On August 22, 2011 09:51:37 AM Jeffrey Martin wrote:
> Is the usage of QT by
> Autopano Pro (and Autopano Giga) the reason that those programs work
> exactly the same way (i.e. really well, no obvious errors in UI, etc.) on
> mac, windows, and linux? I can't say the same for Hugin. I don't know if
On August 22, 2011 09:49:23 AM Jeffrey Martin wrote:
> > slightly OT: does anybody know what has happened to
> > http://panoverflow.com/ ?
> >
> > It says simply "The website "panoverflow.com" has been disabled. If you
> > are
> > the administrator of this Stack Exchange 1.0 site, please email se1
Question that is somewhat related to this discussion: Is the usage of QT by
Autopano Pro (and Autopano Giga) the reason that those programs work exactly
the same way (i.e. really well, no obvious errors in UI, etc.) on mac,
windows, and linux? I can't say the same for Hugin. I don't know if thi
>
> slightly OT: does anybody know what has happened to
> http://panoverflow.com/ ?
>
> It says simply "The website "panoverflow.com" has been disabled. If you
> are
> the administrator of this Stack Exchange 1.0 site, please email se1-
> ad...@stackexchange.com with any questions you may have
Yuval Levy wrote:
On August 16, 2011 09:11:08 pm Charlie Reiman wrote:
I hope someone has already mentioned Blender (www.blender.org)
No. The proximity is so obvious, thank you for mentioning it.
Implementing a private non-standard UI has a certain advantage in that
documentation and advic
On August 16, 2011 09:11:08 pm Charlie Reiman wrote:
> I hope someone has already mentioned Blender (www.blender.org)
No. The proximity is so obvious, thank you for mentioning it.
> Implementing a private non-standard UI has a certain advantage in that
> documentation and advice don't involve p
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 2:32 AM, kfj <_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I also wonder if we shouldn't plain ask for help. Our question is
> simple: We want a powerful python-based cross-platform application
> framework to write a hugin clone with as little fuss as possible. I
> wonder where we should post s
On August 14, 2011 03:43:38 pm Bruno Postle wrote:
> On Sun 14-Aug-2011 at 02:32 -0700, kfj wrote:
> >Bruno also seems to think it's a good idea:
> >
> >On 14 Aug., 00:20, Bruno Postle wrote:
> >> I've been using bitbucket for a while. I haven't had any
> >> connectivity issues, and the various w
On Sun 14-Aug-2011 at 02:32 -0700, kfj wrote:
Bruno also seems to think it's a good idea:
On 14 Aug., 00:20, Bruno Postle wrote:
I've been using bitbucket for a while. I haven't had any
connectivity issues, and the various web tools are all very fast. I
like that the wiki data is also stor
On August 14, 2011 05:32:45 am kfj wrote:
> I spent half a day surfing and inverstigating, looking for a suitable
> substrate.
I appreciate that and agree with you that we need more investigation.
> when having a good long look at what Qt (and it's python binding pyQt)
Have you checked PySide [
On 13 Aug., 22:48, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On August 11, 2011 01:00:22 pm kfj wrote:
> Well, the bus (or vessel) I am looking for is a basic Python framework to
> start tinkering with. If you look at Hugin, this is how it started: a basic,
> empty wxWidget/C++ shell. I already had a basic wxPytho
On Sat 13-Aug-2011 at 16:48 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote:
On August 11, 2011 01:00:22 pm kfj wrote:
Since it'd be a FOSS project, we might have the repository hosted
with bitbucket. Anything wrong with that?
Wrong? not at all. I've just noticed that they use Hg and that they are free
for FOSS pro
On August 11, 2011 01:00:22 pm kfj wrote:
> On 11 Aug., 15:09, Yuval Levy wrote:
> > On August 11, 2011 05:17:41 am kfj wrote:
> > > I beg to differ. I hope it will be better, because it should be faster
> > > and crash less.
> >
> > Will you deliver? I rather under-promise and over-deliver than
Hi Everybody.
oh dear, this has been quite a thread. :)
I don't have much to add, except a few observations.
- I see quite a lot of frustration from developers about the "spaghetti
code" that is Hugin. You can show me the link from joel on software about
duct-tape programming, yes,
On 12 Aug., 11:54, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> FWIW, I do understand your wish to do this. But I won't be of any help
> because I know close to nothing about Python (as you have probably
> already guessed) and my knowledge of Linux isn't any bigger. But in my
> Windows world, I have often enou
2011/8/11, kfj <_...@yahoo.com>:
>
> On 11 Aug., 15:09, Yuval Levy wrote:
>> Isn't it you the shadow I see in the driver's seat of the bus I am sitting
>> in?
>> Or should I worry and get off at the next stop?
>
> I'm not buying the bus analogy. What I have experienced in this
> discussion is that
On 11 Aug., 15:09, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On August 11, 2011 05:17:41 am kfj wrote:
> > To put it very bluntly: It's a techies' show.
>
> Scary thought. I prefer to see it as a time-share. It is time for the
> techies to drive now, and for the rest of us to take a back seat.
What I mean is: it'
On 11 Aug., 12:16, Stefan Peter wrote:
> On 11.08.2011 11:17, kfj wrote:
> > I wonder if there isn't a way to migrate the existing wxWidgets code
> > to wxPython. On my (Kubuntu) system the two can coexist peacefully.
> > Maybe one can wrap the wxWidgets code so that it can be called from
> >
On August 11, 2011 06:51:43 am Gnome Nomad wrote:
> Yuval Levy wrote:
> > http://www.sqlite.org/famous.html
>
> Hmm, I've used Firefox for a long while. I think one of the reasons that
> it is slower is the use of SQLite. (And, perhaps, the fact that much of
> its UI is really running Javascript.)
On August 11, 2011 06:28:13 am Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> was actually under the impression that what I see of hugin is mostly
> user interface code and glue, while the real work is done in the
> commandline code and libs. (I deduce this from having the make file
> system to do the stitching.)
The re
On August 11, 2011 06:16:18 am Stefan Peter wrote:
> wxPython already _is_ a wrapper for wxWidgets. So, no need to reapeat
> this work.
What need to be wrapped are the Hugin-specific widgets (and it is a lot of
work), which technically speaking are wxWidgets but are too app-specific to be
includ
On August 11, 2011 05:17:41 am kfj wrote:
> spaghetti code
I'm hungry. Let's add some sauce, cheese, and wine!
> To put it very bluntly: It's a techies' show.
Scary thought. I prefer to see it as a time-share. It is time for the
techies to drive now, and for the rest of us to take a back se
Yuval Levy wrote:
- Do we implement our own sqlite3 "engine" into the package or make it a
system dependency which will certainly hinder a lot of end users.
why do you think that it will "certainly hinder a lot of end users"? Do you
use Firefox? Has sqlite hindered you to?
http://www.sql
kfj wrote:
Kay's current proposal, from an end-user point of view, is STATUS QUO. Not
better not worse. Simply unchanged. It is user friendliness for the users of
the codebase, i.e. the developers.
I beg to differ. I hope it will be better, because it should be faster
and crash less.
Hmm,
Simon Oosthoek wrote:
Hi All
As a sideline spectator, I've been half-reading this thread, but I still
have a few ideas that may be rubbish, or perhaps ground some of you,
while you can have a snort about my ignorance ;-)
As I understand hugin, quite a few scripting interfaces have already
been
Hi,
to start with my reply:
Python on OSX:
Snow Leopard (10.6.x) comes standard with 2.5 and 2.6. 2.6 being the default
active version.
Leopard (10.5.x) comes standard with 2.5.1.
Tiger (10.4.x) comes with 2.4.
As far as I can tell the new Lion (10.7.x) comes with 2.7.2 installed.
I'm on Snow Leo
Hi All
As a sideline spectator, I've been half-reading this thread, but I still
have a few ideas that may be rubbish, or perhaps ground some of you,
while you can have a snort about my ignorance ;-)
As I understand hugin, quite a few scripting interfaces have already
been created around the pano
Hi
On 11.08.2011 11:17, kfj wrote:
I wonder if there isn't a way to migrate the existing wxWidgets code
to wxPython. On my (Kubuntu) system the two can coexist peacefully.
Maybe one can wrap the wxWidgets code so that it can be called from
wxPython, so we'd still have the old GUI but could start
On 11 Aug., 04:15, Yuval Levy wrote:
> while waiting for build-install cycles to complete, I had the time to write
> this.
there you go ;-)
> On August 8, 2011 09:15:37 am Harry van der Wolf wrote:
>
> > = User friendliness (not mentioned before, but my point of view):
>
> I can't read Kay's m
while waiting for build-install cycles to complete, I had the time to write
this.
On August 8, 2011 09:15:37 am Harry van der Wolf wrote:
> = User friendliness (not mentioned before, but my point of view):
I can't read Kay's mind, but I think that user friendliness is one of the
major motivator
2011/8/10, Frederic Da Vitoria :
> 2011/8/9, kfj <_...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> On 9 Aug., 20:36, Yuval Levy wrote:
>>> On August 9, 2011 08:57:07 am Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>>> > I did indeed miss the points you so vehemently cited. Which means the
>>> > potential performance issues Harry feared woul
2011/8/9, kfj <_...@yahoo.com>:
>
> On 9 Aug., 20:36, Yuval Levy wrote:
>> On August 9, 2011 08:57:07 am Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>> > I did indeed miss the points you so vehemently cited. Which means the
>> > potential performance issues Harry feared would remain.
>>
>> No. It only means that
On 9 Aug., 20:36, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On August 9, 2011 08:57:07 am Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>
> > There is no reason to be insulting.
>
> It is insulting to experienced veterans when people with less understanding of
> the issues come to half-baked conclusions; pretend that their conclusions
On 9 Aug., 14:57, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> Please, anybody can do mistakes, I certainly do, and I am sure if you
> think of it you'll find you do too sometimes. There is no reason to be
> insulting. I advise you next time to wait and calm down a little
> before answering.
That would have ind
On August 9, 2011 08:57:07 am Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> There is no reason to be insulting.
It is insulting to experienced veterans when people with less understanding of
the issues come to half-baked conclusions; pretend that their conclusions are
universally valid; and keep arguing without
2011/8/9, kfj <_...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
> On 9 Aug., 10:12, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>
>> Yes you can :-)
>
> NO YOU CANNOT. If you had read the very texts you quote attentively
> you would have noticed that they are either about COMPILING TO
> BYTECODE or using PY2EXE.EXE to CREATE A PACKAGE CONTAI
On 9 Aug., 10:12, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> Yes you can :-)
NO YOU CANNOT. If you had read the very texts you quote attentively
you would have noticed that they are either about COMPILING TO
BYTECODE or using PY2EXE.EXE to CREATE A PACKAGE CONTAINING THE PY
FILE THE INTERPRETER AND NEEDED M
2011/8/8, kfj <_...@yahoo.com>:
> On 8 Aug., 15:50, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>
>> Python can be compiled. Actually, cross platform dependency handling
>> is so tricky that a Hugin written in Python would have to be compiled
>> IMO. So the performance won't be noticeably different.
>
> How would
On 8 Aug., 15:50, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> Python can be compiled. Actually, cross platform dependency handling
> is so tricky that a Hugin written in Python would have to be compiled
> IMO. So the performance won't be noticeably different.
How would you compile Python? And why? You may suff
Hello
I am not a Hugin developer either, nor am I a Python developer, but I
feel another user's point of view wouldn't be too much here :-) Just
as Harry did, I will only answer to those items which I have something
to say about.
2011/8/8, Harry van der Wolf :
> = Going to a (in memory) database
Instead of copying large portions of other mails I would like to go directly
into some of the points mentioned with my end user point of view mixed in:
= User friendliness (not mentioned before, but my point of view):
- All solutions offered so far come from the "techies" and relate to the
code ba
On 8 Aug., 09:18, kfj <_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a way, I can't see why we couldn't simply use plain python
look at this hsi script (try save it as xx.py and execute it with
'python xx.py' - you'll have to use your own imges, of course):
from hsi import *
p = Panorama()
i0 = SrcPanoImage ( 'P
On 8 Aug., 01:48, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On August 7, 2011 03:25:31 am kfj wrote:
> > - plus an import/export facility to make human-readable output
> > ...
>
> all of these points strongly toward XML...
>
do you really think XML is human-readable? And think of the bloat if
you want something li
Yuval Levy wrote:
Any ideas?
sqlite to represent the internal data structure (table of images, table of
lenses, table of CPs). The rest will follow. It is already used in many many
apps, no need to reinvent the wheel.
Just so it doesn't become a memory hog like it has in some other apps.
On August 7, 2011 03:25:31 am kfj wrote:
> since you, Tom, mention .ini format, I'd like to mention that python
> has a module (configparser) which readily scans .ini files with very
> little work on the user's part.
Actually Hugin already has/uses wxConfigBase [0] which readily scans/writes
.ini
On 6 Aug., 22:34, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On July 28, 2011 04:26:14 pm Tom Sharpless wrote:
> > If I were going to seriously re-jigger Hugin, I would focus on libpano
> > and its horribly inadequate PT scripts. As a practical matter we are
> > no longer supporting interoperability with the classi
On July 28, 2011 04:26:14 pm Tom Sharpless wrote:
> My 2 cents.
thanks for sharing.
> It seems to me Hugin has been doing rather well during my time with
> it. Chaotic, sporadic, but basically going in the right direction.
Even madness has method. Even the most finely tuned combustion engine
On 29.07.2011, at 15:11, kfj wrote:
> On 29 Jul., 14:25, David Haberthür wrote:
>
>> And on a lighter note, Hugin doesn't seem to be too bad, a friend of mine
>> had great results with it: http://permanenttourist.ch/?p=8669
>
> ... as I say, if it does what it's supposed to do, it does it wel
On 29 Jul., 14:25, David Haberthür wrote:
> And on a lighter note, Hugin doesn't seem to be too bad, a friend of mine had
> great results with it: http://permanenttourist.ch/?p=8669
... as I say, if it does what it's supposed to do, it does it well.
Lovely image! Sort of what you spend three
Dear all.
On 28.07.2011, at 14:18, kfj wrote:
> On 28 Jul., 09:43, Jeffrey Martin <360cit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can't help with that, but I'm wondering, as a thought experiment - how
>> much time are we talking about for this to be done? How many man-years? 1?
>> 5? 20?
>
> In my experience r
On 29 Jul., 05:42, Yuval Levy wrote:
> Kay will be either ROTFL or aiming a rocket launcher at ohloh's head quarters
> when he reads [5].
it must be the GPL in the head of each file, together with the files
containing less code than average per file ;-)
> [5]https://www.ohloh.net/p/hugin/factoi
On 28 Jul., 20:48, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On July 28, 2011 08:18:54 AM kfj wrote:
> > The looming five or twenty or 65 man years question musn't keep us
> > from asking:
> > ...
> Very good questions. And very good argument for a clean rewrite, with a
> clearly defined goal of recreating the exi
My 2 cents.
It seems to me Hugin has been doing rather well during my time with
it. Chaotic, sporadic, but basically going in the right direction.
Its good character and considerable success are largely the result
of...
-- Sound mathematical foundations (PanoTools; EMOR; Vigra; enblend)
-- A clea
On 28 Jul., 19:37, Andreas Metzler
wrote:
> OTOH there is the motivational issue. Man years are invested, and all
> that you get is a software that is less buggy and perhaps easier to
> extend. Compare to this to the sexiness of investing much less time
> to implement the new shiny feature that
On July 28, 2011 08:18:54 AM kfj wrote:
> In my experience recreating a software by rewriting takes much less
> time than the first 'incarnation'.
If it can be of any help, the last time such a total "rebase" happened it took
three months. GSoC 2007. Ippei re-organized the codebase. The goal w
kfj <_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> The looming five or twenty or 65 man years question musn't keep us
> from asking:
> - how many man years we have to invest in bug hunting in undocumented
> or convoluted code (inscrutability)
> - how many man years it costs to refacture parts bit by bit, trying
On 28 Jul., 09:43, Jeffrey Martin <360cit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've seen Kay suggesting that Hugin should be carefully "rebooted" i.e. not
> totally rewritten, but partially rewritten, and built with proper
> documentation etc.
>
> I can't help with that, but I'm wondering, as a thought experime
57 matches
Mail list logo
