is at hand, but the result inevitably looks > artificial (shade zones on the mountains and so). > > When Tim was coding Celeste, we sparred about what kind of mask should > Celeste generate around the clouds, if any. > > Now, having such a mask could be useful for the following idea, > assuming the clouds movement is constant throughout the photoshooting: > 1. generate control points for the static parts in the image. Use them > to position the images in relationship to one another and create the > master panoramas, using Celeste to prune CPs from the clouds and mask > the coulded areas. > 2. generate control points in the clouds (area masked by Celeste) and > calculate the translation related to the positioning in 1 (which is > the translation vector multiplied by the time differential between the > reference image and the current image) > 3. use the translated cloud images to generate an additional panorama > of the sky > 4. mask the sky out from the static panorama and add the sky panorama > as a layer > > there will be some areas of the sky that will be "empty" (e.g. when a > cloud moves behind an object or out from it), but those will be much > smaller areas to deal with in an image editor than generating the sky > artificially or dealing with the shift across all images. > > to do this we need: > - an additional category of CPs to compose the sky panorama (sky-CPs) > - a measurement of the displacement of those CPs related to the > position of the image in the static pano > - some math to average / optimize the displacement measures > - some glue/script to generate the second panorama > - a tool to mask the sky from the rest of the panorama (I don't think > that Celeste's mask are fine enough for that). > - some glue/script to add the mask and the sky to the resulting > panorama. > > does this sound logic? or have I missed something? should I record > this as a feature request? maybe a future GSoC project? > > 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] Clouds in hi resolution pano (Celeste 2.0?)
hi all, I'm currently dealing with a lot of clouds (when traveling quickly through many locations I have no other choice than take the meteo conditions as they are). Since the introduction of Celeste (that works great, thanks Tim!) this is no longer an issue for the proper alignment and stitching of everything but the clouds. However in multi- rows high resolution shots the clouds end up being an issue at the blending stage. The rows become visible. The lazy way to deal with this is to mask out the sky and replace it with whatever photo editor is at hand, but the result inevitably looks artificial (shade zones on the mountains and so). When Tim was coding Celeste, we sparred about what kind of mask should Celeste generate around the clouds, if any. Now, having such a mask could be useful for the following idea, assuming the clouds movement is constant throughout the photoshooting: 1. generate control points for the static parts in the image. Use them to position the images in relationship to one another and create the master panoramas, using Celeste to prune CPs from the clouds and mask the coulded areas. 2. generate control points in the clouds (area masked by Celeste) and calculate the translation related to the positioning in 1 (which is the translation vector multiplied by the time differential between the reference image and the current image) 3. use the translated cloud images to generate an additional panorama of the sky 4. mask the sky out from the static panorama and add the sky panorama as a layer there will be some areas of the sky that will be "empty" (e.g. when a cloud moves behind an object or out from it), but those will be much smaller areas to deal with in an image editor than generating the sky artificially or dealing with the shift across all images. to do this we need: - an additional category of CPs to compose the sky panorama (sky-CPs) - a measurement of the displacement of those CPs related to the position of the image in the static pano - some math to average / optimize the displacement measures - some glue/script to generate the second panorama - a tool to mask the sky from the rest of the panorama (I don't think that Celeste's mask are fine enough for that). - some glue/script to add the mask and the sky to the resulting panorama. does this sound logic? or have I missed something? should I record this as a feature request? maybe a future GSoC project? 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: Recentred equirectangular projections.
Hi Tom, I do think that is is one (of many) ways to get pleasing flat pictures from spherical panoramas. If it could be included within Panini that would be great; at the moment I either need to use mathmap where the image is too small to see what I am doing or I need to use a two step process which is slow. Let me know what I can do to help. Best wishes, Peter. From: Tom Sharpless Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Recentred equirectangular projections. Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:36:54 -0700 (PDT) > > Hi Peter > > Very interesting images. As viewed, they seem to combine aspects of > the rectilinear and (generalized) stereographic projections -- which I > guess is what they actually are. > > I can get partial views something like these out of Panini, but only > in one direction at a time, as there the viewpoint (your new center) > does not stay put in the panosphere but rotates along with the > direction of view. And it can only be placed "back of center"; so you > can never see the "near" side of the panosphere. I don't think it > would be hard to give Panini a mode that rotates the sphere around a > fixed viewpoint that you can put anywhere inside it; that should > generate spherical views just like your recentered equirectangulars. > > Do you think this is a new route to nice prints? > > Regards, Tom > > > On Jun 9, 9:29 am, Peter Gawthrop wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > I have been playing with the idea of reprojecting the viewsphere > > (represented by an equirectangular) on to another viewsphere > > (represented by another equirectangular) with a new centre. Apart > > from being a useful intermediate step in creating projections onto > > the plane or cylinder, it produces quite interesting results itself > > -- a sort of out-of-body experience. > > > > Please look athttp://www.lightspacewater.net/Recentred/for an > > example. > > > > Peter. > > > > __ > This email has been scanned by Netintelligence > http://www.netintelligence.com/email --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-0.8.0_rc4 released
On Jun 18, 10:21 am, Yuval Levy wrote: > I assume you have TIFF images? for the test case, converting them to > JPEG would help. Yes, and if you save them with a "low" quality setting, they will be quite small. (I don't see much difference between 75 and 95. my camera gives 4.5 Mb, quality 95 2.8Mb, quality 75: 1Mb, and quality 25 gives 0.46Mb. ) Note that for George Row's "my stitch crashes" problem, I managed to reduce the problem a lot. FIrst I simply deleted the first half of the images that came before the crash. If it still crashes, that means you've reduced the amount of data needed for reproducing the problem by half. If you find it no longer crashes, try adding half of those images back in to see if the crash comes back. etc etc. With George's dataset, I reduced the 28 image project to about 5 images required to reproduce the crash. Roger. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-0.8.0_rc4 released
hi Rick, RueiKe wrote: > I am not sure of the status of the large project Align crash issue, sorry I have not got back to you earlier on your June-5 mail re SVN3811 vs. SVNHEAD. I am traveling and have limited time/access. The topic was Quick Preview, but I had Align crash on me as well. I've set up on both 3811 and the most recent HEAD on my Ubuntu notebook (an ailing Pentium M with 2GB RAM). On my 294 images project Align crashed as well. I found out that the problem was me: I had upgraded to the most recent libpano and I had not noticed the change in ABI that requires to rebuild dependent tools. I rebuilt Hugin and Autopano against the latest libpano and will test the 294 images project soon. The problem may be platform related but I won't have access to Windows until the end of the month. > Let me know if it would be useful > for me to provide a test case. It is too large to upload anywhere > (~16G) have access to, so I would have to mail DVDs if it is > necessary. I assume you have TIFF images? for the test case, converting them to JPEG would help. Also if you test the latest Windows build, note that the one currently published by Ad, while it is the best in the 0.8 series, is not yet equivalent to rc4. Thanks for all 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: enblend algorithm
On Jun 14, 8:12 am, Andrew Mihal wrote: > The seam line optimization uses a two-step approach influenced by > research on active contours. The overlap region between an image pair > is treated as a cost function. Areas of disagreement and areas outside > the intersection region have high cost. First, the result of the > nearest feature transform is vectorized into a polyline, and a > generalized deterministic annealing algorithm is used to adjust the > vertex positions to optimize the cost of the line. The line is > penalized for crossing areas of high cost and vertices are penalized > for moving far from their initial positions in the center of the > overlap region. Second, Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm is used to > fill in the exact seam line between polyline vertices. Hmm. I worked on "real time minimimum cost contour detection" in '92-'95. Why the annealing, there is an algorithm that will give you the exact minimum cost. I would take the initial seam line. take lines perpendicular to this line and along this line I'd sample the cost function. A parabolic function for "distance from the original seam", and some function for the difference between the two images. Preferably the number of points on those perpendicular lines are always the same. This gives a rectangular matrix of cost points. Now, for every point in the matrix, you have three options of getting there from the line above. diagonal from the left diagonal from the right, or straight down. If you move down the matrix this way, you'll find the minimum cost from top to bottom through the matrix, which transforms to a line more or less parallel to the initial seam. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Interface consistency
On Jun 14, 5:07 pm, Bruno Postle wrote: > - Seam blending (enblend) > - Exposure fusing (enfuse) > - Focus stacking (enfuse) > - HDR merging Note that these terms have another advantage: you can abbreviate them to: blending fusing stacking and merging without ambiguity. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
