John, yes indeed I did mean the output horizontal field of view. I did a diff on the two files -- and literally the only differences are in the output size (h.... w...) and v.... I am assuming the fov represented by v should be the same regardless of final output resolution, so that seemed to be a clue that was the cause of the difference in optimized results, because it is different, and may be possible starting point in the optimization? It is just a guess -- I am not familiar at all with the optimization code in hugin. As an experiment, I'd take the a.pto, change the output field of view to 71, and see what happens to the optimization.
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 3:43:31 PM UTC-8 [email protected] wrote: > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 6:26:54 PM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > >> In addition to the output size being different, the horizontal field of >> view is different -- for a.pto it is 360. For b.pto, it is 71. That is >> probably making a big difference in the final optimized minimum. >> >> I know that you mean the Stitcher parameter, output horizontal field of > view, rather than the optimizer parameter lens Hfov (Horizontal field of > view), but I thought that needed to be explicitly said to avoid confusing > others reading this. > > -- 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/f8972104-9b5a-4fd0-afce-46f01277ad02n%40googlegroups.com.
