Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Panorama Stitching Software  (Read 17838 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2005, 11:15:01 AM »
ReplyReply

PTAssembler is what I've been using; I don't use auto modes, I prefer to align the images myself. I've made 24x72" prints (9 1Ds verticals in 1 row with some overlap) with zero visible seams.
Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1624


« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2005, 08:19:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeez.  Seven by two FEET.  The mind boggles.
Logged
digidon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #62 on: October 01, 2005, 10:22:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that's six by two feet and it's one row( 1x9) where an image must match on two sides except the end ones.  Try a manual stitch of 3x3 where your center image must conform on all sides to other images - a little tougher.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #63 on: October 01, 2005, 10:27:54 PM »
ReplyReply

If there are only minor parallax problems, Panavue's Image Assembler can automatically stitch huge panoramas in 16 bit, limited in size only by the 4GB limit of the Tiff format and the 100,000 pixel limit in any one dimension.

I have a couple of images which would print out at 2ftx16ft on my Epson 7600, consisting of 13 overlapping scanned 35mm frames in the vertical position, taken before I got my first digital camera. These were taken with a Tamron 300mm lens. I've since revisited the scene and re-shot using a 400mm lens on my 20D. Instead of one row of 13 images, I now have 3 rows of 30 images. This will be a huge job to complete. If I ever do find the time to get this right, I should be able to get a tack sharp print from an Epson 9600, 3ft x 24ft.

Just boasting  Cheesy .
Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #64 on: October 02, 2005, 11:14:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I tried Hugins out of interest after reading this thread, and failed to get it to do three stitches that PT GUI and PT Assembler did seamlesslessly and effortlessly. Probably just a matter of learning it as it does use the same stitching engine, but I just find it less intuitive.
How did you run the optimizer?  I find it works better if you start with the yaw, then add the next one, then add the next one, etc... on down the line.  Did you use autopano?  I get just as good stitches as I did out of PT GUI and PT Assembler, but I would be interested in hearing more about the new PTGUI.  Of course, I'm using the same lens and pano-head for most of my stitching.
Logged

pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #65 on: October 03, 2005, 01:28:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How did you run the optimizer?
To be frank I can't remember - I played with the thing for only about 20 mins, and in that time I made four attempts at stitches I'd done before.  Each time I got all images overlapping each other just about 100%.  I did use autopano - I find it's better than me!

Like I said, I'm sure the big error is with me - I didn't pout in a lot of time to familiarise myself with it and I already have a tool I'm happy with. The cause of my user error though was not immediately apparent to me, which is why I say I personally found it less intuitive than the other two I used.
Logged
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #66 on: October 03, 2005, 12:48:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark.
You were right about PS difficulty with 1x3 stitching compared to ArcSoft.  See results of test update at
http://www.higherworld.com/stitch/
Don
Thank you for sharing the examples. All three seems to have a "staircase" effect on the edges of the middle purple-ish sky. Even the last one with the building well aligned, the purple sky's edge has "staircase" effects, especially right above that small white cloud.

It would be nice to see how the purple sky looks like in the pre-stitched images.
Logged
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #67 on: October 03, 2005, 12:57:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Oops. Just realized that my comments were referring to the the examples on:
http://www.higherworld.com/stitch2/

Seems like you were later able to remove the "staircase". How was that done?
Logged
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #68 on: October 03, 2005, 01:05:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
I tried Hugins out of interest after reading this thread, and failed to get it to do three stitches that PT GUI and PT Assembler did seamlesslessly and effortlessly. Probably just a matter of learning it as it does use the same stitching engine, but I just find it less intuitive.
How did you run the optimizer?  I find it works better if you start with the yaw, then add the next one, then add the next one, etc... on down the line.  Did you use autopano?  I get just as good stitches as I did out of PT GUI and PT Assembler, but I would be interested in hearing more about the new PTGUI.  Of course, I'm using the same lens and pano-head for most of my stitching.
Thanks Bryant for sharing your Hugin experience, and your nice tutorial. I have yet to try any of these, but will be stitching 4000dpi 35mm scans to print on my Epson 1280 and 2200. Would appreciate you comments on stitching similar resolution images with Hugin.

I use 13x19 Super B Epson HWM, EM and Ilford Smooth Pearl. Are there 13" wide rolls for these paper? I don't think there is one for EM.

Thanks.
Logged
kenstrain
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #69 on: October 03, 2005, 02:46:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Re stitching with Hugin.
I, normally, use PTassembler with autopano and enblend.  This thread prompted me to revisit Hugin (which was essentially functionless when I last tried some time ago). Now with the panotools stitcher selected (and autopano and enblend) it is (quelle surprise) equivalent to PTassembler.  The "nona" stitching option was faster and in 2 out of 3 tries essentially equivalent in terms of goodness of fit.  
That is significant as the panotools based options were previously superior to anything else (and the differences in GUIs frankly trivial).  Has someone compared the "nona" engine with panotools, in more depth?

Ken
Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #70 on: October 04, 2005, 09:46:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
but will be stitching 4000dpi 35mm scans to print on my Epson 1280 and 2200. Would appreciate you comments on stitching similar resolution images with Hugin.
You shouldn't have a problem with that.  I've stitched scans from 35mm.  It always seems slightly harder than digital, but it will work just fine.  I have a five image print from 35mm hanging on my wall.
Logged

woody2801
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2005, 03:56:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I have like many of you, been trying to find a perfect solution to stitching panoramic images.  For me cost is an option as I am a poor student!

So far I have been hugely unimpressed with photomerge and whilst the stitching of arcsofts panoram making software is good, the blending aint!

So far my best results have been acheived using the method as described by Michael on the website and manually doing it in Photoshop. The only bind is that it takes hours to do it well.

About to tryPanaVue image assembler.

Hopefully it's going to make it much better.

Interested to hear people's views on realviz, as lots of people in the Uk rate it highly. So I was a bit surprised at the seemingly negative response you guys gave it.

Andy
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2005, 04:11:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interested to hear people's views on realviz, as lots of people in the Uk rate it highly. So I was a bit surprised at the seemingly negative response you guys gave it.

Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andy,

I used not to be very impressed by Sticher 4.0, but 5.0 is top notch.

- Very fast to operate,
- very fact computations,
- perfect stitches even from images taken with less than perfect conditions (normal tripod ball head using the rotating base),
- export in PS format that enables you to retouch manually things that went wrong,

I don't quite see how something else could be better, it is just perfect per my first weeks of casual usage.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1624


« Reply #73 on: March 17, 2006, 09:22:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Finally having time to do some experimenting with new software, I installed Arcsoft Panorama Maker.  My first test, an easy four-image stitch with a 200mm lens was VERY disappointing.  While most of the image stitched fine, there were visible seams in the sky.  

Autostitch, for all it's JPG softness, did a perfect job with the same input.  Arcsoft's result would require significant work with the cloning tool to hide the seams.  The lack of virtually any controls over the process makes it impossible to trace the problem.

I've been stitching for years.  I'm not at all impressed with Arcsoft.  

Peter
Logged
kbolin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 220



WWW
« Reply #74 on: March 22, 2006, 12:01:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Well I tried ArcSoft and PTGui... PTGui wins.  The ArcSoft had real problems blending the images I tried and PTGui only required some very minor superficial adjustments in PS.

I didn't try any others as I was happy with PTGui and stopped at that point.  Of course I'll have to look all over again later this year when I finally get a Mac but I'll come back here for guidance.

Thanks everyone for your help and comments.

Kelly
Logged

drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #75 on: March 22, 2006, 11:10:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Kelly,
I think you chose the right one. I changed over to PTGui 5.5 last year having previously used PTAssembler with autopano and enblend and I have to say that PTGui is better for three very good reasons.
1/ All the functions are rolled into one program.
2/ The user interface is far superior.
3/ It handles 16bit files for input and output.
It does an excellent job of warping, stitching and blending and so far there has been very little need to correct anything.
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
lysdexic2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #76 on: April 10, 2006, 04:18:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I have had very good luck using three open source, free programs: autopan-gui, hugin, and enblend.  

I'll be the first to admit that they are not user-intuitive, but there are GREAT tutorials that take you through how to use them step-by-step.  Now that I know how to use them, I find the process very quick.  Hugin is great because you have the option to export into PSD with mutlilayers.  You can have it pre-make the masks or you can just have it align and rotate the images and you can blend them yourself.  I generally export to multiple tiff files and let enblend do the masking and color adjustment.  I find that 90% of the time I cannot tell that it was was a multi-stich image even when viewed at 100%.  The times where there are errors, I re-stich the image into Photoshop and get to work.

Just wanted to share the results from the free, "no-frills", student-friendly solution.  I think the programs work great together.  If anyone wants to know specific tutorials or if you have questions just let me know.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #77 on: April 10, 2006, 05:01:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I have never had that combo actually work.

So, if you have any instructions on how to make it work, let me know.
Logged
ddolde
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


« Reply #78 on: April 10, 2006, 06:31:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Panavue Image Assembler is awesome !
Logged
plugsnpixels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270



WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 15, 2006, 11:05:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,

I've only recently tried my hand at using proper panorama software. Thirty years ago I was taping home-developed Instamatic prints together into strips (http://www.plugsnpixels.com/bhs/bhsmainstpano.html). As you can see from the entire sequence on that site, I also used 126 and 35mm scans and blended them in Photoshop years later, as well as those throwaway 35mm pano cameras from the mid-'90s that merely used a wide angle lens and physically cropped out the top and bottom of the frame.

More recently, I checked out all of the available options for Mac. Among the best shareware I found for auto stitching (where you drag your images and click once or twice, basically) were:

•Calico (http://www.plugsnpixels.com/calico.html)
•Autopano and DoubleTake (these two and any other commercial options aren't on my website because the developers did not respond to my inquiries yet, but they worked equally as well).

I tried the freebie options but they were like taking a math quiz! Might as well do the aligning and blending manually in Photoshop.
Logged

Free digital imaging ezine
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad