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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: 'low res' colors after stitching with Hugin?

Expand Messages
  • Bruno Postle
    ... The colour changes are caused by bad photometric (exposure/vignetting) parameters. This could be because photometric optimisation gives bad results when
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue 27-Jul-2010 at 14:23 -0000, David wrote:
      > Try this one:
      > http://www.360cities.net/image/cape-kiwanda-1
      >
      > It looks like the color bit depth is reduced to 4 bits or
      > something like that in some areas.
      >
      > The original files are Canon raw, same exposure and white
      > balance and all look fine with nice smooth color
      > transitions. I exported to 16bit tiff's for Hugin.

      The colour changes are caused by 'bad' photometric
      (exposure/vignetting) parameters. This could be because photometric
      optimisation gives bad results when the photos are not well aligned,
      fast moving clouds could confuse it too.

      Try resetting all Exposure, Colour, Vignetting and Camera Response
      in the Camera and Lens tab then stitch again.

      --
      Bruno
    • Rick Drew
      Hi all. I know it s been discussed a few times in the past, but I m seeking advice. The Chicago Sun Times issue on 8-1-2010, page 3, top, ran one of my photos.
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all.



        I know it's been discussed a few times in the past, but I'm seeking advice.
        The Chicago Sun Times issue on 8-1-2010, page 3, top, ran one of my photos.
        They cropped the image from one of my panoramas and in doing so, also
        cropped out my name and website address. The photo ends just above where my
        contact information was.



        I was never contacted, asked permission, or given any photo credit. The
        photo is on my Flickr account with "all rights reserved" - no license
        granted. If you have the Sunday paper you can compare it to the original
        (the website did not use the photo.)



        http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickthephotoguy/3221241857/sizes/l/



        There are several unique elements to the photo I can readily identify -
        including the small boat in the lower portion of the photo. The owner is a
        friend of mine. I'm not saying it's a spectacular photo. I shot the images
        in 2003 with a Nikon 995 digital camera - anything else with comparable
        features / quality was way too expensive.



        What would you do? Try and play hardball? Ask for a photo credit? Send an
        invoice? The Sun Times is in Chicago, Illinois. I'm also in Illinois, if
        that helps with your suggestion.



        Thanks



        Rick Drew



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Peter
        I would put them on notice with a letter and mention that as publishers themselves, the newspaper should be very interested in discouraging copyright
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I would put them on notice with a letter and mention that as publishers
          themselves, the newspaper should be very interested in discouraging
          copyright infringement.

          After doing that, you can forget getting any compensation, any
          recognition, or any justice. It's nearly impossible -- and certainly not
          financially feasible -- to bring a successful legal action.




          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Drew" <rick@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi all.
          >
          >
          >
          > I know it's been discussed a few times in the past, but I'm seeking
          advice.
          > The Chicago Sun Times issue on 8-1-2010, page 3, top, ran one of my
          photos.
          > They cropped the image from one of my panoramas and in doing so, also
          > cropped out my name and website address. The photo ends just above
          where my
          > contact information was.
        • David
          Yes, there were bright clouds and high wind so they were definitely moving about. I tried reseting the exposure values and even stitching without exposure
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, there were bright clouds and high wind so they were definitely moving about.

            I tried reseting the exposure values and even stitching without exposure optimization and got the same results

            On the plus side I tried stitched with the 'Fused and blended' option rather than just 'blended' and got much better results.

            Thanks.

            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Postle <bruno@...> wrote:
            >
            > On Tue 27-Jul-2010 at 14:23 -0000, David wrote:
            > > Try this one:
            > > http://www.360cities.net/image/cape-kiwanda-1
            > >
            > > It looks like the color bit depth is reduced to 4 bits or
            > > something like that in some areas.
            > >
            > > The original files are Canon raw, same exposure and white
            > > balance and all look fine with nice smooth color
            > > transitions. I exported to 16bit tiff's for Hugin.
            >
            > The colour changes are caused by 'bad' photometric
            > (exposure/vignetting) parameters. This could be because photometric
            > optimisation gives bad results when the photos are not well aligned,
            > fast moving clouds could confuse it too.
            >
            > Try resetting all Exposure, Colour, Vignetting and Camera Response
            > in the Camera and Lens tab then stitch again.
            >
            > --
            > Bruno
            >
          • Bruno Postle
            ... This option resets all exposure adjustments at the stitching stage as these are normally unwanted when using exposure fusion. Check again that the Ev
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon 02-Aug-2010 at 18:30 -0000, David wrote:

              > I tried reseting the exposure values and even stitching without
              > exposure optimization and got the same results
              >
              > On the plus side I tried stitched with the 'Fused and blended'
              > option rather than just 'blended' and got much better results.

              This option resets all exposure adjustments at the stitching stage
              as these are normally unwanted when using exposure fusion.

              Check again that the Ev values of your photos are really reset, you
              may also need to reset the global Ev, see:
              http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_Fast_Preview_window#EV

              --
              Bruno

              >--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Postle <bruno@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> The colour changes are caused by 'bad' photometric
              >> (exposure/vignetting) parameters. This could be because
              >> photometric optimisation gives bad results when the photos are
              >> not well aligned, fast moving clouds could confuse it too.
              >>
              >> Try resetting all Exposure, Colour, Vignetting and Camera
              >> Response in the Camera and Lens tab then stitch again.
            • prague
              Play hardball. Send them an invoice.
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 2, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Play hardball. Send them an invoice.



                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Drew" <rick@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi all.
                >
                >
                >
                > I know it's been discussed a few times in the past, but I'm seeking advice.
                > The Chicago Sun Times issue on 8-1-2010, page 3, top, ran one of my photos.
                > They cropped the image from one of my panoramas and in doing so, also
                > cropped out my name and website address. The photo ends just above where my
                > contact information was.
                >
                >
                >
                > I was never contacted, asked permission, or given any photo credit. The
                > photo is on my Flickr account with "all rights reserved" - no license
                > granted. If you have the Sunday paper you can compare it to the original
                > (the website did not use the photo.)
                >
                >
                >
                > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickthephotoguy/3221241857/sizes/l/
                >
                >
                >
                > There are several unique elements to the photo I can readily identify -
                > including the small boat in the lower portion of the photo. The owner is a
                > friend of mine. I'm not saying it's a spectacular photo. I shot the images
                > in 2003 with a Nikon 995 digital camera - anything else with comparable
                > features / quality was way too expensive.
                >
                >
                >
                > What would you do? Try and play hardball? Ask for a photo credit? Send an
                > invoice? The Sun Times is in Chicago, Illinois. I'm also in Illinois, if
                > that helps with your suggestion.
                >
                >
                >
                > Thanks
                >
                >
                >
                > Rick Drew
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • montana_jimbo
                Rick, This type thing always ticks me off. SO if you want to go after the Sun go for it... But I also feel that their are some things you should think about
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 3, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Rick,
                  This type thing always ticks me off. SO if you want to go after the Sun go for it... But I also feel that their are some things you should think about regarding yourself.. No stock agency would present their images the way you do simply because no one has to pay for them they can just take them. Flicker and sites like it are part of what has the industry screwed up.
                  So did the paper steel your image or and employee find it and change it so they could use it and no one knows but that person. SO are you prepared to go after both the person and the paper as their employer if it went that far.
                  Why wouldn't you have your info going right thru the middle of the image at least the higher rez ones to render them not usable?
                  Do you really feel you have taken proper responsibility in protecting your images?
                  The honor system is great but think about it. does it really work? ..hell no.
                  Are you prepared to go thru what might be necessary to truly prove that this is your image? Do you understand what that might mean?
                  Some times, and this will sounds nuts, so little is really done to protect ones own property that it almost shows up that thievery is by invitation..
                  You have a download button right there for a person to do so.. What might a judge say about that? To be honest I don't feel your effort at due diligence is appropriate for your expectations.
                  I still, however, feel that what happened is wrong so an action on your part is appropriate but I also feel that you'll have a tough time making it stick.

                  jimbo


                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Drew" <rick@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi all.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I know it's been discussed a few times in the past, but I'm seeking advice.
                  > The Chicago Sun Times issue on 8-1-2010, page 3, top, ran one of my photos.
                  > They cropped the image from one of my panoramas and in doing so, also
                  > cropped out my name and website address. The photo ends just above where my
                  > contact information was.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I was never contacted, asked permission, or given any photo credit. The
                  > photo is on my Flickr account with "all rights reserved" - no license
                  > granted. If you have the Sunday paper you can compare it to the original
                  > (the website did not use the photo.)
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickthephotoguy/3221241857/sizes/l/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > There are several unique elements to the photo I can readily identify -
                  > including the small boat in the lower portion of the photo. The owner is a
                  > friend of mine. I'm not saying it's a spectacular photo. I shot the images
                  > in 2003 with a Nikon 995 digital camera - anything else with comparable
                  > features / quality was way too expensive.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > What would you do? Try and play hardball? Ask for a photo credit? Send an
                  > invoice? The Sun Times is in Chicago, Illinois. I'm also in Illinois, if
                  > that helps with your suggestion.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Thanks
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Rick Drew
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • David
                  I tried reseting the global EV as described with little difference in the result. Fused is still better than just blended. See comparison here:
                  Message 8 of 13 , Aug 3, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I tried reseting the global EV as described with little difference in the result. Fused is still better than just blended. See comparison here:
                    http://www.flickr.com/photos/47889673@N07/4858461325/

                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Postle <bruno@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On Mon 02-Aug-2010 at 18:30 -0000, David wrote:
                    >
                    > > I tried reseting the exposure values and even stitching without
                    > > exposure optimization and got the same results
                    > >
                    > > On the plus side I tried stitched with the 'Fused and blended'
                    > > option rather than just 'blended' and got much better results.
                    >
                    > This option resets all exposure adjustments at the stitching stage
                    > as these are normally unwanted when using exposure fusion.
                    >
                    > Check again that the Ev values of your photos are really reset, you
                    > may also need to reset the global Ev, see:
                    > http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_Fast_Preview_window#EV
                    >
                    > --
                    > Bruno
                    >
                    > >--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Postle <bruno@> wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> The colour changes are caused by 'bad' photometric
                    > >> (exposure/vignetting) parameters. This could be because
                    > >> photometric optimisation gives bad results when the photos are
                    > >> not well aligned, fast moving clouds could confuse it too.
                    > >>
                    > >> Try resetting all Exposure, Colour, Vignetting and Camera
                    > >> Response in the Camera and Lens tab then stitch again.
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.