Re: [PanoToolsNG] help with the right software for my mac?
> tar xvf hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.taror rather
tar -xvf hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar
and the .bz file I guess is
bunzip instead of gunzip, what the advantages are I do not know.
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
- Hi Chris,
You should download the
The other ones are not suitable for your.
The tarball is a source version which you have to compile yourself.
The universal one can be run on both ppc and i386 and is bigger than a
native ppc version, but it will take installed about 50 MB. What's the
10 8Mp+ source images and it's resulting pano take more space. And that's
when talking about jpegs. With 10 8p+ tiff images you have easily 150-250
2009/7/1 Chris Burck <chris.burck@...>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> ok, bruno kindly provided the url for the complete list of hugin
> downloads, which could not seem to navigate to. now i need to ask
> which of the options do i want? there is a link for
> hugin-0.6.1_mac-tools.tar.gz, another for hugin-0.6.1.tar.bz, and
> another for HuginOSX-v061_build2.dmg a universal binary. this last
> one seems like it would use more drive space than a native ppc
> version. so if i can use the first one, apparently a tarball version
> (haven't figured what that means yet), then i guess that would my
> preference. can anyone offer any guidance? thanks again.
- thanks, harry. i'll download the binary for now. i am on a fixed
storage income, so to speak, for the next several months at least so i
have to try and optimize wherever possible. i don't work with large
image files. 99% of what i do is film, scanning black and white negs
at 1200ppi or 2400ppi so the files are usually 10MB or less, and only
the very best of them are stored as tiffs. the rest are either
deleted or saved as jpegs (if i want to share them, i'd be doing so in
jpeg format anyway). thanks again. i appreciate all the help
everyone has kindly given. i'll let you all know how i get on.