All CCDs have limits to how bright or dark a value they can record. RAW
formats can allow software to recover blown highlights to an extent, but
it's really more of an educated guess based on surrounding pixels.
When the sensor in my Maxxum 7D blows a highlight, it's really blown,
and
Yes, this is another an illustration of the advantages of RAW files.
Also, the lower bit depth of JPEGs may have an influence here: maybe a
little more details could have been recovered from the highlights if
the original image had been a RAW or a TIFF.
But now that I think of it more closely, I
JohnPW schrieb am 18.12.12 21:10:
Nice image Carl,
Thanks :-)
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:55:17 AM UTC-6, zarl wrote:
I stitched this panorama
http://worldwidepanorama.org/wwp_rss/go/n7775
I see you wide angle lens. Were you able to capture the whole boat and
occupants in one nadir
Il giorno venerdì 26 ottobre 2012 19:57:14 UTC+2, Giulio ha scritto:
Hello everyone,
i have tried hugin 2011.04 with ubuntu 12.10 (live) and it keeps
crashing. The same happens with 12.04 (installed).
Here is a screencast and a strace:
http://sdrv.ms/VtpbGd
(i haven't found the core)
JohnPW wrote:
• I think Bugbear is advocating this as a nice and quick way to get the most
from a single jpeg image.
That's exactly it.
In my personal case, I went round the Rockies in Canada with a (new) Canon A590,
determined NOT to be a photography geek, but just to snap away.
But the
2012/12/19, Giulio fotogiuli...@gmail.com:
Il giorno venerdì 26 ottobre 2012 19:57:14 UTC+2, Giulio ha scritto:
Hello everyone,
i have tried hugin 2011.04 with ubuntu 12.10 (live) and it keeps
crashing. The same happens with 12.04 (installed).
Here is a screencast and a strace:
On 18/12/12 19:36, JohnPW wrote:
Yup. If you have the RAW, that would be the way to do it.
But, as the prison warden in Coolhand Luke said, I think
what we have here, is a failure to communicate! ;-)
snip
Just a P.S.
That was Coolhand Luke. The prison warden shot him ;-)
--
You received
The visualisation of the seam is clearly a good requirement.
It seems options --save-masks and --load-masks could be a solution.
After some tests, enblend generates the 'masks' files but I do not
understand how to use them:
The size of marks is different than the size of image,
and I do not
Exactly!
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:13:57 AM UTC-6, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I expect the faux-bracketing to keep the lightest parts of the
darkest exposure and the darkest parts of the lightest exposure. If
this were true, there should not be any loss in the highlights.
Yeah, it's a bit non-obvious. If I recall correctly, each mask is the seam
between the blended image *so far* and the next input image.
So the first mask will be the seam between images 1 and 2, then the next
mask is the seam between (1+2) and 3, then (1+2+3) and 4... and so on. If
you can
Great!
Carlos E G Carvalho (Cartola)
http://cartola.org/360
http://www.panoforum.com.br/
2012/12/18 Matias Tukiainen matias.tukiai...@gmail.com
Shooting again tomorrow, fabricated the world's laziest pano head for my
tripod from a CD case, two erasers and a lot of duct tape :'D maybe it'll
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:25:46 PM UTC+11, memecs wrote:
I am referring to the parameters listed here:
http://docs.opencv.org/modules/calib3d/doc/camera_calibration_and_3d_reconstruction.html
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:20:49 PM UTC-8, memecs wrote:
Hello,
does anyone know
Thanks that explains the increasing size of masks.
It seems that masks generated by enblend are pretty difficult to use. To be
useful, a mask would need to be overlaid onto initial images and not only
over the final image.
Is there any way to edit masks and initial images having masks
2012/12/19 JohnPW johnpwatk...@gmail.com
Exactly!
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:13:57 AM UTC-6, Frederic Da Vitoria
wrote:
I expect the faux-bracketing to keep the lightest parts of the
darkest exposure and the darkest parts of the lightest exposure. If
this were true, there should
On Wed 19-Dec-2012 at 12:13 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
But now that I think of it more closely, I understand that
JohnPW's question is still unanswered and that my answers
completely missed the point. I expect the faux-bracketing to keep
the lightest parts of the darkest exposure and
On Tue 18-Dec-2012 at 17:25 -0800, memecs wrote:
I am referring to the parameters listed here:
http://docs.opencv.org/modules/calib3d/doc/camera_calibration_and_3d_reconstruction.html
does anyone know how to map the camera parameters K: [f 0 px; 0 f py; 0 0
1] to a hugin pto file?
If you
On Thu 13-Dec-2012 at 19:28 -1000, Gnome Nomad wrote:
I've noticed something, maybe there's something going on? When I
import a set of photos from my junk phone camera, Hugin asks me
for the HFOV et al. If I select the same photos in a folder, right
click and select Hugin PTO Generator, the
Hello,
I have so much pictures to process that i'm trying to figure out a way to
batch everything.
For the autooptimiser I would like to use the Positions (incremental from
anchor points) options but I don't find a way to translate that into
autooptimiser option.
For the moment my script look
Thanks for you suggestion. The thing is I want to optimize all the
parameters together.
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:12:13 PM UTC-8, Bruno Postle wrote:
On Tue 18-Dec-2012 at 17:25 -0800, memecs wrote:
I am referring to the parameters listed here:
Hi Terry,
I am referring to the first paragraph (up to calibrateCamera). f is the
focal lenght px and py the image center shift, they are all expressed in
pixels.
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:35:21 PM UTC-8, Tduell wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:25:46 PM UTC+11, memecs
I'm getting a flood of compiler warnings. They aren't new, but they're
annoying...
[ 84%] Building CXX object
src/hugin_cpfind/cpfind/CMakeFiles/cpfind.dir/main.cpp.o
In file included from
/home/rlk/sandbox/hugin/src/foreign/vigra/vigra/stdimage.hxx:42:0,
from
Hello All,
I have a new camera and lens (Pentax K30-Sigma 18-200), and have been
testing a few things.
I find that Lensfun has two entries for this lens, I guess from different
contributors.
If I do a stitch without using lensfun calibration, I get a max. error of
2.8 pix.
If I stitch
22 matches
Mail list logo
