On Sunday, 14 August 2011 at 15:11:17 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
Sorry, just got round to reading this thread.
> On August 14, 2011 05:47:43 am kfj wrote:
>
>> If, of course, we'd find that in certain use scenarios one definitely
>> outshines the other, this would be helpful. Not that I expect this
On August 14, 2011 05:47:43 am kfj wrote:
> it's the image's content that lends itself better to be detected
> with either one or the other detector.
Most likely.
> If, of course, we'd find that in certain use scenarios one definitely
> outshines the other, this would be helpful. Not that I exp
On 13 Aug., 22:50, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On August 13, 2011 03:54:58 am kfj wrote:
> > My approach
> > is to use cpfind by default (which most of the times does a very good
> > job indeed) and only use apsc if cpfind fails - as a fallback option.
>
> This is the *blind* approach. If we develop a s
On August 13, 2011 03:54:58 am kfj wrote:
> On 12 Aug., 16:14, Jeffrey Martin <360cit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i've noticed in a few cases that autopano-sift-c does a better job
> > finding CP's than cpfind.
> >
> > do i need to upload some example images? has anyone else noticed this
> > issue?
>
On 12 Aug., 16:14, Jeffrey Martin <360cit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i've noticed in a few cases that autopano-sift-c does a better job finding
> CP's than cpfind.
>
> do i need to upload some example images? has anyone else noticed this issue?
I'd not call this an 'issue'. Cpfind is using a differe
