I read about bigtiff but at least on the GUI there was no way to turn it on and when I tried entering the switch in the output parameters it threw an error and would not output anything at all. I tried 2-3 times and after 30-40 minutes stitching/blending it would throw the error and terminate. Maybe I missed something on how one would enable it? On Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 10:15:35 PM UTC-7 GnomeNomad wrote:
> Re TIF format and big file sizes...I've found out (thanks to folk on this > list) that Hugin supports BigTIFF format. That can handle enormous file > sizes, such as 1 terapixel. You might try that. > > <http://www.bigtiff.org/> > > > On June 24, 2025 6:44:01 PM HST, Craig B <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So in the end I had issues exporting the files from Hugin with respect to >> file size limits (1.24GP at 16 bit did not play nicely with TIF format.) >> I switched to AutoPano Giga because it has the ability to export a PSB >> file with all the layers included as aligned. In the end it was quite >> obvious that several of my source photos were faulty and both Hugin and APG >> did a decent job blending them as much as possible without seams. In the >> end I manually finished the panorama with manual blending and color/tone >> correction on the manually blended areas using the exported panorama as a >> skeleton. >> >> Between the two I would say that Hugin is more powerful and definitely >> easier to edit the control points, but APG is more capable when it comes to >> export formats and generates CPs faster and more accurately, but it is much >> slower for previewing the aligned panorama. I'll be keeping both because I >> see each having a valid role and either will perform well when it comes to >> a panorama shot without as much shifting as I imparted in mine. >> >> On Sunday, May 11, 2025 at 4:29:14 AM UTC-7 lukas wirz wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> > -- > David W. Jones > [email protected] > exploring the landscape of god > http://dancingtreefrog.com > > Sent from my Android device with F/LOSS K-9 Mail. > -- 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/41b793d1-9cc9-40cf-abb5-2cd040a5a4ebn%40googlegroups.com.
