matt@TraskPhoto.Com wrote:

When I try to generate a pano  using .CR2 files from my EOS 5D Mk2, the resulting image has magenta bands in it and does not look like a proper pano.  The software correctly detects that the images are a pano and tries to stitch them, but nothing comes out except magentish garbage.  If I export those same raw files as TIFs, APP stitches them correctly.  But they are exposure brackets for HDR,, so I want to use the RAWs if possible.

Matt

Hi Matt!

As DrSlony said already: convert RAW first in a decent converter.

There is no advantage to give RAW to APP or APG instead of bracketed TIFFs - APP has to convert the RAWs anyway. A specialised - camera-tailored like the Canon-tool - RAW-converter can do that better.
Bracketed TIFFs do fine.
If you want to work on HDR: give the RAWs or TIFFs into Photomatix first, map them and give the mapped TIFFs to APP/APG.
If you need a stitched sphere as HDR for global ilumination or image based lighting you can also work with bracketed TIFFs - but render them as 3 bracketed layers for making them HDR in Photmatix afterwards.
That´s what i do usually when i need HDR-files for GL/IBL in Maya or Cinema4D.
You have to sort the brackets as bracketed layers in the editor and add a %L behind the file-name in the rendering window to tell the renderer you want three (or more) bracketed layers to process HDR.

Photomatix generates HDR from bracketed TIFFs (or even JPGs) and saves as .exr or .hdr to be used as hdr-probes for GL/IBL.

I don´t know wether APG renders HDR - 1.4.2 didn´t - but i guess it´s always better to use specialized applications.

best, Klaus

I appreciate the comments, but the purpose of purchasing APP was to be able to autostitch bracketed images directly into panoramas.  If I had wanted to preprocess with Photomatix  I would have just continued to use Photoshop for stitching.  And kept my money in my wallet.

Besides, the APP manual in section 2.4.3 Should I pre-process RAW files, states "If the panorama contains bracketed images, ..., it is better to let AutoPano Pro process the raw files."

As much as I appreciate any and all advice, this discussion leaves me wondering if anyone employed by the company provides support for this product.  I noticed the conspicuous absence of any tech support link on the website.  Somewhat surprising with commercial software.

Welcome to the forum.

matt@TraskPhoto.Com wrote:

I appreciate the comments, but the purpose of purchasing APP was to be able to autostitch bracketed images directly into panoramas.  If I had wanted to preprocess with Photomatix  I would have just continued to use Photoshop for stitching.  And kept my money in my wallet.

Perhaps it would have been wise to have checked whether APP/APG would do what you want using the trial vresion before purchasing it?

As much as I appreciate any and all advice, this discussion leaves me wondering if anyone employed by the company provides support for this product.  I noticed the conspicuous absence of any tech support link on the website.  Somewhat surprising with commercial software.

That's grossly unfair - and quite inaccurate - the team at Kolor provides first class support, mainly via the forum; where of course it is also available to others who may later be seeking answers to the same problem.

I think you also underestimate the value of advice from experienced users.

Last edited by mediavets (2009-03-17 16:31:47)

<snip>
>Perhaps it would have been wise to have checked whether APP/APG would do what you want using >the trial vresion before purchasing it?
<snip>
>That's grossly unfair - and quite inaccurate - the team at Kolor provides first class support, mainly >via the forum; where of course it is also available to others who may later be seeking answers to >the same problem.

Thank you for helping me to make my point. 

Whether I tried it first (which I did), or just relied on the advice of an experienced friend (which I also did), is not relevant to my support experience.  And getting a response from a user (regardless of how experienced) stating that I should use some other product in order to get this one to do what it is supposed to do itself (and documented to be a preferred procedure in the manual), doesn't really solve the problem, does it?  And here I sit 24 hours later, still with no solution.  But I see that my somewhat unadmiring remark did in fact elicit a prompt response from the company (thank you very much AlexandreJ), and I hope to now get a prompt resolution.

>I think you also underestimate the value of advice from experienced users.
Being a software user for way too many years (and software developer, and former software support tech in an earlier life) I very much value the advice of experienced users.  And when I want the advice of experienced users, I'm pleased to hop into the nearest forum or discussion group and ask for it.  And when I have time on my hands to waste, I sometimes even go into the UseNet groups. 

That having been said though, I think it's too bad when a company with a commercial product tries to rely solely (or even mostly) on its user community as a support vehicle.  Sure it probably saves support costs for the company, but it's not an efficient way to solve problems for a user that is trying to make commercial use of paid software.  And yes, I read the manual and read the FAQ and searched the forums before posting my query.

It's the reflexive response of "the loyal fan base" taking offense at "the noob who dares to insult the sacred product/dev team" mindset that reduces the effectiveness of this support medium, IMO.

OK, so now I'll get off my soapbox, and thank you all for the warm welcome into the community.

Matt

Hi Klaus.

Thanks for the insights into your workflow - I'm always interested in learning more about these technologies.  And sorry if any offense was taken at my remarks about the support.

I've been using PhotoMatix to blend bracketed sequences into HDR images, and I've been using PhotoShop CS2 and CS3 for a while now to stitch panos.  And I've had unhappy experiences with a number of other stitching products over the years.

i've recently started shooting bracketed sequences for panos, and have run into technical limitations using Photomatix/Photoshop for really big panos.  So the idea of a product that does HDR blending of bracketed images while stitching is very attractive.  And the discussion in the manual of how APP corrects lens distortion is fascinating.  I like the way these guys think.

I've successfully created HDR panos with APP by exporting my bracketed images from LightRoom as TIFs, and I'm pleased with the results.  But my understanding is that HDR blending software can often do a better job with RAW files.  Besides, it improves the efficiency of my workflow a whole lot if I can skip an entire production step like that.  Greatly increases the value of APP if it saves me that much time.

Regards,
Matt

matt@TraskPhoto.Com wrote:

And here I sit 24 hours later, still with no solution

You want to feed RAW files into Autopano and get a HDR or tonemapped output. I'm not clear which, lets assume both. Well at the moment, as I wrote before, the latest stable version of Autopano Pro is 1.4.2 and it uses dcraw from when it was released, which was in the second quarter of 2008. That dcraw doesn't support your camera yet. Two solutions: develop your RAWs to another format, or try 1.9.5-b1, which is unstable at the moment but already bloody amazing. :]

matt@TraskPhoto.Com wrote:

But my understanding is that HDR blending software can often do a better job with RAW files.

Yes and no, lets be precise:
A RAW file typically has 10 to 14 bits of data per pixel (linear) which gives you a lot of headroom for recovering highlights. A JPG file only has 8 bits and is gamma corrected. You can tonemap a jpg file, but it will look crap. On the other hand, if you tonemap a RAW file shot at a low ISO rating, chances are high it will look quite decent and not too noisy. When you feed a RAW file into Autopano, it internally converts it into a TIFF*. You don't have any control over this process nor of the demosaicing algorithm used. This is why it is always better quality-wise to use a dedicated RAW converter and save to a 16bit/channel format. RawTherapee, a free RAW converter, in many cases does better than expensive proprietary ones. Now lets take this as an example: you shot a scene bracketed at -2EV, 0, +2EV. The +2EV captured the shadows well, 0EV captured the midtones well, but -2EV wasn't enough, some clouds are still blown out! Not a problem, you whip out your RAW converter, load the -2EV RAWs and set the best form of highlight recovery that the program can offer. If you had just fed the RAWs into Autopano, chances are high that you wouldn't have recovered the blown clouds. I typically leave the 0EV and +2EV images as they are when I develop them, but often turn on highlight recovery for some of the -2EV ones, if they need it.

There are problems in APP-1.4.2 that make rendering straight to a real HDR format not the best option for best quality, e.g. the blending border issue when you want to use smartblend. Kolor is working to solve these in APP/APG-2.*

*A "16bit TIFF" is typically 16 bits per channel / unsigned integer. I don't know whether that is what APP uses, I remember reading that APP used something better. I don't know how highlight recovery in a dedicated RAW converter would compare to what APP would be able to recover if it used anything better than TIFF16/unsigned (e.g. TIFF16/half-signed or TIFF32). Regardless of this, manually developing RAWs still has its advantages.

Oh yes, I want refering to what you wrote, that part was just about using a single JPG vs a single RAW, only afterwars I went on about using bracketed shots

good morning, Hank!

Shooting ONE shot better use RAW and convert to 16bit-TIFF - of course.
Shooting bracketed using 3 EV-steps of -2/0/+2 shooting JPG-best works fine in 75% of all cases.
Shooting RAW, converting it in a decent converter and save as TIFF 8bit or 16bit in some cases wins additional range - IF it´s vital.
Shooting spheres actually i use even JPG-small with 3step bracketing. I process them to HDR in Photomatix first and stitch them in APP afterwards.
Finding a correct setting in Photomatix for the complete set is no problem.
This way APP has to handle 1/3 of files and isn´t forced to deal with heavily over- or underexposed pictures.
Editing/correcting is remarkably faster.

Smartblend can´t render HDR in 1.4.2 - so you´d have to arrange layers by bracketed layers in the editor and render three bracketed layers to process them to hdr afterwards i Photomatix or so.
That might be a problem with big files and - as i experienced - an issue with ghosting can occur.
So in my eyes this way is not preferable. Just if you need HDR for the use as IBL/GL you have to go this way in APP 1.4.2 as i realized.

best, Klaus

Hi All

I don't often join in on these discussions, being a fairly new comer to APP, but as I shoot a lot of HDR panoramas (RAW into Photomatix then APP), this time I will.

I have tried panorama stitching software from all over the place, since finding that Canon included Photostitch with my video camera for some reason.  The main criteria was price.  I tried every free stitching software I could find.  Why? Because I was so disappointed with the results from Photoshop.  I have used CS, CS2, CS3 and CS4.  Only with CS4 is Photoshop's stitching reaching acceptable levels. 

I settled on Autostitch which although only a demo was way beyond anything else that was free.  I used some of my tech skills to give it an installed appearance inside XP and was very pleased with the output.  (I was only shooting with a compact camera in those days, so jpeg only.) Then I had to go and upset the apple cart by switching to Mac!

I went back to the Autostitch demo page and had a look at who was making Mac versions with the autostitch engine.  I tested them out and chose the APP offering.  I hated the first results I got!  I needed to come on the forum and post  a "disgusted with this process" post before someone came along and kindly put me on the right track.

I don't think comparing Photomatix and CS2/3 with APP is the point, although it is the point you are making.  The results of Photomatix and APP are so far and away beyond the Photomatix with CS2/3 results that doing the stages separately compared to chucking it all at APP, that it is worth the extra time taken.

I know this doesn't sort of solve your problem, but I just wanted to give you an idea of what I have experienced, coming to APP with similar intentions/desires for what I wanted the software to perform.

Cheers

Tim

DrSlony wrote:

If you shoot panoramas using a fisheye that means your end resolution wont be very high, so you will probably have enough RAM to tonemap the panorama. You can batch-HDR in Photomatix, save as exr, stitch in APP and render using smartlblend, save as exr and tonemap in Photomatix. Tonemapping takes about 32x as much memory as the panorama has megapixels, depends on fine settings and whether the "360" option is checked. With 8GB RAM you should be able to tonemap about 20 000 x 10 000 px. Photomatix 2.5 wouldn't use swap space - if it ran out of RAM, it would just fail. Haven't tried large panoramas on 3.1 yet.

Agreed.  I think I remember that APP would take in RAW and output exr, but I may be mis-remembering.  I think you can also convert exr to jpg in PS and use larger file sizes than PM, but I don't think PS knows about 360 degrees, or 360x180 (ie it may treat one edge differently than another, and you get a visible seam.)

I also use Klaus'es workflow now, using PM first then stitching.  And I'll comment that if you take panos inside a room with a window, you very often need a lot more than + or - 2Ev.

Mediavets mentioned OxfordEye Timelord, but that seems to require a PC, so its not really a portable solution, even a 7" netbook is too big to hold in your hand like a timer remote control.

DrSlony wrote:

I don't know whether the "HDR color correction" mode can be called a tonempper, but it does indeed do a very good job of blending exposures!

YES!! Absolute great tool! Couldn´t believe it the first time i iused it. I had a set of 15 shots and forgot to switch off AutoExp and AWB. A mess . . .
Then i used the color correction . . and it came up perfectly equalized like having been shot correctly . .
Really great.