On Nov 26, 2012 7:44 AM, "Jan Martin" wrote:
>
> Please be so kind to explain how to do the following using exiftool?
>
> # Exiv2 Google Photo Sphere command file
> # -
> #
>
> # $ exiv2 -m photo-sphere.txt file ...
It is an exiv2 command.
There is likely a way of doing t
A few observations after playing a bit this morning:
I uploaded to google+ using my PC, not Android 4.2:
- Uploaded panoramas are downscaled to 2508 x1254 pixel.
- "Download full size" refers to the downscaled panorama, not the original.
- With Firefox there is a nasty black seam where the left a
Hi,
Has anybody built the latest defaut branch under windows (32 bit - MSVC
2008)? I tried this evening and get the following errors:
6>..\..\..\hugin\src\hugin_base\panodata\Panorama.cpp(1108) : error C2039:
'list' : is not a member of 'std'
6>..\..\..\hugin\src\hugin_base\panodata\Panorama.c
I've found that the latest enfuse version 4.1rc2-ab6c93c11578 will most of
the time segfault when openmp is compiled in. This is for a fairly large
image (13773x9000). I have 5 images that I'm inputting into enfuse and
sometimes it will complete, but most of the time it will segfault. Out of
Yup provided your using Exiftool version 9.07+ then this line in a batch
file works well as a droplet;
exiftool -xmp:UsePanoramaViewer=True -xmp:ProjectionType=equirectangular
-"file:ImageWidth>xmp:FullPanoWidthPixels"
-"file:ImageHeight>xmp:FullPanoHeightPixels" %1
The first two commands tell
Yup getting similar results, also a "grid" appears finer than the boundary
seam for the entire image. Again using FF17 on Windows7x64.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
A list of frequently asked questi
On 26 November 2012 14:47, Geoff G8DHE wrote:
> Yup provided your using Exiftool version 9.07+ then this line in a batch
> file works well as a droplet;
>
> exiftool -xmp:UsePanoramaViewer=True -xmp:ProjectionType=equirectangular
> -"file:ImageWidth>xmp:FullPanoWidthPixels"
> -"file:ImageHeight>
I was hoping I'd have better results than I am. I think I require more
understanding.
I have several 360x180 images stitched from six cameras. The cameras were
stable relatively, but rotated globally.
I want to correct the rotation in all images so as to match the first in
camera orientation.
I
Did I get caught in a spam filter? I replied to this thread last night and
it still hasn't shown up.
--
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.p
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 08:35 +1100, Terry Duell wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 02:33:43 +1100, T. Modes wrote:
>
> > On 22 Nov., 06:40, Tduell wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I guess I am getting used to it, and perhaps my projects are relatively
> >> simple, but I haven't run into di
When "PNG" is set as the output format in the Stitcher tab, the output
inexplicably includes the "Image Offset" (the "oFFs") chunk:
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/book/chapter11.html#png.ch11.div.10
It appears to be completely nonsensical. At least GIMP asks whether
the values should be applied,
2012/11/26 Jan Martin
> - With Firefox there is a nasty black seam where the left and right end of
> the pano touches. (Firefox 17 on 64 bit Ubuntu Linux). Not so with
> Chromium. Also happened with Bruno's pano.
>Anyone observed this too?
>
Yes, I got this, too, on Brunos pano - on Firefox
Michael Witten wrote:
> When "PNG" is set as the output format in the Stitcher tab, the output
> inexplicably includes the "Image Offset" (the "oFFs") chunk:
>
> http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/book/chapter11.html#png.ch11.div.10
>
> It appears to be completely nonsensical. At least GIMP asks whet
2012/11/26 Thomas Pryds
> Yes, I got this, too, on Brunos pano - on Firefox 16 on 64 bit Ubuntu.
> Both the nasty vertical one you mentioned, but also thinner vertical and
> horizontal ones scattered all over the pano. Nothing on Chromium.
>
BTW, exactly the same with Matthew's pano at
https://p
Hi Caleb,
I don't know if I understood half of what you said, as English is also not
my native language, but I'll try to say some things to help.
1. Pay attention to your control points. With those images I would set up
only manual control points, as the automation can get confused with so many
e
Intermittent problems suck big time!
Here are some thoughts:
* Reduce the problem size, i.e. the number of
images or their sizes. That's always a good
idea to start.
* If the bug hits only sometimes, wrap the call
to Enfuse in a for-loop at shell
level, e.g.
for _N in `seq 24`; do
Thanks all for the answer.
The enblend -l1 is definitely the solution and works pretty well, it gives
more gap but at least the temperature are consistent.
Nano doesn't change the value apparently but because the pixels shapes
change the value appears different on my software but that's not an is
On Mon 26-Nov-2012 at 09:12 +, Michael Witten wrote:
When "PNG" is set as the output format in the Stitcher tab, the output
inexplicably includes the "Image Offset" (the "oFFs") chunk:
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/book/chapter11.html#png.ch11.div.10
It appears to be completely nonsensi
On Sun 25-Nov-2012 at 17:43 -0600, Caleb Anderson wrote:
I was hoping I'd have better results than I am. I think I require more
understanding.
I have several 360x180 images stitched from six cameras. The cameras were
stable relatively, but rotated globally.
I want to correct the rotation in all
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Bruno Postle wrote:
>
> ..but it is otherwise ok?
Well, no. I'm not sure what you mean by otherwise ok, but the whole goal
with that was to get the image aligned to the first image, so it's not
really ok. Unless you mean that it's still a properly stitched image,
I gave that a quick shot with some quickly placed control points. It gives
some really weird results when using 360x180 source images. It definitely
did not want me to keep the images in one stack.
http://res0l.net/StratoSphere/stacked.tar.gz contains my pto, inputs, and
sample outputs. Did I do s
I've achieved some pleasing results by using `Hugin' to stitch a
panorama several times with various Exposure Values, and then passing
this faux-bracketed stack through `enfuse' to yield the final,
exposure-fused result; this usually pulls out more details, especially
in places like a sky that migh
You can save and load blend masks. I forget the exact switch, but the
documentation on the enblend site will have it. I'm not sure if you can
from the frontend, though.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Michael Witten wrote:
> I've achieved some pleasing results by using `Hugin' to stitch a
> p
23 matches
Mail list logo
