PanoTools:
Re: Re: PT vs Realviz?
Oliver Mann 2005-Jul-27 22:28:23
Roger
maybe it´s time to give XPoints a try. I can´t hold against your
arguments, because I have no experience with this tool, and your
Stitcher problems are well known to me. Seems that I´ve missed
something.
Nevertheless I´m also curious for the next Stitcher version that
comes out later this year. I like the way of masking in and out parts
of the images. Doing this with a 60 images PTMac project would
require a 60 layers Photoshop file with layer masks...
Oliver
Am 26.07.2005 um 01:08 schrieb Roger Howard:
>
> On Jul 25, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Oliver Mann wrote:
>
>
>
>> I want to throw in my two cents for Stitcher. I´m using it several
>> years, side by side with PTMac and Panotools. There are some problems
>> (i.E. stitching dark parts of images, or the not so intelligent lens
>> correction tool), but for large prints it has IMO the best rendering
>> engine (Mitchell, Lanczos...)
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Oliver - I'm always curious what people find useful in various
> tools.
>
> I do a lot of really high-rez panos using PT (PTMac, Xpoints or
> autopano, and enblend) and love it's output at 100%; if I need to
> rez-up I use a third-party interpolator anyway (SmartScale usually).
>
>
>
>> I think that there is no "one and only" application for any needs on
>> the market. If you want to use fisheye images, Panotools (with
>> PTMac,PTGUI, Hugin etc) are the way to go. For high res panos made
>> out of 24 images or more, the Stitcher workflow is straight forward
>> and gives you enough tools to exactly work out the end result (Force
>> stitch, masking out image parts).
>>
>>
>
> Curious why you wouldn't use PT for that too? Not trying to push one
> thing or another - just wondering... while I started with PT just for
> fisheye/spherical work, once xpoints and autopano hit the scene I
> switched to PanoTools for my rectilinear-based panos... since I never
> (or rarely) have to do any control points when I shoot with my
> non-fisheye lenses since I have XPoints and autopano, it's actually
> easier for me than Stitcher (which was the main reason I held on to
> Stitcher - for panos composed of many small-FOV rectilinear images).
>
> For instance, back in June 2004 (I believe) I shot a pano using my
> 50mm
> f1.8 prime (80mm equiv) at the SpaceShipOne launch in Mojave, CA.
> There
> were about 60 frames as I recall, and try as I might I could not get a
> good stitch even with a ton of effort in Stitcher. Lots of Forced
> Stitching, which incrementally lead to more and more errors, so that
> the ends of the pano just would not connect.
>
> Granted, this was just around sunrise, so I had crazy fast moving
> lighting, plus massive crowds around me (all at a distance though, I
> was in the middle of the landing strip) and lots of other
> challenges...
> but that's exactly where Stitcher frustrates me (and since a lot of my
> panos give me these challenges, maybe my experiences are not the
> norm?).
>
> I revisited the pano this year... I ran the source files through
> XPoints, set to 1800 pixel downscaling giving me a TON of control
> points for each image pair. I made one pass to eliminate all the bad
> points... optimized once or twice... spending a total of maybe 10
> minutes in PTMac cleaning things up. Then rendered the full rez and
> passed it through enblend64.
>
> I probably spent 10-15 minutes of manual time for the whole project...
> plus hours (of course) of render time between XPoints, PTMac, and
> enblend. It was amazingly much easier than Stitcher for the same
> project, and I could much better stitching (with less work).
>
> Ever since then I've done all of my rectilinear stitching with
> XPoints/PTMac too... since I shoot a lot for non-interactive/print
> work
> too...
>
> -R
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoTools/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
#removed#
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/