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

smartblend 1.2.4b vs. enblend 3?

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey S. Martin
    I haven t tried enblend 3.0 yet. The newest Smartblend is great - much faster, and didn t crash yet, even with 16-bit tiffs. The final tiff output is also
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I haven't tried enblend 3.0 yet. The newest Smartblend is great - much
      faster, and didn't crash yet, even with 16-bit tiffs. The final tiff output
      is also somehow a more "friendly" version (opens directly in devalVR
      standalone, for example)

      Did anyone compare enblend 3.0 and smarblend 1.2.4b ?

      Jeffrey


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Erik Krause
      ... Only a quick test with artificial images. From that point enblend gives the far better result (in terms of ghost removal). But that hasn t much to say
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 8, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thursday, February 08, 2007 at 2:16, Jeffrey S. Martin wrote:

        > I haven't tried enblend 3.0 yet. The newest Smartblend is great - much
        > faster, and didn't crash yet, even with 16-bit tiffs. The final tiff output
        > is also somehow a more "friendly" version (opens directly in devalVR
        > standalone, for example)
        >
        > Did anyone compare enblend 3.0 and smarblend 1.2.4b ?

        Only a quick test with artificial images. From that point enblend
        gives the far better result (in terms of ghost removal). But that
        hasn't much to say about the usage for real images.

        BTW.: enblend uses a smaller transition area than smartblend by
        default. For comparable results you must use a similar transition
        area (the maximum enblend handles) by specifying -l 20 on the enblend
        command line.

        best regards
        --
        Erik Krause
        Resources, not only for panorama creation:
        http://www.erik-krause.de/
      • Andrey Ilyin
        Enblend 3.0 is cool -very fast, on my dual core Athlon even faster than Smarlblend 1.2.4. Have to test on various source images, but first impression on
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Enblend 3.0 is cool -very fast, on my dual core Athlon even faster
          than Smarlblend 1.2.4.

          Have to test on various source images, but first impression on
          blending quality is very positive too.
        • Michael Norel
          Hello Erik! Can you share with me the samples where smartblend performs worse than enblend ? Thanks! ... much ... tiff output ... devalVR ... enblend
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 9, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Erik!

            Can you share with me the samples where smartblend performs worse
            than enblend ?

            Thanks!





            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Krause" <erik.krause@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > On Thursday, February 08, 2007 at 2:16, Jeffrey S. Martin wrote:
            >
            > > I haven't tried enblend 3.0 yet. The newest Smartblend is great -
            much
            > > faster, and didn't crash yet, even with 16-bit tiffs. The final
            tiff output
            > > is also somehow a more "friendly" version (opens directly in
            devalVR
            > > standalone, for example)
            > >
            > > Did anyone compare enblend 3.0 and smarblend 1.2.4b ?
            >
            > Only a quick test with artificial images. From that point enblend
            > gives the far better result (in terms of ghost removal). But that
            > hasn't much to say about the usage for real images.
            >
            > BTW.: enblend uses a smaller transition area than smartblend by
            > default. For comparable results you must use a similar transition
            > area (the maximum enblend handles) by specifying -l 20 on the
            enblend
            > command line.
            >
            > best regards
            > --
            > Erik Krause
            > Resources, not only for panorama creation:
            > http://www.erik-krause.de/
            >
          • Erik Krause
            ... Yes, of course. However, they are artificial and not very representative. Just a demonstration how the blender works... best regards -- Erik Krause
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 9, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On Friday, February 09, 2007 at 11:56, Michael Norel wrote:

              > Can you share with me the samples where smartblend performs worse
              > than enblend ?

              Yes, of course. However, they are artificial and not very
              representative. Just a demonstration how the blender works...

              best regards
              --
              Erik Krause
              Resources, not only for panorama creation:
              http://www.erik-krause.de/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.