Oh. Dear.
I just loaded one of the shots into a fresh project,
and Hugin shows Hfov(v) 38.
It looks like the fault may well be all of my own making,
and not Hugin's at all.
I'm wondering if I did an ill advise optimise that included the FOV early
on, and forgot about it.
BugBear (off to
Paul Womack wrote:
I think you (and T Modes) may have found the issue.
The camera was pointing STRAIGHT DOWN when the shots were taken, so its angle
sensor reading would have been meaningless.
I shall check the exif of these images against more "normal" samples from other
shooting sessions,
I think you (and T Modes) may have found the issue.
The camera was pointing STRAIGHT DOWN when the shots were taken, so its
angle sensor reading would have been meaningless.
I shall check the exif of these images against more "normal" samples from
other shooting sessions, and see what I find. If
In the meantime I've had a little think about Thomas Modes's
discomfort about the lens's field of view. I think it may help us to
the simplest explanation of Paul Womack ("bugbear")'s problem.
I took Paul's pto file and reoptimised the lens parameters. Instead
of the indicated hfov of 16.5 I
Am Freitag, 23. Juni 2017 10:07:28 UTC+2 schrieb bugbear:
>
> Intriguing. I'm happy to do "whatever it takes" to get a good result,
> but it seems wrong that I have to lie to hugin in such a (I think)
> simple circumstance.
>
> I would have thought (perhaps wrongly) that the maths should
T. Modes wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juni 2017 18:26:30 UTC+2 schrieb bugbear:
My current pto is attached.
I had a short look on it, the main problem is probably the wrong fov. (really
shoot with a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 120 mm from 1 m distance?).
It really was shot that
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juni 2017 18:26:30 UTC+2 schrieb bugbear:
>
>
> My current pto is attached.
>
> I had a short look on it, the main problem is probably the wrong fov.
(really shoot with a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 120 mm from 1 m
distance?).
When I increase the fov the horizontal and
Roger Broadie wrote:
Hello Paul,
I was a little surprised at the idea that Hugin could output a
panorama defined to be rectilinear but which would show with the
barrel distortion apparent in your stitch.
I attached my pto file as evidence in my defence :-)
So I tried converting your
output
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 11:01:10 +0100, paul womack wrote:
I took a pano set of a map recently, using a pano head, from only
3 feet away from the map.
The control points and optimisation aren't perfect, but they're
OK (for the moment). My real show stoppers are:
On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 11:01:10 +0100, paul womack wrote:
> I took a pano set of a map recently, using a pano head, from only
> 3 feet away from the map.
>
> The control points and optimisation aren't perfect, but they're
> OK (for the moment). My real show stoppers are:
>
> 1) Barrel
I took a pano set of a map recently, using a pano head, from only
3 feet away from the map.
The control points and optimisation aren't perfect, but they're
OK (for the moment). My real show stoppers are:
1) Barrel distortion
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/misc/barrel.jpg
my
11 matches
Mail list logo
