On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 22:42, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 5:06:20 PM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > >> See the ptomorph proof of concept from ten(!) years ago here: >> https://groups.google.com/g/hugin-ptx/c/UripOuuYXCQ?pli=1 >> >> This works incredibly well, with no need for low-priority control >> points, but I never pursued it, and it needs some thought regarding >> getting it to work with more than two photos. >> > > Looking at the full stitched version vs. the full morphed version, the > stitching error in the full morphed version (where the silver pole crosses > the boundary between the top and second to top window of the glass windowed > cabinet) is surprising for the described method, though I expect a few > control points could fix it. > Probably I hadn't noticed this error and didn't put in any points to fix it. > The overall shape differences are more concerning. That specific scene is > one in which broad shape differences are hard to visually parse. So I > can't validate my guess that in other examples the shape change of that > method would be too big. > This is a more standard scene I did at the same time, though not correcting parallax, the machine moved between shots: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brunopostle/7103560665/ > Both the big shape change and the issues of chaining the methodt across > more photos are reasons that I was thinking of the morph as a fine tune on > top of existing methods, rather than as a replacement. > The remapping and stitching is performed as usual by the Hugin toolchain, ptomorph just manipulates the input images a bit to make them stitch better. The question was always: should this morphing be added as an overall polynomial distortion in the panotools lens model so that it became another part of the optimisation step, or is it just a stitch-time fix (as in the ptomorph examples). The problem for me is that doing it in the lens model is more elegant, and the problem of three or more images doesn't exist because you wouldn't be forcing an exact alignment; but on the other hand I was getting *really good* results using the ptomorph approach with the 'Shepards' stretch to fit distortion between two images. -- Bruno -- A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/CAJV99ZhW8tKLGVMAoWCByFRdXowcHHUkF_TFeZGtmrNfEUV9bw%40mail.gmail.com.
