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

Re: Please try to merge these files for me using hugin

Expand Messages
  • John Houghton
    ... Leonard, I ve put a project file together with stitched result and steps taken (not necessarily ideal, but just as I happened to do it) here:
    Message 1 of 5 , May 3 12:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Leonard Evens <len@...> wrote:
      >
      > If any of you can tell me how you merged these two files maintaining
      > verticals and horizontals for the building facade, I would appreciate
      > it.

      Leonard, I've put a project file together with stitched result and steps taken (not necessarily ideal, but just as I happened to do it) here:

      http://www.johnhpanos.com/pano_jh.zip

      John
    • Thomas Demolliens
      Hi Leonard, You can dl my appempt at http://www.filedropper.com/group1-xslxsr-2images The stitching was done using the new Autopano Pro 2. Kind regards from
      Message 2 of 5 , May 3 10:35 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Leonard,
        You can dl my appempt at http://www.filedropper.com/group1-xslxsr-2images
        The stitching was done using the new Autopano Pro 2.
        Kind regards from France,
        Thomas
      • Leonard Evens
        ... Thank you John. I think I see some of the things I was doing wrong. For one, I can t assume pitch and roll corrections can be ignored although because of
        Message 3 of 5 , May 5 8:52 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 07:17 +0000, John Houghton wrote:
          > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Leonard Evens <len@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > If any of you can tell me how you merged these two files maintaining
          > > verticals and horizontals for the building facade, I would appreciate
          > > it.
          >
          > Leonard, I've put a project file together with stitched result and steps taken (not necessarily ideal, but just as I happened to do it) here:
          >
          > http://www.johnhpanos.com/pano_jh.zip
          >
          > John
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >

          Thank you John. I think I see some of the things I was doing wrong.
          For one, I can't assume pitch and roll corrections can be ignored
          although because of leveling when taking the pictures they are
          negligible. Also, even though distortion is negligible for my lenses,
          it is not zero, so perhaps I have to allow for modest changes.

          But I do have an additional problem. Although I wasn't able to get the
          error as small as you did, I had managed to produce something similar to
          what you got. But after I changed your image to rectangular, the image
          had the same problem mine had, namely it still needed some further
          horizontal perspective correction. I could correct this somewhat by
          changing the center in the viewer, but I still ended up having to make
          a final perspective correction in gimp. It should be possible to get
          hugin to do that automatically, but I still can't figure out how.

          I also have some questions about the intent of the steps you went
          through.

          1. Added images FOV 77 degrees
          2 Changed lens type of 2nd image to be lens 0

          I assume you mean you changed the lens number so that both were 0. What
          was the purpose?

          3. Set lens vertical shift to 230
          4 Generated cps automatically

          I can't do this because the Fedora hugin doesn't allow it due to
          copyright considerations. With enough effort I can fix that, but I am
          happy to enter the control points manually. I ended up with control
          points relatively similar to the ones you used. Is there any advantage,
          except time saved to generating points automatically?

          5. Added some manually
          6. Optimize y,p,r b + y,p,r of image 1

          Was there some rationale for this choice? That is the area that is
          most difficult for me: choosing the right optimization parameters.

          7. Centre on preview window.
          8. Custom optimization as above but with a and d and e also included.

          Same question.

          9. Added 4 vertical line points (2 on each image)

          Why not also horizontal lines? I added some to your project and I
          managed to get the error even smaller than you did, but I still ended up
          with the horizontal perspective problem.

          10. Custom optimize as above but now include p & r of image 0.

          Same question as above?

          11. Average distance is now 1.1 but max is 4.
          12. Optimize with fov and lens param c included.

          Ditto.

          13. Centre the image
          14 Stitch the output..


          --
          Leonard Evens <len@...>
          Mathematics Department, Northwestern University
        • John Houghton
          ... With rectilinear projection, all straight line features are preserved so it is possible to use horizontal line points on the long horizontal architectural
          Message 4 of 5 , May 5 10:08 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Leonard Evens <len@...> wrote:
            > But after I changed your image to rectangular, the image
            > had the same problem mine had, namely it still needed some further
            > horizontal perspective correction. ... It should be possible to get
            > hugin to do that automatically, but I still can't figure out how.

            With rectilinear projection, all straight line features are preserved so it is possible to use horizontal line points on the long horizontal architectural lines in the upper half of the building. It is then necessary to optimize y,p,r of both images in order to allow the image to shift sideways into a position where the horizontal features are both horizontal and parallel.

            > 2 Changed lens type of 2nd image to be lens 0
            >
            > I assume you mean you changed the lens number so that both were 0.
            > What was the purpose?

            Both images were shot with the same lens, so they share the same lens parameters, i.e. the ones associated with lens 0.

            > Is there any advantage, except time saved to generating points
            > automatically?

            No. Provided the points are accurately placed and well spread out, the method of generation is irrelevant.

            > 6. Optimize y,p,r b + y,p,r of image 1
            >
            > Was there some rationale for this choice?

            This is just one of the options on the pull down menu. I don't use Hugin myself as I prefer PTGui, and in that I would set parameters manually: b + y,p,r of image 1. That can be done in Hugin with custom parameters. It doesn't really matter, as the image is going to be centered and levelled later. Either way, the optimization does a basic alignment with correction of barrel distortion (via parameter b). (Actually, I think I had second thoughts and set the parameters as I would for PTGui, after seeing Hugin set y,p,r for both images automatically).
            >
            > 7. Centre on preview window.
            > 8. Custom optimization as above but with a and d and e also included.

            This refines the correction of lens distortions (a & b) and corrects for the image offsets due to the lens shift (d & e).
            >
            > 9. Added 4 vertical line points (2 on each image)
            >
            > Why not also horizontal lines?

            See above. My project specified equirectangular output. Horizontals are not preserved in that projection so horizontal line points aren't appropriate (horizontal lines are not rendered straight).

            > 10. Custom optimize as above but now include p & r of image 0.

            Evidently, as noted above, at some previous point I anchored image 0 by unchecking y,p,r of image 0. When levelling with vertical line points, you need to check y,p,r on all images, except uncheck yaw on any one image to prevent the whole panorama image sliding sideways (unless you also have horizontal line points and need to allow the panorama to shift sideways).

            > 11. Average distance is now 1.1 but max is 4.
            > 12. Optimize with fov and lens param c included.

            Optimizing fov sometimes unfortunately results in fov ending up as 0 (since the control points are then all at the same point and the cp distances are a minimum - i.e. zero). However, often the fov will be optimized to its true value so it's worth trying. Here it worked. Parameter c isn't usually needed, but some lenses have peculiar distortion that c can help to correct. Again, it was worth trying to see if an improvement could be obtained.
            >
            > 13. Centre the image
            > 14 Stitch the output..

            John
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.