Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PTGui vs Autopano Pro vs PTAssembler  (Read 55508 times)
Johnny V
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


« Reply #40 on: April 11, 2007, 11:16:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has anyone tried any of these programs on a Mac?

I've heard they don't work very well with Macs -but that Realviz Stitcher Express 2 works great on a Mac.

Oh, and I'm also looking for a program that gives excellent results for print, not really for the web.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've been using PTGui Mac version. It's works very well for print and there are many tutorials and support online.

[a href=\"http://www.ptgui.com/]http://www.ptgui.com/[/url]
Logged
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2007, 07:40:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just in case anyone thinks I'm being unfair on Autopano, I should point out that the above comparisons were largely for auto mode and default capability.

I would say that CS3 Photomerge is the best stitching program that I've come across for fully automatic, load and click okay, stitches.

The problems arise when the fully automatic (or default) modes don't work. What is the potential of the program then.

There's always some degree of learning curve. To fairly compare the full capabilities of different stitching programs requires that one become fully conversant with those programs.

I downloaded the trial version of PTGui and found that that program also appeared to be incapable of stitching the last two images of the above 3 image project. It couldn't find any control points. That's very odd, I thought.

I went back to Autopano and after messing around with the 'settings' and basically pulling out all the stops, increasing the number of key points per image pair to the maximum of 200, forcing every picture to be in the same panorama, setting 'find control points everywhere' etc etc, I was able to get what appeared to be a good stitch of the 3 images. However, on close examination at 100% magnification, I saw that the figures in the foreground were terribly blurred and mixed-up.

I went back to the settings and changed the default bilinear interpolation mode to bicubic and the default multiblend to 'smartblend', then tried again.

This fixed the problem and the resulting stitch is actually better than the CS3 stitch. The horizon is straighter, which means less work with free transform and warp or distort. Even the sky joins are slightly smoother. There's a hint of darkening at the joins which is not there in the Autopano stitch.

[attachment=2279:attachment]

However, these same settings which have produced this marvelous 3-image stitch, better than the CS3 stitch, have not done as good a job with another set of 4 images (the first 4 in a series of 60 or so). But neither has CS3. They both have their faults. The CS3 stitch has a smother sky but a curved horizon. The Autopano stitch has a major problem in the sky but at least has a straight horizon.

[attachment=2280:attachment]

PTGui produced a result similar to Autopano. To find out how to improve upon that I'd have to become fully familiar with the program. I don't need to because Panavue's Image Assembler, with which I'm reasonably au fait, can do do a perfect job, but not in auto mode of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, thanks for the comparions and comments. Every one of these tools can probably auto stitch some images reasonably well, but I don't expect them to auto stitch every kind of image perfectly. Not unlike what we can expect from a camera's auto metering modes. For the best results that suit a particular user,  what separates the good ones from the bad is how well they perform when users tweak them manually. To do that, a tool must have a competent algorithm internally, combined with a good UI and documentation to steer the algorithm.

Which version of Image Assembler are you using? Is it based on Pano Tools, or some other algorithm?
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2007, 09:48:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which version of Image Assembler are you using? Is it based on Pano Tools, or some other algorithm?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris,
I'm using the Professional Edition version 3.5. I've got no idea what algorithm is used. The program has been available for the past 12 years or so and keeps getting better year by year. I've been using it for a few years now, so switching to a different stitching program would be like switching from a PC to a Mac for me.

However, if any program can save me time, I'm interested. With the right settings, I'm impressed with what Autopano can do with certain images, but I don't see how it's going to manage a mosaic of 100 images well if it can't do a seamless sky with the first 4 images of that set.
Logged
Beeloba
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2007, 04:52:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello everybody,

I'm new to this list, but I'm quite familiar to Autopano Pro - APP -
This topic, here, was started very recently, maybe some users haven't tested the latest beta of APP yet.

One thing I can say, this software is growing fast.
Have a look at the  forum http://forum.autopano.net/index.php
There is a lot of hot interaction with the dev team.

APP, is, even in it's last beta version 1.3.1 A2 very stable and stil multi-platform - Win - Mac & linux - http://en.wiki.autopano.net/Latest_Beta

Here is an example made by famous photography made by Stott Howard - a 1500 MegaPixels shot - 404 pictures used - (I confess it's a mosaïc picture not a Qtvr)
http://www.docbert.org/MP/
Take a look at the members gallery… Always commented.
http://forum.autopano.net/f4-gallery-galerie
BTW fish-eye lens compatibility will be for next 1.4 version of APP.

Maybe these few details can help new users
« Last Edit: April 18, 2007, 03:59:14 PM by Beeloba » Logged
Beeloba
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2007, 04:22:43 PM »
ReplyReply

What I would like to share with you as a regular user…

I don't want to compare this soft with other in the competition… Loads of good softwares indeed

What I like in APP and is not mentioned in users forums… … …

First: No need to make picture on a 'manual base'.  As APP can handle Raw files… Aperture/shutter speed/ White Balance
there is almost no more need to de-raw (dematrixing)
The auto color correction makes a regular balance for the whole Pano… pixels are not close to each other because they were taken at the  same speed/aperture/iso/.

What changed in my photography experience was… No more one 'average aperture', no more 'average shutter speed'. I became able to shoot as felt pictures (just a couple more pictures for overexposed situations)

Second: no more math choice… Yaw, pitch and roll 'mistakes'

I'm a photographer, not a scientist or mathematic oriented user.
I want to shoot when I need, not when it is possible 'scientifically' Intuitive but technical ;-)

As soon as there are replies… I'll tell you what I don't like in APP and must be improved

Best regards and See you

Beeloba
Logged
dmg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #45 on: April 18, 2007, 05:50:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hugin has not been mentioned. it is open source and free.

While its interface is not perfect (it is being revamped now with financial help from Google) it is as accurate as any other other one.

http://hugin.sourceforge.net/download/
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2007, 11:08:54 PM »
ReplyReply

It would take a lot of time to fully assess the capabilities of the various stitching programs available.

Two main issue for me are, (1) How well can the stitching program do a fully automatic stitch, because a perfect automatic stitch clearly saves a lot of time? (2) How well can the program handle the serious parallax errors that occur with close-up objects in the scene?

I was always aware that Panavue's Image Assembler was not too good at correcting for serious parallax errors in close-ups, which is why I ended up buying a TS-E 24mm.

However, I'm now getting the impression that both CS3 Photomerge and Autopano Pro can do a near perfect job with such images and that Image Assembler has got left behind in this regard.

The following shots were taken whilst trekking between Jomsom and Kagbeni, somewhere in the middle of Nepal. I was in awe of the sheer vastness and barrenness of this landscape. My 15mm Sigma lens on my Canon 5D was simply not wide enough. I needed to stitch a few images. I had my TS-E 24mm at hand. I wasn't sure if 2 or 3 stitched images with that lens would be wide enough but in any case my tripod was with the porter who, as always, seemed to race ahead despite his heavy load.

I wondered if I should send my guide, who always kept close to me, to retrieve the tripod. But the wind was beginning to blow in increasingly heavy gusts. This was a gorge which, regular as clockwork, developed strong winds around 10-11am each day. Strong enough to prevent the planes from landing.

I decided it would be a waste of time using a tripod in these conditions and took a series of 4 handheld shots at 15mm and f16, with big overlaps. I was concerned about getting the pebbles in the immediate foreground sharp. I wanted the maximum DoF my system could provide.

In restrospect, I think I probably miscalculated. I'd not taken into account the fact that the closest parts of the foreground would be cropped off after stitching. I think I could have focussed just a little further afield and perhaps (not sure though) got a slightly sharper distant horizon. I should have done some focussing bracketing.

Maybe I didn't think the scene warranted such attention, from a compositional point of view. However, those pebbles in the immediate foreground are literally almost at my feet. This is surely an ideal set of images to test these stitching programs.

Below are the results, but some explanation first.

(1) All images appear to have perfect joins, except with regard to tonal transitions in the sky. Image Assembler shows a slight darkening of the sky in the transition between first and second images.

(2) The distortion of the over all image is unacceptable in the Image Assembler stitch, but that was the best I could do in the time, meticulously placing 5 pairs of flags at each join.

IA simply couldn't manage a fully automatic stitch.

(3) All the CS3 Photomerge stitches are literally fully automatic. Just load the images and click OK. No prior settings to be made.

(4) The Autopano Pro stitch could be described as semi-automatic. One really has to examine the settings menu first, before stitching, and change the default settings to something one imagines might be more appropriate.

(5) The Autopano stitch uses more interpolation, producing the largest file.

In this example, Autopano 199.7MB; IA 168.8MB and CS3 just 139.2MB.

Immediately below are the uncropped resulting stitches from IA, Austopano and CS3.

[attachment=2308:attachment]

I was interested if the significantly larger file that Autopano produced provided any more detail than the CS3 stitch. Very marginal I think, and not an issue.

[attachment=2309:attachment]

I made a 100% crop of the pebbles near my feet in the area of the join between the first and second image. No problems at all.

[attachment=2310:attachment]

I'm imprerssed with the progress that certain stitching programs have achieved. For static subjects, I think MFDB might be on the verge of redundancy   .
Logged
Beeloba
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2007, 04:44:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I've just downloaded again Autopano Pro on a 32 bit machine and tested it on the above 3 images which CS3 Photomerge handles as well as can be expected.
…/…
When I selected the above 3 images and opened in Autopano, it did a fairly symmetrical job of the first 2 images, beautiful sky an' all that, but failed to include the 3rd image. It just couldn't handle it.
…/…
I tried stitching both converted images and RAW images. Results were about the same. So far, Autopano has failed the test.
Have a look at this video on APP "Manual" stitching
ftp://ftp.autopano.net/releases/en-tutori...utopano-pro.mov

Note: these features are new (1.3.0 version) and next version will be improved.
There is also a new way to grab/place/rotate one or more orphan images. (not illustrated here)

Quote
In this example, Autopano 199.7MB; IA 168.8MB and CS3 just 139.2MB.
This is a psd encoding compression issue, here is the answer
quote: AlexandreJ wrote:
We don't compress the PSD file, photoshop does compression.

Workaround is to open the psd file in photoshop, get rid of alpha, then save… Size will be decreased up to 50%
http://forum.autopano.net/postgallery.php?...alpha-issue.jpg

Quote
My trial version of Autopano also could not handle these difficult projects, producing lousy color, unacceptable tonality shifts at some of the joins and converting all the images to sRGB.

Sorry it's in French, but playing with anchors can improve a lot your result.
You can have more than one yellow anchor (yellow means that the exposure of that picture is ok for you)
Picture was taken handheld @ 28 mm equiv
http://forum.autopano.net/p5554-2006-11-16-11-38-20#p5554
PS. there is a new color correction module and 3 new anchors (mono white balance, mono transfer and mono WB + Transfer)

PS.2 Just sign up on APP's forum and ask all the questions you want, lots of users will answer quickly  

EDIT: here are some of my tests made with CS3 photomerge and APP
http://forum.autopano.net/viewtopic.php?pid=9042#p9042
They were all made with Nikon D70 - 18-70mm @52mm equiv - on a Nodal Ninja 3, well positioned on the Non Parallax Point (NPP)
« Last Edit: April 19, 2007, 07:17:41 AM by Beeloba » Logged
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2007, 07:55:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It would take a lot of time to fully assess the capabilities of the various stitching programs available.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed. That's why jadazu's comparison between PTAssembler and PS is so helpful:

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14341&st=20]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pic=14341&st=20[/url]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2007, 08:33:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Agreed. That's why jadazu's comparison between PTAssembler and PS is so helpful:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pic=14341&st=20
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But we already know that each stitching program has its own peculiarities and handles different sets of images differently.

I just tried to stitch the above 15mm shots of Nepal with my trial version of PTgui and got the following message.

[attachment=2313:attachment]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2007, 08:46:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
EDIT: here are some of my tests made with CS3 photomerge and APP
http://forum.autopano.net/viewtopic.php?pid=9042#p9042
They were all made with Nikon D70 - 18-70mm @52mm equiv - on a Nodal Ninja 3, well positioned on the Non Parallax Point (NPP)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113210\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've never got stitches like that with CS3 photomerge. I did once get a bizarre image of triangles which was quite appealing, but I now realise that that was a result of hitting 'Merge to HDR' by mistake   .

So far, any superiority of Autopano over CS3 Photomerge seems marginal, using small sets of 3 or 4 images.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2007, 08:57:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Although this thread is specifically about PTgui, Autopano and PTassembler, I see no comparisons of the three with specific images, just motherhood statements about PTGui being the best.
Logged
Johnny V
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2007, 10:35:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But we already know that each stitching program has its own peculiarities and handles different sets of images differently.

I just tried to stitch the above 15mm shots of Nepal with my trial version of PTgui and got the following message.

[attachment=2313:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

Download PanoTools12_2007Apr09.zip at [a href=\"http://photocreations.ca/panotools/index.html]http://photocreations.ca/panotools/index.html[/url] see if that gets rid of the warning.
Logged
gdeliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2007, 07:22:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,

Download PanoTools12_2007Apr09.zip at http://photocreations.ca/panotools/index.html see if that gets rid of the warning.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is the sort of thing that has really irritated me in trying to use the stitching applications based on panotools. Most of the developers just expect you to be a Unix systems administrator or programmer and point you at a bunch of similar looking files to download and use with their application. I suppose there may be legal or other reasons why the developer can't just bundle everything you need into one app, but you would think they could at least provide a detailed checklist of what to download and how to use it with their app.
I've been using PTMac from Kekus and, after a lot of fiddling and trial and error I can produce decent mosaics with it sometimes but there are all sorts of menu items and buttons that I still have no idea how to use and that  don't seem to be documented anywhere.
Thank goodness there are now at least a couple of user friendly stitchers, namely Autopano and CS3.

George Deliz
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2007, 10:12:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is the sort of thing that has really irritated me in trying to use the stitching applications based on panotools. Most of the developers just expect you to be a Unix systems administrator or programmer and point you at a bunch of similar looking files to download and use with their application. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The reason I got involved in these stitching threads was as a result of reports that programs like CS3 Photomerge and Autopano Pro were able to do perhaps an even better stitching job in fully automatic mode than other, older programs could do even after time-consuming and painstaking adjustments.

I find that after installing Panotools, PTGui is now able to stitch these 4 handheld 15mm shots automatically. However, it's not a usable stitch and there's a major discontinuity at one of the joins.

This is how the final image should look, done in CS3 with a minimum of fuss (load images and click OK), then cropped. Autopano produces a similar result after making appropriate prior settings.

[attachment=2316:attachment]

However, PTGui has the river flowing downhill and then uphill, not to mention the major fiasco at one of the joins. Of course, I understand that with appropriate adjustments and manipulation of control points etc, I might be able to get PTGui to do a stitch as good as CS3, but that's not the point of the exercise. I'm trying to find out what such programs can do automatically. I haven't got time to spend several days downloading tutorials, browsing forums and generally becoming fully acquainted with this program in order to determine if PTGui can ultimately do as good a job with these 4 images as CS3 can do automatically.

[attachment=2317:attachment]  [attachment=2318:attachment]

If anyone wants to have a go at stitching these 4 handheld 15mm shots with wide overlaps, I'll post the individual images.
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2007, 10:27:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a stitch from CS3. It was shot for a museum client who needed this documented before it was painted over. There were a couple of serious problems. On one of the segments I did not overlap enough and there is a 90 degree wrap of the left third of the mural onto another wall. These problem confused the heck out of PT Gui and I spent hours trying to establish some refernce points it was happy with. Finally I went back to CS3 and it figured it out on first try. The whole thing took about 15 minutes in CS3.

[attachment=2323:attachment]
« Last Edit: April 19, 2007, 10:29:18 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #56 on: April 19, 2007, 11:20:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
These problem confused the heck out of PT Gui and I spent hours trying to establish some refernce points it was happy with. Finally I went back to CS3 and it figured it out on first try. The whole thing took about 15 minutes in CS3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kirk,
I've just noticed a minor discontinuity in my CS3 stitch. It's not by any means as major as the flaw in the PTGui stitch, but it's nevertheless noticeable and is in the same area.

Autopano Pro has overcome this difficulty. I haven't yet noticed any flaws in the Autopano joins, so in relation to this series of 4 images, and another series of 3 images posted previously, I get the impression that Autopano Pro is the better program.

Below is the Autopano cropped version plus 100% crops of the area where the faulty join can be seen.

[attachment=2324:attachment]  [attachment=2325:attachment]
Logged
Phuong
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2007, 05:51:37 AM »
ReplyReply

after seeing this page i start to think Pano Tools type stitchers are actually much better than PS CS3. in PS CS3 you don't have that much control especially over the distortion correction process.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2007, 09:03:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok here is a very quick result with, PTGui, no Photoshop, just PTGui output.

I can't look closer at it, because I don't have the full res. files, but it looks really good.

[attachment=2326:attachment]

Christopher
Logged

Johnny V
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2007, 11:28:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is the sort of thing that has really irritated me in trying to use the stitching applications based on panotools.....I suppose there may be legal or other reasons why the developer can't just bundle everything you need into one app, but you would think they could at least provide a detailed checklist of what to download and how to use it with their app.
I've been using PTMac from Kekus and, after a lot of fiddling and trial and error....Thank goodness there are now at least a couple of user friendly stitchers, namely Autopano and CS3.

George Deliz
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes to the legal reason panotools based software can not install the updated PT from Jim Watters' site. There is a patent infringement issue with it so PT developers can not even recommend it on their site.

Had trouble with PTMac...but PTGui works well for me. I just installed CS3 so have to test it out. I think where PTGui might pull ahead are interior architectural shots where walls, doorways and windows need to be square and upright.

Regarding AutoPano....geez how many $100.+ apps do I need to buy? All these have been adding up lately!
« Last Edit: April 20, 2007, 11:29:37 AM by Johnny V » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad