[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: > > It's caused by the way how sensors are made. Most of manufacturers (in > fact all except Sigma with it's Foveon) currently uses so called Bayer > filter [1]. If look at the images in the Wikipedia article [1] you'll > see that every pixel is able to detect only one colo

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

thanks! i won't be able to test this for about a week and a half due to a business trip. i have a few panos where this is happening so i should be able to run several images set through. On Aug 16, 7:39 pm, Gerry Patterson wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Postle wrote: > > >

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Postle wrote: > > On Sun 16-Aug-2009 at 06:27 -0700, John wrote: > > > >For example, I always thought that if one had a 6 megapixel camera > >(CCD or CMOS) of 3000 by 2000 pixels, that would be the "resolution" > >of the image. > > Just to add to what other

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

On Sun 16-Aug-2009 at 06:27 -0700, John wrote: > >For example, I always thought that if one had a 6 megapixel camera >(CCD or CMOS) of 3000 by 2000 pixels, that would be the "resolution" >of the image. Just to add to what others said: a six megapixel camera has 6 million sensors, but 3 million a

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

2009/8/16 John : > > > > On Aug 15, 8:33 am, Bruno Postle wrote: >> In reality the CCD resolution is effectively lower than the pixel >> resolution, so you can always stitch digital camera photos at 60% or >> so without losing much.  It will vary depending on camera, but I >> would expect to star

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

John wrote: > I always thought that if one had a 6 megapixel camera > (CCD or CMOS) of 3000 by 2000 pixels, that would be the "resolution" > of the image. that's the pixel dimension, which is often mistaken for the resolution. resolution is the "ability to resolve", i.e. to show details.

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

On Aug 15, 8:33 am, Bruno Postle wrote: > In reality the CCD resolution is effectively lower than the pixel > resolution, so you can always stitch digital camera photos at 60% or > so without losing much.  It will vary depending on camera, but I > would expect to start seeing aliasing artefacts

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

ok, here is image 11. the 3 bracketed raws plus the tif from enfusing... https://download.yousendit.com/MnFqQ1ZvYXlvQUpjR0E9PQ On Aug 14, 7:53 pm, Gerry Patterson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:43 PM, slaterson > wrote: > > > > > will send it tomorrow morning...  this is from an hdr pano,

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

i tried an optimal size stitch (i use a resolution of 5000 x 2500 until i have everything working well). the problem is still here, image 11 is not being cropped properly during remapping, resulting in part of my camera mount being included in the final pano. curious why the jpg worked at 5000x2

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

On Fri 14-Aug-2009 at 21:53 -0500, Gerry Patterson wrote: > >I noticed you also downsize your final result within Hugin. I remember >reading that nona's interpolaters weren't very good at downsizing and it was >better to render to optimal size and then downsize in another application >such as gim

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:43 PM, slaterson wrote: > > will send it tomorrow morning... this is from an hdr pano, there are > actually three raws, each of the raws was exposed several times and > fused. > > thanks > > Ah, I was wondering how the exposure was so evenly lit. You say each of the r

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

will send it tomorrow morning... this is from an hdr pano, there are actually three raws, each of the raws was exposed several times and fused. thanks On Aug 14, 7:24 pm, Gerry Patterson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM, slaterson > wrote: > > > > > i converted my project to jpg to up

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM, slaterson wrote: > > i converted my project to jpg to upload. it can be downloaded here: > https://rcpt.yousendit.com/726357889/d3635cbcd4b284c9118a79dd55e85e9e > > i ran a test on the jpgs it stitches perfectly, just as i expected the > tifs to stitch. this seem

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

i converted my project to jpg to upload. it can be downloaded here: https://rcpt.yousendit.com/726357889/d3635cbcd4b284c9118a79dd55e85e9e i ran a test on the jpgs it stitches perfectly, just as i expected the tifs to stitch. this seems to indicate there there is something wrong with tif input?

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

i haven't touched the photos. i generated 8-bit tifs from ufraw to feed to hugin. i can upload images, next time i am working it (tomorrow) i'll send a link here. i isolated this to a single image causing the problem in my pano. its not being cropped during remapping like the images right next

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

i'm using it on gentoo 64 bit, q6600. i built enblend from cvs but that was months ago. On Aug 13, 12:15 pm, Gerry Patterson wrote: > On Aug 12, 2009, at 5:33 PM, slaterson   > > > > wrote: > > > i am working on a 360x180 pano using a fisheye lens.  i have cropped > > the nadir shot heavily

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

On Wed 12-Aug-2009 at 15:33 -0700, slaterson wrote: > >i am working on a 360x180 pano using a fisheye lens. i have cropped >the nadir shot heavily as well as the bottom 'row' of photos to remove >the tripod. when i show the pano in the preview window, everything >looks great. when i stitch the

[hugin-ptx] Re: cropping gone bad?

On Aug 12, 2009, at 5:33 PM, slaterson wrote: > > i am working on a 360x180 pano using a fisheye lens. i have cropped > the nadir shot heavily as well as the bottom 'row' of photos to remove > the tripod. when i show the pano in the preview window, everything > looks great. when i stitch t