On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:51:54 PM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote: > i do not understand where i can enter those command, i did not see a teminal field in the gui and windows command prompt says it does not know nona.
You use some form of windows command prompt and you do something to fix the PATH to include the directory where nona.exe etc. are installed. There are various ways to create an icon and/or a right click menu choice that will open all that easily from then on (vs typing the command to change the PATH each time you start a cmd prompt to work on this). You could also use control panel to permanently change PATH so Hugin related exe's are always on your path. I use my computer for too many different things and hate PATH pollution, so I wouldn't do that myself. But if using Hugin is a significant fraction of the purpose of the whole computer, then including it in the permanent PATH is the simpler choice. There are multiple (better) alternatives to the basic cmd prompt and multiple ways to set up each to have a customized launch for specific purpose. So too many choices: which usually means just do it some simple obvious way while knowing that if it is worth trouble to make it better, you can. On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 1:06:37 PM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote: > > and i must say, the tiff has more contrast and looks a bit sharper, but > That is a sub-topic I'd really like to understand, since I'm fighting many situations in which the tiff is very fuzzy compared to jpg. I have seen about as many situations in which the colors look better when viewing a tiff vs. jpg as the opposite. Each viewer has its own rules for the non linear translation from 16 bit intensities to 8 bit intensity for display on your monitor. They don't seem to be just throwing away the low bits. Depending on the photo and the viewer, that mapping can make the picture look much better, including increasing the contrast between two colors that are adjacent and look better with more contrast. A big advantage of working in 16 bits is the ability to adjust the final mapping to 8 bit AFTER stitching. Maybe that is all you mean by "more contrast" and "sharper". It might also be possible that the jpg compression is actually blurring edges etc compared to raw. But that is opposite to my own experience (thus a subject I'd like to be told more about). it is 15x the file size and since i want to use it for batches it is a > bit too much. > Disk space is cheap. So while I have some similar objections myself to keeping around lots of tiff files, I think my own use pattern is odd and most other people should not care about that waste of disk space. Am I missing something? Maybe that is another subtopic I'd appreciate having explained. so then i thought maybe i can get a bit more out of the jpg by using > high dynamic range. > > but unfortunately all but > exposure corrected, low dynamic range > is alvailable. > I hope one of the experts explains some of that here. I have never had any decent mental model (despite rereading Hugin documentation many times) of what high vs. low dynamic range actually means as a concept in Hugin's processing. Of course, I understand what it in photography, but that doesn't tell me what selecting it in Hugin actually causes Hugin to do differently. -- 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/73c1cdd9-da58-4815-ba81-3aed04a96d77n%40googlegroups.com.
