Hello,
On 13 July, 20:31, Aron H wrote:
> [...]
> In theory, the benefit is
> numerical stability, and matching best-practice academic research in
> this area. However, are there practical examples of PanoTools failing
> or acting badly because of its distortion model? If this change can
> solve
I'm happy to report that I am able to duplicate the Hugin transform
and camera distortion model in my software, using the basic outline I
described earlier.
I also wanted to report that I compared the results of camera
calibration in Hugin and Bouguet, and they agree very well, in a
limited case.
On Jul 10, 4:38 am, Klaus Foehl wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> One further thought about the cubic and quintic terms only in
> distortion correction.
>
> Let us assume that the mapping from the solid angle space onto the
> focal plane sensor is mathematically well behaved. One standard way is
> to par
Hello all,
One further thought about the cubic and quintic terms only in
distortion correction.
Let us assume that the mapping from the solid angle space onto the
focal plane sensor is mathematically well behaved. One standard way is
to parametrise this into a polynomial, a standard two-dimensio
Hi all
Bruno is right that the way PT normalizes the lens correction is
confusing.
It is also inappropriate, because it makes the correction coefficients
depend on the focal length. Those should be independent, not just to
reduce confusion, but to help stabilize optimization. As Ken has
pointe
On Sun 05-Jul-2009 at 11:17 -0700, Tom Sharpless wrote:
>
>So PT would be better off also using an even-orders-only polynomial
>for radius correction. That may not just be a matter of defining b
>to be always 0, however, because, as Klaus points out, in the present
>scheme the focal length (equi
Look in Modern Optical Engineering, by Warren J. Smith. The aberration
polynomial is given on p. 58.
The terms called "distortion" are B2 (cubic term) and C12 (quintic
term), and correspond to the Bouguet's quadratic and quartic
correction.They are a function only of a power of h (distance from t
Thanks all for a useful discussion.
It is standard practice in lens calibration to compute a "corrected"
radius from the observed radius of an image point by means of a
polynomial. However I think it is becoming clear that PanoTools and
its clients such as Hugin are almost alone in including odd
On Jul 3, 4:08 am, Klaus Foehl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Quick addition and summary from my side.
>
> 1) Barrel distortion correction: panotools uses r* = a*r^4 + b*r^3 +
> c*r^2 + d*r,
> with r being the normalised radius. If it were not for the condition a
> +b+c+d=1
> this parameter d would be ful
Hello,
Quick addition and summary from my side.
1) Barrel distortion correction: panotools uses r* = a*r^4 + b*r^3 +
c*r^2 + d*r,
with r being the normalised radius. If it were not for the condition a
+b+c+d=1
this parameter d would be fully collinear with the focal length.
focal_length_panotool
On 2 July, 16:31, Aron H wrote:
> Is anyone interested in a writeup comparing Bouguet camera calibration
> to Hugin calibration? Somewhere in the wiki?
Yes indeed. I'd like to see how much is maths/physics/symmetry based
(like parameter b in hugin/panotools) and where phenomenology-only
(like
> Thanks! I'll check it out.
> Is anyone interested in a writeup comparing Bouguet camera calibration
> to Hugin calibration? Somewhere in the wiki?
I am very interested. I have a big research project (currently on
hold) that would benefit from such a discussion.
--~--~-~--~~---
On Jul 1, 5:57 pm, Bruno Postle wrote:
> Correct, though your assumption is for landscape format images, it
> is slightly simpler for portrait.
I think you mean that if the input images actually have a height
greater than their width, Hugin will still display the horizontal FOV,
which can the
On Wed 01-Jul-2009 at 11:56 -0700, Aron H wrote:
>
>Given a pixel in the final panorama image, find what sub-pixel it maps
>to
>in a given input image:
>-Given 0,0 in the image center, and FOV, find a yaw/pitch for the
>pixel, and make a direction vector.
>-Rotate that vector by the image's yaw-pi
Hi Klaus,
On Jul 1, 1:31 pm, Klaus Foehl wrote:
> Hello Aron,
>
> If I understand hugin and the undelying panotools correctly, then the
> maths direction is already in the direction you require. In the output
> image, equirectangular, you already have theta and phi angle in 3D for
> each pixel.
Hello Aron,
If I understand hugin and the undelying panotools correctly, then the
maths direction is already in the direction you require. In the output
image, equirectangular, you already have theta and phi angle in 3D for
each pixel. Distance to object is missing of course. With this (x,y)
whic
16 matches
Mail list logo
