Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Stitcher 5.5 Unlimited compared with PTGui 5.8 in auto-stitching mode

Expand Messages
  • robert_harshman
    ... In the limited testing I ve done with circular fisheye stitching, ST5.5U has worked quite well, quick, easy perfect, stitches. At least using a Nikon 8400
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 1 6:03 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > "Calibrate Fisheye Lens" button. Just to make sure and see by
      > myself;) Completely differing from the 10,5 mm "Circular" case, I
      > don't remember having had to adjust the circle from its default
      > position (as it passes exactly by each of the corner of the
      > rectangular image), though.

      In the limited testing I've done with circular fisheye stitching,
      ST5.5U has worked quite well, quick, easy perfect, stitches. At
      least using a Nikon 8400 with an FE-8 adapter.

      The circle marking of the image area approach makes sense in my mind
      for circular fisheye lenses - i.e. where there is some black area
      showing the curve of the image circle. For full frame fisheye lenses
      I do not really understand how this could work as it seems to me
      that the "true" image circle is somewhere outside the corners of the
      image area, and very likely not at the corners. So marking the
      circle at the corners seems like it would not be right or the real
      edge of the image circle, just the edge of the frame. I guess
      perhaps the edge of the frame is all that matters, just does not
      seem logical to me. As the true edge of the image circle for a Nikor
      10.5 on a Canon 1.6 Camera must be quite a bit further out than the
      corners, otherwise this lens would not be a full frame on the Nikon
      1.5 Cameras it was design for.


      >
      > I believe that you meant -0.343?

      Yes, typing error.

      >
      > I had not noticed that such a difference could occur between the
      two ways: it looks like a bug to me.

      As a beta tester of 5.5 have you reported this to Realviz or should
      I?

      >
      > > What were your numbers?

      I guess I misunderstand these numbers and the use of them by the
      stitching process, as I would think that for a given camera/lens
      combo they should always be the same. And the numbers you get should
      be extremely close or even the same as the numbers I would get given
      the same basic setup.

      > Nevertheless I have been surprised by the stitching quality that
      you could get even with this handicap;)

      I've gone back and looked at my test with the 10.5 lens again and it
      seems to be the nadir and zenith shots are the cause of all
      stitching errors in these test. But, not one of the test was done in
      a small tight room with lots of varying details all around. I think
      I'll have to try shooting such a place to built a template.

      Michel, thank you!
    • John Houghton
      ... I m sure the important factor is that there is detail all around, not that it is a small tight room. In fact, you want as large an indoor venue as
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 1 9:05 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "robert_harshman" <image360@...>
        wrote:
        > But, not one of the test was done in
        > a small tight room with lots of varying details all around. I think
        > I'll have to try shooting such a place to built a template.

        I'm sure the important factor is that there is detail all around, not
        that it is a small tight room. In fact, you want as large an indoor
        venue as possible - a church, maybe. Then there is less chance that
        parallax will interfere with the calibration.

        John
      • michel thoby
        ... John, I fully agree with you: I have myself looked around for a church in my property but I couln t find any;) Best regards, Michel
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 2 1:40 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Le 1 août 06 à 18:05, John Houghton a écrit :

          > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "robert_harshman" <image360@...>
          > wrote:
          >> But, not one of the test was done in
          >> a small tight room with lots of varying details all around. I think
          >> I'll have to try shooting such a place to built a template.
          >
          > I'm sure the important factor is that there is detail all around, not
          > that it is a small tight room. In fact, you want as large an indoor
          > venue as possible - a church, maybe. Then there is less chance that
          > parallax will interfere with the calibration.
          >
          > John

          John,

          I fully agree with you: I have myself looked around for a church in
          my property but I couln't find any;)

          Best regards,

          Michel
        • michel thoby
          ... I initially intended to do such a test reporting but I quickly decided not to pursue: There are so many important impacting factors to take into account
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 2 1:58 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Le 29 juil. 06 à 19:47, Mr. Roger Howard a écrit :

            >
            > On Jul 29, 2006, at 2:05 AM, michel thoby wrote:
            >
            >> Hi all,
            >>
            >> Stitcher Unlimited supports fisheye images. The first part of
            >> comparison tests with PTGui is reported here:
            >>
            >> http://michel.thoby.free.fr/PTGui5.8_&_ST5.5/SW_Compared.html
            >
            > Michel,
            >
            > Aside from cost and quality comparisons, the factor that interests me
            > most is in productivity. Is there any way you can report on two
            > aspects of this:
            >
            > 1) How much time did you spend, for each pano, setting up and editing
            > in the respective stitchers?
            > 2) How long does rendering take for each?
            >
            > Cheers,
            >
            > R

            I initially intended to do such a test reporting but I quickly
            decided not to pursue:
            There are so many important impacting factors to take into account
            and so much variation (understatement) from one beta -build number-
            version to the next and sometimes in a few hours span, that I soon
            got conflicting and not repeatable results. I gave up definitively on
            this matter.

            I would certainly recommend to make oneself opinion with its personal
            working environment and by testing the demos as soon as they are
            available.

            Regards,

            Michel
          • michel thoby
            Hi all, The second part of the comparison tests report is posted: http://michel.thoby.free.fr/PTGui5.8_&_ST5.5/SW_Compared_Part2.html Regards, Michel
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 2 2:05 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi all,

              The second part of the comparison tests report is posted:
              http://michel.thoby.free.fr/PTGui5.8_&_ST5.5/SW_Compared_Part2.html

              Regards,

              Michel

              Le 29 juil. 06 à 11:05, michel thoby a écrit :

              > Hi all,
              >
              > Stitcher Unlimited supports fisheye images. The first part of
              > comparison tests with PTGui is reported here:
              >
              > http://michel.thoby.free.fr/PTGui5.8_&_ST5.5/SW_Compared.html
              >
              > Regards,
              >
              > Michel
            • Oliver Mann
              Hello Roger, as another beta tester of St5.5, I compared PTMac with the new Stitcher for speed and quality, using images of my S3 with 10.5 Nikkor. My first
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 2 10:29 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Roger,

                as another beta tester of St5.5, I compared PTMac with the new
                Stitcher for speed and quality, using images of my S3 with 10.5
                Nikkor. My first results with automatic stitching led to fast
                results, but the quality was not good enough (classic stitchin errors
                at the seams). Since the high distortion tool for automatic lens
                correction doesn´t work for fisheyes, I made a camera preset by hand.
                I assembled a pano by manual stitching with control points. After
                adjusting, I exported the camera preset. Now I can use this preset
                for each new pano with the same lens, and the results are very close
                to what I get with PTMac.
                For rendering, I use "smart" - a new option which uses AFAIK enblend
                algorithms. Currently this takes much too long. A 8000 x 4000px
                rendering needs more than 2 hours on my G5. Doing the same with PTMac
                and Enblend (or Stitcher Multi-TIFF output and Enblend standalone)
                takes only 20 minutes, but at Realviz, they say that this will be
                fixed in the next version. There is also an option to use an external
                blending software, but there seems to be a bug, since I didn´t get it
                to work.
                In the current prerelease, there is still a lot of bugs. If Realviz
                is able to fix them, this will be a very good software for the
                professional workflow with fisheye images. Because of its WYSIWIG and
                automatic stitching capabilities, preparing the images for stitching
                is much faster as in PTMac. For good quality, a camera preset or
                template is recommended. Both PTMac and Stitcher can create the same
                quality, using enblend.

                Oliver

                Am 29.07.2006 um 19:47 schrieb Mr. Roger Howard:

                > Aside from cost and quality comparisons, the factor that interests me
                > most is in productivity. Is there any way you can report on two
                > aspects of this:
                >
                > 1) How much time did you spend, for each pano, setting up and editing
                > in the respective stitchers?
                > 2) How long does rendering take for each?



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Roger Howard
                ... Awesome, this is what I was looking to find out. Since quality was determined to be similar, or close enough, the only other factor that matters to me is
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 2 10:36 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Wed, August 2, 2006 10:29 am, Oliver Mann wrote:
                  > In the current prerelease, there is still a lot of bugs. If Realviz
                  > is able to fix them, this will be a very good software for the
                  > professional workflow with fisheye images. Because of its WYSIWIG and
                  > automatic stitching capabilities, preparing the images for stitching
                  > is much faster as in PTMac. For good quality, a camera preset or
                  > template is recommended. Both PTMac and Stitcher can create the same
                  > quality, using enblend.

                  Awesome, this is what I was looking to find out. Since quality was
                  determined to be similar, or close enough, the only other factor that
                  matters to me is performance (productivity), as frankly if it saves me
                  time over my existing process it will pay its steep price off quick enough
                  to be worth it.

                  I currently use PTGUI and, IMHO, that's already way more efficient than
                  PTMac (what I used to use) for setup of new panos... I can have a pano
                  ready to output in a few minutes at most, so Stitcher's GUI will be hard
                  pressed to beat that. But if the rendering itself is painfully slow then I
                  can't see it being worth the bother for now.

                  Perhaps for PTMac users it may be worth a new look when the performance
                  issues get solved?

                  What other features may draw people in? Anything really neat?
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.