I did a small test, my first impression is that it's quicker.
in the pto states that jpg compression should be 100% (no compression)
they have the same resolution, so that's fine.
but the resulting jpg files are a factor 4 smaller in size than with my
nona/enblend combo and actually have a filesize close to a single
original jpg image of the 2.
this might be due to the fact that nona first generates very large tiff
files, but i'm not sure if there might be something else.
i still need to do a full test to see how they actually look and the
script runs, but like i wrote, that's for this weekend
--
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/fabd393b-0e72-40a8-9cfb-91ea8baa74bb%40gmail.com.
