Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PTgui 8.0 beta3  (Read 11226 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« on: May 27, 2008, 06:03:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Dear ptgui users, version 8.0 beta3 is now available for download.

I have done some first tests on small panos, and it seems to be much faster than 7.8. This especially shows when opening the images. I have a very fast SCSI320 RAID disk unit and the opening of 70MB Tiffs is much faster now, around 1 second per image (no scientific test though).

The actual pano computation seemed significantly faster also, but I cannot yet size that since I didn't do rigorous comparisons. Twice faster would be my feeling now.

They have also finally added a crop capability that will significantly reduce the size of the files it generates for large panos. This should help people having problems opening 1GB+ images due to hardware limitations.

My tests were done on OS10.4.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Huib
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2008, 03:56:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I came with the same conclusions. I have made with the new version a layered pano of 13 files from a 1DsIII in 16 bits (2,5 Gb) without any problem on XP32. I really don't understand why people still buy Stitcher from Realviz. Stitcher is really expensive and everytime when they have a small upgrade you have to pay more then PTGUI cost. Mine experience is also that PTGUI works much better then Realviz.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 03:57:58 AM by Huib » Logged

DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2008, 09:17:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I came with the same conclusions. I have made with the new version a layered pano of 13 files from a 1DsIII in 16 bits (2,5 Gb) without any problem on XP32. I really don't understand why people still buy Stitcher from Realviz. Stitcher is really expensive and everytime when they have a small upgrade you have to pay more then PTGUI cost. Mine experience is also that PTGUI works much better then Realviz.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yep I agree Realviz is(was?--I see they have been bought by a US Cad firm Autodesk)
hairy software at the best of times--you never new if it was going to work till it was too late!

Patchy support and flaky info-- now with the products discontinued what a con and waste of serious money pity

They join the ranks like Lucis Art/Camera Bits/etc--that promised CS3 support and never came clean with the products.

What a bunch of Mugs we are!

www

Des W
Logged
plugsnpixels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2008, 10:28:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Des, the now obsolete version of LucisArt was already CS3-compatible for Windows, with a caveat for Mac users:

"LucisArt is compatible with Adobe Photoshop versions 6-CS3 and Adobe Photoshop Elements versions 2-6 on all Windows XP and Vista computers.

"LucisArt is compatible with Adobe Photoshop versions 6-CS2 and Adobe Photoshop Elements versions 2-4 on all Macintosh computers. Note: LucisArt will only work in Adobe Photoshop CS3 on Intel Macintosh computers by running Photoshop CS3 under Rosetta. LucisArt is compatible with Photoshop CS3 on all older Macintosh computers."

I often use the old LucisArt plug-in on a PowerPC Mac running Leopard 10.5.3 and PS CS3 no problem (no Rosetta necessary). On Intel Macs you need to rely on Rosetta, as described above.

And the upcoming LucisArt Pro is spec'd for modern operating systems and CS3.

So in general you are correct about some developers leaving the game, but that is not true in regards to LucisArt.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 10:30:09 PM by plugsnpixels » Logged

FREE DIGITAL IMAGING EZINE
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2008, 07:39:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Des, the now obsolete version of LucisArt was already CS3-compatible for Windows, with a caveat for Mac users:

"LucisArt is compatible with Adobe Photoshop versions 6-CS3 and Adobe Photoshop Elements versions 2-6 on all Windows XP and Vista computers.

"LucisArt is compatible with Adobe Photoshop versions 6-CS2 and Adobe Photoshop Elements versions 2-4 on all Macintosh computers. Note: LucisArt will only work in Adobe Photoshop CS3 on Intel Macintosh computers by running Photoshop CS3 under Rosetta. LucisArt is compatible with Photoshop CS3 on all older Macintosh computers."

I often use the old LucisArt plug-in on a PowerPC Mac running Leopard 10.5.3 and PS CS3 no problem (no Rosetta necessary). On Intel Macs you need to rely on Rosetta, as described above.

And the upcoming LucisArt Pro is spec'd for modern operating systems and CS3.

So in general you are correct about some developers leaving the game, but that is not true in regards to LucisArt.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmm OK Plugin-- I see your point- I have had the program  a few years and am familiar with the Rosetta thing--it's just your lady-Ms Williams? courteously I might add-- told me it would run CS3  as per CS2 by Aug 07--no mention of the Rosetta Stone--I use Intel Macs
I enable CS2 when I wish to activate LA--no big deal I suppose at present--allowing for the fact that like Realviz there are comparable ( Poss 'more cost effective?) ways to skin that cat.
 I have perused  the LA site and noted the Pro release mentioned-- good --I applaud -but at 500 smackers a pop-whoever thought up that price was smoking from the wrong Bong.

Sorry not for this bunny.

DesW
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2008, 11:42:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dear ptgui users, version 8.0 beta3 is now available for download.

I have done some first tests on small panos, and it seems to be much faster than 7.8. This especially shows when opening the images. I have a very fast SCSI320 RAID disk unit and the opening of 70MB Tiffs is much faster now, around 1 second per image (no scientific test though).

The actual pano computation seemed significantly faster also, but I cannot yet size that since I didn't do rigorous comparisons. Twice faster would be my feeling now.

They have also finally added a crop capability that will significantly reduce the size of the files it generates for large panos. This should help people having problems opening 1GB+ images due to hardware limitations.

My tests were done on OS10.4.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Bernard,

Could you answer a question that could save a pano-popping newbie many experiments?

Last Fall I purchased PTGui to stitch and Photomatix Pro to to HDR with the intention of producing HDR panos.  At that time, from my reading at least, it appeared that Photomatix Pro was state-of-the-art for HDR.  However, I am just now getting around to shooting a few panos to experiment.

So, I updated to the latest PTGui Pro version before diving in.  I also updated Photomatix Pro because it was a free update.  I noticed that PTGui now provides embedded support for HDRs (and even a layer combining mode that does not require going to HDR).  So, I have these questions:

(1) Which produces the highest quality, PTGui Pro using the embedded HDR cabability, or a combination of PTGui Pro and Photomatix?

(2) If a combination, which should be performed first, the stitching or the HDR?

(3) In either case, which produces the highest quality, a tone-mapped HDR or "exposure blending" (in Photomatix parlance)?  (Note that Photomatix "punts" on this question by advising to experiment with both).

(4) Or, would it be better to use Guillermo's "Zero Noise" software for the dynamic range portion of the effort?  (I have done a few HDRs and blends with Photomatix Pro, and the results seem to be pretty noisy.)

I would appreciate comments from anyone who has experimented with these software tools and can compare the results.

Best regards,
Bruce
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2008, 07:37:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Bernard,

Could you answer a question that could save a pano-popping newbie many experiments?

Last Fall I purchased PTGui to stitch and Photomatix Pro to to HDR with the intention of producing HDR panos.  At that time, from my reading at least, it appeared that Photomatix Pro was state-of-the-art for HDR.  However, I am just now getting around to shooting a few panos to experiment.

So, I updated to the latest PTGui Pro version before diving in.  I also updated Photomatix Pro because it was a free update.  I noticed that PTGui now provides embedded support for HDRs (and even a layer combining mode that does not require going to HDR).  So, I have these questions:

(1) Which produces the highest quality, PTGui Pro using the embedded HDR cabability, or a combination of PTGui Pro and Photomatix?

(2) If a combination, which should be performed first, the stitching or the HDR?

(3) In either case, which produces the highest quality, a tone-mapped HDR or "exposure blending" (in Photomatix parlance)?  (Note that Photomatix "punts" on this question by advising to experiment with both).

(4) Or, would it be better to use Guillermo's "Zero Noise" software for the dynamic range portion of the effort?  (I have done a few HDRs and blends with Photomatix Pro, and the results seem to be pretty noisy.)

I would appreciate comments from anyone who has experimented with these software tools and can compare the results.

Best regards,
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The quick answer is that, per my limited first tests, I have found PTgui Pro's implementation of the Enfuse algo to produce much more natural results than I ever could obtain with Photomatix (but I am far from being knowledgeable enough about Photomatix).

it doesn't use any deep bit depth space and there is therefore no need to do any mapping back to 16 bits. Instead, it automates the process of layering in PS 2 or several images with different exposures, but:

- it aligns the images automatically as part of the process
- it tries to get the best compromise of brighness at pixel leve to avoid blowing or having very dark areas.

I am getting totally natural results without any halos.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2008, 08:39:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, Bernard; very helpful.  I look forward to testing the PTGui Pro route.

Regards,
Bruce
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4119



« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2008, 11:46:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dear ptgui users, version 8.0 beta3 is now available for download.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm know very little about stitching but am interested in learning.

I gather from this and other threads that Realviz Stitcher might not be the way to go. How does PTGui compare with, say, AutoPano? Or indeed CS3's built-in stitching?

Jeremy
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2008, 07:24:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I gather from this and other threads that Realviz Stitcher might not be the way to go. How does PTGui compare with, say, AutoPano? Or indeed CS3's built-in stitching?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are plenty of thread on this here and elsewhere. My view is that:

- some like CS3 for its convenience, but I am not convinced by the performance,
- Autopano is best for dificult panos with few features,
- PTgui is best in terms of performance and HDR.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2008, 07:49:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm know very little about stitching but am interested in learning.

I gather from this and other threads that Realviz Stitcher might not be the way to go. How does PTGui compare with, say, AutoPano? Or indeed CS3's built-in stitching?

Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi,
Bernard speaks with knowledge of his preferred--I may have been a tad harsh on the poor Realviz froggies,basically I have had RViz from it's inception and while you need a PHD to fire it, it is a superior program and will deliver where others won't.

I stitch most days Scanned Film/Digital files  up to 280CM wide, usually 2-8 files a pop.

The ones B mentioned are indeed excellent but I'll stick with the  RViz"Flaky Pastry" for the moment, as it bakes the best Pie for me anyway!

CS3 photomerge--fine --but try a Coastal Pano with moving Palm tress and Horizon line-and it falls apart.

Anyway try the Free demo Rviz--if you get stuck Email me offline and I'll help you with settings.

good luck,

DesW
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2008, 08:31:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
- some like CS3 for its convenience, but I am not convinced by the performance,

I do stitching professionally for my architecture clients. I don't do anything to involved, 2-3 image shift pans with the T/S lenses and 3-5 telephoto stitches for long distance shots of big horizontal buildings. CS3 handles these with no problem, but as I shoot them there is no convergence to correct, just mending the seams.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
johnchoy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2008, 12:09:51 PM »
ReplyReply

In my case, I don't see the version 8.0 run much faster than the 7.8...........Perhaps I'm running a ramdisk that hinder the 8.0 to access my whole 8G memory.

I bought the 7.8 after I tried and get familiar w/ a piriate version of 7.2 and I experienced what a great leap forward of speed from 7.2 to 7.8.

Anyway, I choose ptgui because it can config multiple scratch disk and 64 bit support. I don't know if hugin which is a free ware of similar can do the same but as least I don't have the knowledge to discover that.

I do stitching for both self works and client, I found ptgui is better than PS.
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4119



« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2008, 03:00:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi,
Anyway try the Free demo Rviz--if you get stuck Email me offline and I'll help you with settings.

good luck,

DesW
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's very kind of you - thanks. I'll download Stitcher, PTGui and AutoPano demo versions and see how I get on.

Jeremy
Logged
MarkPrins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2008, 01:51:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi All;
The new version of PTGUi is faster and adds quite a few enhancements. On the downside the blending has some real issues that require a fair bit manual work on the final image. Nothing a little masking in PS canít fix.  I wasnít super impressed with the HDR aspect of PTGui and I havenít figured out how to call an external fusing program. I use PTGui as my primary stitcher and I specialize in panoramic stitched images so I shoot and construct 3 to 20 stitches a day most are 12 or 24 image dual tier. That said, I like Max Lyons TuFuse as my main HDR program. I spent 3 months this last winter shooting in the Mackenzie Delta where the light (or lack of) demanded HDR so I tried them all. The real and final key I found was when I returned to the studio and started to push prints to the 9880. Tufuse gave the best tonal gradients and the most natural look to the image. On the down side it seemed all HDR programs map noise also. I guess in the end it is what your eye likes best. My HDR workflow is currently as follows, shoot HDR range of images, I tend to the high speed and auto bracket settings, convert Raw with NX, I was never happy with ACR results I seemed to lack the skill to get what I wanted, register the HDR images with PTGui. I have registered images with PTAssembler also. Output from PTGUI as 16 bit tiffs with a separate alpha channel, input images into TuFuse. Load fused images into PTGui and stitch final HDR pano. Sounds way complicated but every time I change something I find my final image changes to a point where I am unhappy with it.  I still have a wack of data from up in the Delta to build but paying jobs tend to move to the top of the stack. I read this post it sounds confusing. The long and short is that no one product seems to give me what I need for my images so I have learned to use what I needed for the images I want to create. I am a big fan of PTGui and the work Joost has done on this program, Max Lyons and his work on PTAssembler and TuFuse make difficult shoots easy.

Mark Prins
Inanda Images
Whitehorse Yukon
Canada
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:55:37 PM by MarkPrins » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2008, 07:07:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi All;
The new version of PTGUi is faster and adds quite a few enhancements. On the downside the blending has some real issues that require a fair bit manual work on the final image. Nothing a little masking in PS canít fix.  I wasnít super impressed with the HDR aspect of PTGui and I havenít figured out how to call an external fusing program. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199922\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is you comment about the tone mapping HDR of PTgui, or is it about the new 7.8/8.0 Ensufe capability?

I have found enfuse to work well for my needs so far, but I tend to avoid shooting scenes requiring much HDR in the first place so that my experience is a bit limited.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
TMcCulley
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2008, 09:48:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is you comment about the tone mapping HDR of PTgui, or is it about the new 7.8/8.0 Ensufe capability?

I have found enfuse to work well for my needs so far, but I tend to avoid shooting scenes requiring much HDR in the first place so that my experience is a bit limited.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,

Post one of your 16 + images to show what can be done.  I am always amazed by the large format quality that you achieve and must be seen to really understand

Tom
Logged
MarkPrins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2008, 09:10:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is you comment about the tone mapping HDR of PTgui, or is it about the new 7.8/8.0 Ensufe capability?

I have found enfuse to work well for my needs so far, but I tend to avoid shooting scenes requiring much HDR in the first place so that my experience is a bit limited.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Bernard;
My comment was regarding the earlier version of  tone mapping of PTGui not the 7.8 beta Enfuse. I am a huge fan of PTGUi and use it daily. I invested a fair bit of time mastering the fusing product I currently use so once I had a process that produced a final print I liked I didnít look farther. I started with the Photomatix plugin and then migrated to the hdr in PTGui, which I liked better. TuFuse came along about the same time as my epson and I ran a set of comparison prints and TuFuse won hands down for me. I donít do a lot of hdr work but I didnít have a lot of choices with the light I had. Product use has a lot to do with final results, one may get the same results with other fusing/tone mapping programs but for me this one works.

Mark Prins
Inanda Images
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad