Hi Craig,
The left
side is worse than the right it looks like, and some are worse than others,
but overall the centers are sharper.
Indeed, the left side is also worse than the right side, I had missed
that. Then the cropping should be asymmetric of course, unless the
images can be improved.
This subject is a Cistus (hybrid probably) flower. I specialize in
ultraviolet-induced visible fluorescence floral photography but I started
exploring UVIVF floral microscopy during a project and wanted to continue
doing it. The first panorama I did was a Phacelia and it was small enough
Capture One handled it.
I found your other non-pano Phacelia, very nice!
The learning curve is steep, but I'm seeing how powerful it is. I am
impressed with the focus stacking as well. Everyone always touts Zerene and
Helicon as the only reasonable options, but Hugin does it rather well. I
use Zerene or else I'd probably do Hugin for my stacks. As challenging as
it is with the GUI, for everyone who did it/does it with CLI I am really
impressed.
For now, I'll try your cropping concept since the result you shared looks
generally satisfactory at this point and more consistent than my output.
In my proof of concept the control points could have been optimised
further, there was still room for improvement.
I gave the strategy of just fusing the images another try because it
really should work. While hugin seems to refuse to put non-overlapping
images into the same stack there is no such problem for enfuse itself.
So, one can generate individual remapped + not-exposure corrected images
from hugin and feed them into enfuse on the command line and get the
intended output (enfuse image1.tif image2.tif -o out.tif). I tried that
with a few different fusing options: entropy and contrast do work but
the differences between 0.0 (off) and 1.0 (max) are only visible in a
difference image. Soft-mask vs hard-mask are noticeably different but
I'm undecided which is better (probably soft-mask which is also the
default). There are plenty more options that I haven't tried, but if
this is an approach that works well otherwise you could spend some time
with that.
Hard-mask vs soft-mask: http://78.46.190.157:8080/cistus_fused.tgz (1040mb).
I don't know if this is a better approach than what I suggested
previously. Pure fusing fares better with blurry regions while blending
does better with minor parallax and aligned issues -- so it depends on
the input images.
I'll keep going and if I discover anything new/edifying or if I come to any
serious conclusion about the source of my aberrations, I will post back if
you're interested in seeing it through.
It is always interesting to hear what finally worked!
cheers, lukas wirz
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/db67b7f0-5b33-4be5-8138-ce37f1215f1a%40posteo.net.
