 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | Rules | You are not logged in.
Trying out the new masking tool for ghost removing with an old handheld 360-pano:
This new feature works really good. No problem to mark unwanted areas.
I don't know if I used it correctly (no manual or hint til now) but the render preview looks like it should.
But the finished render looks completely different (see images below)!
It ignores the placed removal markers and cut and stitch anywhere else 
Offline
There's a design issue with some tools in alpha version. Did you hit the validate tools before doing the rendering ?
If not, marker were lost.
Offline
Hi Alexandre
What do you mean exactly with "validate tools"? I couldn't find a tool named "validate".
But of course, I hit the green "Apply"-button after every modification 
Strangely, it worked on the first render, but I have forgotten a ghost in a different place.
As I also have placed there some markers, it partially no longer worked for the still existing first markers.
Now I have tested it with the "Keeping markers" and thus it goes again.
It seems that the markers are sometimes not fully implemented in all cases?
Last edited by lumelix (2012-09-06 11:40:12)
Offline
Hi Martin,
About the mask edition feature. As you might know, it enables to select/unselect areas in some pictures. The marks are hints for the rendering algorithm. If there is no solution with the specified marks, the result will not be what you could expect. (If an area is marked 'to be removed' in all pictures for example).
Moreover, the quick preview only run anti-ghost on the visible area, and therefore, if the whole picture is not visible, the final result can differ from the quick preview.
To help you further on this issue, it would be good if you can upload your pictures and pano on the ftp server (http://www.kolor.com/forum/t766-ftp-server).
Thanks,
Thomas
Offline
Hello Thomas
Yes, I just have used the markers this way. It's about this bench, which appears in a total of 5 images. I have covered it in 3 pictures with red markers and in the two middle images depending almost up to the half, so that only in one location parallax must be corrected manually (the pano is taken manually).
The preview was also shown as expectet with the entire panorama . I cut the screenshots only because of the size. Of course I have not cover too much with the red markers. As I can see in the second case using also the green “keeping” markers, there was always a solution possible.
I have used 32-bit TIF’s for this test, much too large for the upload. Now I've tried to reconstruct the case with smaller JPG’s and with V3.0 A3.
But I can’t get it anymore! Now the render result is always as expected
Offline
Good news!
Nevertheless, I'd like to add one more point.
The anti-ghost tool is designed to choose between objects that have really moved in the scene. For parallax problems, you might consider fixing the parallax by choosing other control points.
Anyway, if the masking tool solves your issue, it's ok
Thanks,
Thomas
Offline
Who is Brad Pitt?
It is as usual: You have to play with such a software like APG! Most of the tools can be used in several ways.
This new masking tool is very powerful and also very well suited to influence the cutting of the images,
eg. you have parallax errors (not every pano is shot with a Seitz).
It's near like this pano weaving tool from the CSI Utah! But it's better!
You have only manually intervene when necessary. The rest continue to work automatically.
And you can toggle between the images by scroling. Really nice!
The bench in the example above appears in 5 images. So without markers
I get a pano with 5 parts of the bench and have to edit it at 4 places.
With the red and green markers I have only one place to edit 
Helpful information would still be the maximum number of markers and determine the extent of their influence.
Last edited by lumelix (2012-09-07 12:47:50)
Offline
lumelix wrote:
Who is Brad Pitt?
Is Brad Pitt a guy who can take a whole panorama and separate the pano in the single source images ?
No, I was probably mistaken with Arnold Schwarzenegger 
Offline