had some time and did some testing comparing enblend/nona vs lux.
these results are from the same system with the same set of images,
....results on your system are different ;)
image quality was good, sometimes a bit better, sometimes a bit less,
depending on lighting conditions that make the need for blending important.
i didn't like that lux out of the box worked with a preview full screen,
it made it impossible to use the system (without a 2nd monitor) while it
was running.
while i run nona -g(pu) this only has an speed advantage if i start more
than one script, i gives the system time to sync those operations and
creates more headroom on the cpu for that 3rd script running.
i set one instance Nona -g/Enblend/Exif at 100, the other values are
related to that.
Lux/Exif is just a bit faster than 2 instances of Nona -g/Enblend/Exif
running the same set.
--
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/3e843c36-ccb2-455b-8494-7fb088324cfb%40gmail.com.
