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

Re: Need help - PTGui optimization fails completely

Expand Messages
  • macbenutzer
    ... Hallo Erik, yes, i know. But as it was taken with a PhaseOne the images a quite big ;-) I will have a look into the cp´s. Maybe the mosaic all over the
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:

      > It is easier with the images than without...

      Hallo Erik,

      yes, i know. But as it was taken with a PhaseOne the images a quite big ;-)

      I will have a look into the cp´s. Maybe the mosaic all over the images caused the trouble? I see that it might not be easy for PTGui to get the correct place for the different images.

      (to be continued...)

      Thanks - Cheers - Peter
    • Willy Kaemena
      Post some reduced pictures here for us to play... It has also something to do with repetitive patterns. Willy ... [Non-text portions of this message have
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Post some reduced pictures here for us to play...

        It has also something to do with repetitive patterns.

        Willy



        On Jul 28, 2011, at 23:49, macbenutzer wrote:

        >
        >
        > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:
        >
        > > It is easier with the images than without...
        >
        > Hallo Erik,
        >
        > yes, i know. But as it was taken with a PhaseOne the images a quite big ;-)
        >
        > I will have a look into the cp´s. Maybe the mosaic all over the images caused the trouble? I see that it might not be easy for PTGui to get the correct place for the different images.
        >
        > (to be continued...)
        >
        > Thanks - Cheers - Peter
        >
        > __
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Erik Krause
        ... Downsized jpegs do normally. However, there is no need anymore. I found all non-overlapping pairs and after I removed the false control points the stitch
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 28, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Am 28.07.2011 23:49, schrieb macbenutzer:
          > yes, i know. But as it was taken with a PhaseOne the images a quite
          > big;-)

          Downsized jpegs do normally. However, there is no need anymore. I found
          all non-overlapping pairs and after I removed the false control points
          the stitch is good. The last pair was 9-12. Unfortunately I didn't note
          down the others.

          > I will have a look into the cp´s. Maybe the mosaic all over the
          > images caused the trouble? I see that it might not be easy for PTGui
          > to get the correct place for the different images.

          Yes, most likely. Repeating patterns are always a danger. Often it is
          recommended to generate control points on a pair by pair basis, not all
          at once.

          --
          Erik Krause
          http://www.erik-krause.de
        • macbenutzer
          Hi Erik and everybody else, yes - i found 9/12 too now as the last wrong connection. The others were easy . Now it stitches with an maximum distance of 16
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 28, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Erik and everybody else,

            yes - i found 9/12 too now as the last wrong connection. The others were "easy". Now it stitches with an maximum distance of 16 which is ok without any further optimization.

            Thanks a lot for pointing me to the right direction :-)

            I will try to stitch the other part and then to join the two halfs together. I will keep you informed (after the weekend).

            Cheers - Peter
          • John Houghton
            ... By limiting control points to horizontally and vertically adjacent images (which is my usual practice), and using menu option Delete worst points , the
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 29, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "macbenutzer" <panotools@...> wrote:
              >
              > yes - i found 9/12 too now as the last wrong connection. The others
              > were "easy". Now it stitches with an maximum distance of 16 which is
              > ok without any further optimization.

              By limiting control points to horizontally and vertically adjacent images (which is my usual practice), and using menu option "Delete worst points", the average cp distance comes down to 0.73, with a maximum of 1.89.

              John
            • Erik Krause
              ... Why not stitch all images? It might be difficult to stitch two stitched panoramas. Any joint has small errors which might sum up in each panorama... --
              Message 6 of 12 , Jul 29, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Am 29.07.2011 00:10, schrieb macbenutzer:
                > I will try to stitch the other part and then to join the two halfs
                > together. I will keep you informed (after the weekend).

                Why not stitch all images? It might be difficult to stitch two stitched
                panoramas. Any joint has small errors which might sum up in each
                panorama...

                --
                Erik Krause
                http://www.erik-krause.de
              • macbenutzer
                ... Because i thought i might be easier (or get less errors) as i had to move the camera for 50 cm between the two halfs. That way i thought i would only get
                Message 7 of 12 , Jul 30, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:

                  > Why not stitch all images? It might be difficult to stitch two stitched
                  > panoramas. Any joint has small errors which might sum up in each
                  > panorama...

                  Because i thought i might be easier (or get less errors) as i had to move the camera for 50 cm between the two halfs. That way i thought i would "only" get errors on the joining part and the rest would be perfect. I will try it tomorrow and see how it will work out.

                  Peter
                • Erik Krause
                  ... You should make sure to have control points only at equal distance between those parts. I ve tried both when I made my handheld gigapixel with three
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jul 30, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Am 30.07.2011 10:24, schrieb macbenutzer:
                    > Because i thought i might be easier (or get less errors) as i had to
                    > move the camera for 50 cm between the two halfs. That way i thought i
                    > would "only" get errors on the joining part and the rest would be
                    > perfect

                    You should make sure to have control points only at equal distance
                    between those parts.

                    I've tried both when I made my handheld gigapixel with three different
                    focal length and from 4 different viewpoints. It turned out to be much
                    easier to optimize all images together with carefully placed control
                    points between the problematic images, but to stitch the groups
                    separately by switching off all other images and join them later in
                    photoshop. Well, that was before PTGui had the masking feature. I just
                    only started to redo the whole panorama using PTGui masking...

                    --
                    Erik Krause
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.