 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | Rules | You are not logged in.
From the APG documentation:
Multi-band level: Lets you adjust the influence zone for each input pixel. Each pixel will double its influence zone for each supplemental level. For example, at level 2, each pixel acts on a span of 2 pixels in the final rendering, 4 pixels at level 3, 8 pixels at level 4... Level 0 represents the maximal influence zone (depending on the size of the input images). The negative levels let you reduce this area based on the maximum area. -4, the default value, seems to be the best choice in the majority of cases, if the color correction is enabled.
I'm missing something. From experience, it seems that a value of 0 provides the best blending. The second sentence seems to say a larger positive number blends over a larger area. The last seems to say, a negative number decreases the area. The middle sentence says 0 is maximum.... am I the only one that is confused?
My aim here is to get the best blending between images. I used to have terrible issues with vertical banding - which careful vignetting correction in Camera Raw helps a lot. Using "0" for Multi-band helps as well but sometimes I still end up with very subtle bands in some pictures in some places. There is no lens profile in ACR for my camera (Panasonic G3 with either lens), so I'm going to use their tools to create a profile: maybe that will get me better vignetting correction.
So is "0" truly the best value to use for this situation?
tnx
mgg
Offline
mgg wrote:
There is no lens profile in ACR for my camera (Panasonic G3 with either lens), so I'm going to use their tools to create a profile: maybe that will get me better vignetting correction.
mgg
Does DxO support your camera/lens combinations? If so it may provide good/better vignetting correction.
http://www.dxo.com/uk/photo
Last edited by mediavets (2012-03-02 16:38:53)
Offline
The G3 and 14-42 lens is supported, but the 45-200 lens isn't even listed as a future.......
tnx
mgg
Offline
So, no one truly understands that paragraph? Or everyone understands it except me?
"Multi-band level: Lets you adjust the influence zone for each input pixel. Each pixel will double its influence zone for each supplemental level. For example, at level 2, each pixel acts on a span of 2 pixels in the final rendering, 4 pixels at level 3, 8 pixels at level 4... Level 0 represents the maximal influence zone (depending on the size of the input images). The negative levels let you reduce this area based on the maximum area. -4, the default value, seems to be the best choice in the majority of cases, if the color correction is enabled."
Offline
I too would like a clarification of "The negative levels let you reduce this area based on the maximum area."
In the case of a 4000x3000 photo,
...
-4 ? (if 0 is 2048, then this is 128?)
-3 ? (if 0 is 2048, then this is 256?)
-2 ? (if 0 is 2048, then this is 512?)
-1 ? (if 0 is 2048, then this is 1024?)
0 max (2048? "Level 0 represents the maximal influence zone (depending on the size of the input images)")
1 1
2 2
3 4
4 8
5 16
6 32
7 64
8 128
9 256
10 512
11 1024
12 2048
13 4096 (larger than image, so doesn't exist)
Offline
Really good explaination DrSlony. Thanks.
One note : if you have APG, you can go to exposure fusion dialog box where you can see in live the influence of this value ( multiband level slider at the bottom ).
Offline
mgg wrote:
.... am I the only one that is confused?
No. Definitely not . . . 
I also can only guess what´s meant here in detail and what setting does which influence on our working.
best, Klaus
Offline
AlexandreJ: explanation? I was asking 
The exposure fusion dialog only allows one to use negative numbers: -10 to 0.
If you confirm what I wrote, it would mean that the negative range actually does the same thing as the positive range, just 'from the other end', so no problem really.
Offline
A pyramid has a level ( height ). This level ( height ) depends on input image size. For a 4000x3000 photos, the level is around 12 ( or 13 depending on the rounding ) : let's say 12.
+X means : X levels from the bottom : Example : 5 means 5 levels, so the blending will occurs over 16 pixes around edges.
-Y means : Y levels from the top. Example -2 means do all levels except last 2. In this case, 10, so everything is smooth at 512 pixels at least.
Of course, both positives values and negative values are the same. For a 12 levels pyramid : 5 = -7, 8 = -4, etc.
0 is an exception : it means all levels.
Offline
AlexandreJ wrote:
A pyramid has a level ( height ). This level ( height ) depends on input image size. For a 4000x3000 photos, the level is around 12 ( or 13 depending on the rounding ) : let's say 12.
+X means : X levels from the bottom : Example : 5 means 5 levels, so the blending will occurs over 16 pixes around edges.
-Y means : Y levels from the top. Example -2 means do all levels except last 2. In this case, 10, so everything is smooth at 512 pixels at least.
Of course, both positives values and negative values are the same. For a 12 levels pyramid : 5 = -7, 8 = -4, etc.
0 is an exception : it means all levels.
hm. ok now I should say I'm wiser...
... but sorry cant follow the calculation
ok asume a height of 12 and a value of +X = 5 ... how do you get to 16pixels. and how to use this If I asume +X =6 ???
Georg
Offline
Alexandre
A picture says more than thousand words 
I think that kolor should illustrate this tricky thing with the pyramid graphically, so that we can understand this definitely.
I have seen something like this in the wiki earlier, but I couldn't find it again.
Last edited by lumelix (2012-03-15 22:36:17)
Offline
BTW : we are working on the documentation to make this part full and better understandable :
WIP here : http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ … ing_engine
Offline
AlexandreJ wrote:
BTW : we are working on the documentation to make this part full and better understandable :
WIP here : http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ … ing_engine
Hi Alexandre,
looking at the new docu of your link and in special at the image
http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ … vel_en.png
I've following question:
the size in poxel of the influence zone is the common denominator between the + and the - values.
why not using a scale from 1 to 12 (or 0 to 11) where the smallest is representing the 1 pixel and the highest the 4096 pixel?
with current scaling I have 21 possible values I can set but 9 of them can be set with 2 different values (the -10 and the +2 is representing the 2 pixel, the -9 and the +3 is representing the 4pixel etc. and I assume using +2 or the -10 will give the same result, because both are using the influence zone of 2 pixels?
Liebe Grüße,
Georg
Last edited by gkaefer (2012-03-19 16:14:35)
Offline
DrSlony wrote:
Alexandre you explained it very well now, thank you.
gkaefer the 5th level covers 16 pixels. See my post #5
thanks - got it ;-)
Offline
AlexandreJ wrote:
BTW : we are working on the documentation to make this part full and better understandable :
WIP here : http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ … ing_engine
Well explained! Thank you. As i understand level "0" is the best to use in my case with the sky images? So Vincèn was right?
When i use it the borders seem become a bit sharper than with -4 (default).
best, Klaus
The best result i got is this one - using -4 but some anchors:
Offline
OT: I've never seen more icons on the dock or desktop! Amazing! How do you work and find things
Offline
gkaefer wrote:
the size in poxel of the influence zone is the common denominator between the + and the - values.
why not using a scale from 1 to 12 (or 0 to 11) where the smallest is representing the 1 pixel and the highest the 4096 pixel?
with current scaling I have 21 possible values I can set but 9 of them can be set with 2 different values (the -10 and the +2 is representing the 2 pixel, the -9 and the +3 is representing the 4pixel etc. and I assume using +2 or the -10 will give the same result, because both are using the influence zone of 2 pixels?
The pyramid has a variable max level ( sometimes, it can be only 8, other time, it can grow up to 12 or 13 ). So the total number of value can be larger of smaller than 21.
Depending on that, the association ( -something = +some other value ) changes. We want it simple without anyone knowing that there is something not constant around.
That's why we came up with a (-10 | 0 | +10 ) slider. We though also about 3 checks box ( small, normal, large uniformisation ), but that didn't give the accuracy I wanted.
Offline
AlexandreJ wrote:
gkaefer wrote:
the size in poxel of the influence zone is the common denominator between the + and the - values.
why not using a scale from 1 to 12 (or 0 to 11) where the smallest is representing the 1 pixel and the highest the 4096 pixel?
with current scaling I have 21 possible values I can set but 9 of them can be set with 2 different values (the -10 and the +2 is representing the 2 pixel, the -9 and the +3 is representing the 4pixel etc. and I assume using +2 or the -10 will give the same result, because both are using the influence zone of 2 pixels?The pyramid has a variable max level ( sometimes, it can be only 8, other time, it can grow up to 12 or 13 ). So the total number of value can be larger of smaller than 21.
Depending on that, the association ( -something = +some other value ) changes. We want it simple without anyone knowing that there is something not constant around.
That's why we came up with a (-10 | 0 | +10 ) slider. We though also about 3 checks box ( small, normal, large uniformisation ), but that didn't give the accuracy I wanted.
I understand how the current system is meant to work now but I would say it suffers from an unnecessary over-complication in using values both above and below zero. I cannot see why the slider cannot just go from 0 to 12 where 0 represents max blending equal to the pixel width of the image itself. Then 1=1/2 max 2=1/4 max 3=1/8 max and so on up to 12 or 13 as required. The actual pixel values themselves would not be that important but for a 4096 pixel width it would be 4096=0, 2048=1, 1024=2, 512=3, 256=4, 128=5, 64=6, 32=7, 16=8, 8=9, 4=10, 2=11, 1=12, 1=13
The current system is also not intuitive because in moving the slider from -1 to 0 to 1 (which are all next to each other on the scale) you move through a discontinuity for example where 0=4096 it goes 2048 to 4096 to 1. The slider goes from max to min in one jump there
regards,
Martin
Offline
AlexandreJ wrote:
gkaefer wrote:
the size in poxel of the influence zone is the common denominator between the + and the - values.
why not using a scale from 1 to 12 (or 0 to 11) where the smallest is representing the 1 pixel and the highest the 4096 pixel?
with current scaling I have 21 possible values I can set but 9 of them can be set with 2 different values (the -10 and the +2 is representing the 2 pixel, the -9 and the +3 is representing the 4pixel etc. and I assume using +2 or the -10 will give the same result, because both are using the influence zone of 2 pixels?The pyramid has a variable max level ( sometimes, it can be only 8, other time, it can grow up to 12 or 13 ). So the total number of value can be larger of smaller than 21.
Depending on that, the association ( -something = +some other value ) changes. We want it simple without anyone knowing that there is something not constant around.
That's why we came up with a (-10 | 0 | +10 ) slider. We though also about 3 checks box ( small, normal, large uniformisation ), but that didn't give the accuracy I wanted.
ok, got it. my impression is that the user currently does not know which size the currently used images does have, 4096, 2048 etc. and so user cant predict where the best results can be expected rather with minus rather with plus values. so its still a bit inefficient a try & error playing...
so a colorscale from green to red obove/down the (current) slider could help the user where the best results can be expected. the scale should be dynamically & dependant to the internally detected pixel size?
Liebe Gruesse,
Georg
Offline
Yes Gkaefer, perhaps, that's another option. We did this single slider for compacity goal. I agree with the discontinuity.
If you have another UI to propose, I didn't find anything better yet.
Offline
AlexandreJ wrote:
Yes Gkaefer, perhaps, that's another option. We did this single slider for compacity goal. I agree with the discontinuity.
If you have another UI to propose, I didn't find anything better yet.
As I proposed in my post #19 the use of 2 scales is an over-specification of the problem IMO. One scale with a slider going from 0 to +n is all that is required with each increment reducing the scope of the smoothing by an exponential factor of (1/2) to the power n
This is also the best solution in terms of "compacity" (compactness)
Offline
