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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
    • 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 2 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
      • 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 3 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
        • 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 4 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
          • 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 5 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
            • 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.