BUG!... ??   [SOLVED] - View the solution

This forum is dedicated to Autopano Pro / Giga bug reports and features discussion.
Please read the posting rules before starting a topic!
no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:14 pm

Hi...

Should I call this a bug or a fact that APG cannot process my images.??? I tried to added my Stacks in the hope that using my new iMac APG could coup with my images.. I have said in another post that RMS means nothing.. This is true.. How can this be "Excellent".. when its clear its not.. Millions of issues.. I went to Edit and clicked on the Fusion and I am still waiting after an hour for it to go into the Green.. Wouldn't matter anyway since you can see so much Ghosting... :rolleyes:

APG cannot process my images using Stacks.. Using preprocessed fused images it can do it, but still has some issues.. I cannot use Hard Links since it will make a dogs dinner of my pano, detecting it as a Blob.. I also cannot sue XML code to assist.. No idea why...

It could be argued that my NPP or other settings are out.. But, how come PTGui outputs the pano just about perfectly.. No issues... I really do not get APG.. I never have.. For some reason APG does not like my 14-24mm lens with images shot at 14mm focal...

Destiny...

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 16415
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 130 posts
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by mediavets » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:51 pm

What focal length are you using? 14mm?

I don't understand why hard links would result in the effect you describe if you are choosing to index on an exposure level (in the stack) that permits good CP detection.

IS APG mis-detecting your 14mm rectilinear lens as a fisheye?

Does APG have the same problems if you use single *(rather than bracketed) exposures?

I don't understand why you cannot use an appropriate XML data file, at least with single exposures or pre-processed bracketed exposures)

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:03 pm

I use 14mm focal.. It defaults to fisheye... No problem with a single stack..

I really do not know why I cannot use the XML either.. or hard links..

I will reduce the size of these images. I captured my favourite Antique Centre a week or so ago just to have a new set of test images.. I will provide the images as single images so others can fuse in Photomatix or use APG.. Even if my NPP was out a little I should still be getting a good result.. PTGui has no issues so APG should be better..

I will will make my images smaller when I get home later.. I love using my 14-24mm since the image quality is much better than when using my 10.5 fisheye... I must be doing something wrong.. I am not interested in spending hour fixing control points.. I use a Robotic Head so there would be no reason to do so... I should be able to just drop my images into APG and process...

Destiny...

mediavets wrote:What focal length are you using? 14mm?

I don't understand why hard links would result in the effect you describe if you are choosing to index on an exposure level (in the stack) that permits good CP detection.

IS APG mis-detecting your 14mm rectilinear lens as a fisheye?

Does APG have the same problems if you use single *(rather than bracketed) exposures?

I don't understand why you cannot use an appropriate XML data file, at least with single exposures or pre-processed bracketed exposures)

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:40 am

I have reduced the images size by heaps.. Down from: 4912X7360 to 667X1000... No good for a zoom pano but I need to send the image for you to test, partially for Hard Links.... I need to send you the xml later too...

Using the small images I have a RMS of 1.57 so I am sure my NPP is correct.. That's if you can take any notice of that..

The stitching using smaller images is very good.. Nice render too.. Still cannot use Detect Hard Links with the small images..

http://www.destinyvirtualtours.com/ForT ... mall-1.zip

I have just tried the Large images again and it works.. I really do not get that, I tried several times over the weekend but had issues... The RMS are a bit higher but still Excellent at 2.66... Considering the size of the images that this very good... So what could be going on... I remember a long time ago something like this happening... Different results at different times.. Is it something I am doing or is APG getting confused... The Nadir Footprint is not as neat, however the rest of the pano is wickedly awesome.. In fact the stitching using stacks is better than using pre-fused images.. I cannot see any errors.. I will create a pano Tour and post it up.. Full screen looks awesome..

Destiny...

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 63 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:18 am

Destiny wrote:I use 14mm focal.. It defaults to fisheye... No problem with a single stack..


Does that mean: using NO stacks the lens parameters do NOT "default" to fisheye?

Destiny wrote:I really do not know why I cannot use the XML either.. or hard links..


Could you please describe your procedere using the xml and at wich point you "cannot use the xml"?

Destiny wrote:. . .

I should be able to just drop my images into APG and process...


Given you use the correct settings/parameters . . . for shooting as well as for stitching - yes.

Klaus

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:57 am

I have to change from the default fisheye to normal lens.. Stacks and Pre-fused I need to do this.. APG recognises my 14-24mm as Fisheye...

I have used Pappy Wizard XML and Roundashout XML.. No luck. I will send my XML tomorrow..

I am sure since I cannot use Hard-links I am getting ghosting of images when using Stacks.. You can see that at the flowers in front of this test.. http://www.destinyvirtualtours.com/PTPV ... ackes.html
You can also see ghosting on the price tab below the flowers too.. Lots of other areas like the Black Horse. If I could use Hard-links I am sure that would be fixed.. Using pre-fused images the stitching using APG has small issues... Using stacks, there are no stitching issues as far as I can see....

When you Zoom in on my pano, you can see why I love to use my 14-24.. No way I can do this using a 10.5 fisheye. Same number of images.. So same time to capture... but much better quality..

Destiny...

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 16415
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 130 posts
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by mediavets » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:26 am

Destiny wrote:I have to change from the default fisheye to normal lens.. Stacks and Pre-fused I need to do this.. APG recognises my 14-24mm as Fisheye...

You can force lens type (and focal length) in global settings.
Attachments
1-apg4x-force-focal-lenstype.jpg

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 16415
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 130 posts
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by mediavets » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:45 am

I don't understand why Hard links with Stacks produces such an odd result.

The shooting pattern seems less than ideal because it captures so much of the pano head in the lower row and there's a rather small over lap between the rows.
Attachments
2-apg4xb3-pattern.jpg
1-apg4b3-destiny-small.jpg

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:51 am

Yes.. But I might forget when using other lenses.. But worth thinking about since my intention is to only use my 14-24mm for Spheres... With that setting, its just a matter of adding my images and pressing Detect.. Render and done.. but.. I need to find out why I have issues with Hard Links so I remove that ghosting effect since using Pre Fused images then causes some small stitching issues.. I have come to realise that the setting used in Photomatix effects the stitching results in APG. That is why I tend to use EnfusGUI since that provides the best results. When I stated many times that APG does not seem to like my Photomatix images, this is the issue I feel... You can test that for yourself.. Use different settings with the same images and I am sure your results will be different..

Destiny...

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 63 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:52 am

Destiny wrote:I have to change from the default fisheye to normal lens.. Stacks and Pre-fused I need to do this.. APG recognises my 14-24mm as Fisheye...

I have used Pappy Wizard XML and Roundashout XML.. No luck. I will send my XML tomorrow..

I am sure since I cannot use Hard-links I am getting ghosting of images when using Stacks.. You can see that at the flowers in front of this test.. http://www.destinyvirtualtours.com/PTPV ... ackes.html
You can also see ghosting on the price tab below the flowers too.. Lots of other areas like the Black Horse. If I could use Hard-links I am sure that would be fixed.. Using pre-fused images the stitching using APG has small issues... Using stacks, there are no stitching issues as far as I can see....

When you Zoom in on my pano, you can see why I love to use my 14-24.. No way I can do this using a 10.5 fisheye. Same number of images.. So same time to capture... but much better quality..

Destiny...



If it´s your goal to use as few shots as possible but achieving excellent sharpness for indoor-panos i suggest to think about trading in the 14-24mm for a Nikon 2,8/16mm fisheye. That´s an excellent fullframe-fisheye FX lens for the D800.

Looks like Kolor cannot get grip on the issue causing a 14mm lens automatically getting treated as fisheye.

Your Nikon 2,8/10,5mm fisheye is a good lens for a DX-camera - but not for an FX-camera. I guess using the DX-10,5mm on a FX D800 by setting the FX-camera to DX-imagefield causes issues for APG regarding the EXIFs as well as for the Seitz-head regarding a DX-lens on a FX-camera in terns of writing correct XMLs for getting correctly interpreted by APG!?

Maybe that´s kind of a somewhat "unsusual" combination . . ;)

Klaus

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:54 am

You are getting a much better result than I am getting.. All I get is a blob of nothing when using Hard Links.. Terrible in fact.. But at least you have a result.. I am open to trying a different shooting pattern.. I tried other options but came back to the default my VR Drive comes up with..

Destiny..

mediavets wrote:I don't understand why Hard links with Stacks produces such an odd result.

The shooting pattern seems less than ideal because it captures so much of the pano head in the lower row and there's a rather small over lap between the rows.

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:01 pm

Well Klaus, while I would agree with you that the 16mm fisheye is a nice lens, there is no way I am trading it for my 14-24mm. It took me a long time to gain the confidence to use it with my VR Drive.. Its a hard thing for me to learn to use my VR Drive but I am gaining confidence.. I feel that the 14-24mm is perfect but I just need to find out the best options to use it without issues.. Its not just the number of images its the quality of image that more important. Just by chance I found I only needed the same number of shots when set on 14mm.. I would not mind if I had to shoot a few more.. But not heaps more..

Destiny..

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 16415
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 130 posts
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by mediavets » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:05 pm

Destiny wrote:You are getting a much better result than I am getting.. All I get is a blob of nothing when using Hard Links.. Terrible in fact.. But at least you have a result.. I am open to trying a different shooting pattern.. I tried other options but came back to the default my VR Drive comes up with..

Destiny..

mediavets wrote:I don't understand why Hard links with Stacks produces such an odd result.

The shooting pattern seems less than ideal because it captures so much of the pano head in the lower row and there's a rather small over lap between the rows.

My result was using on a single exposure oer shooting position.

Using all bracketed exposures in stacks with hard links results - as you say - in a 'blob'.
Attachments
1-apg4b3-destiny-small-stacks.jpg
3-apg4b3-destiny-small-stacks.jpg
2-apg4b3-destiny-small-stacks.jpg

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:06 pm

This is what I get when using Hard Links.. The first one is full size images and the second is the same image sizes as you have ..

Destiny...
Attachments
hardlinks.jpg

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:08 pm

I will get you the XML to try tomorrow.. You will see that using XML causes unexpected issues.. Rather than helping with the stitching is creates problems..

Destiny...

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 16415
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 130 posts
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by mediavets » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:10 pm

Destiny wrote: I am open to trying a different shooting pattern.. I tried other options but came back to the default my VR Drive comes up with..

Destiny..

The vrwave lens database suggests:

6-around at +30 and 6-around at -30 plus Z and N for 14mm rectilinear (standard) lens on fullframe Nikon.

http://www.vrwave.com/panoramic-lens-database/nikon/

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:18 pm

Well I could try that.. I am sure my NPP is correct but perhaps the issue is shooting pattern.. Makes me wonder how PTGui does it without issues..

Destiny...

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 63 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:19 pm

Destiny wrote:
I have come to realise that the setting used in Photomatix effects the stitching results in APG. That is why I tend to use EnfusGUI since that provides the best results. When I stated many times that APG does not seem to like my Photomatix images, this is the issue I feel... You can test that for yourself.. Use different settings with the same images and I am sure your results will be different..



As said before: i so far used Photomatix with four cameras: a Canon 20D, a Canon 5D2, a Nikon D800, and a Hasselblad H4D/40.

I NEVER had any issue stitching one of the Photomatix-tonemapped image file-sets. I have some other photographers here around me doing the same by using a variety of different cameras shooting bracketed and using Photomatix-tonemapped images for stitching in APG or PTGui.
Because we talked about your issue different times i several times asked my friends and collegues for their experiences.
No one - NO ONE - did ever exprience ANY kind of incompatibility in terms of Photomatix and APG.

So again - and i´m really sorry to repeat that - i think the issue is neither on Photomatix´s nor
on APG´s side . . ;) (betw.: no one so far had any idea what technical reason the issue might be basing on . . )

Klaus

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 63 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:23 pm

Destiny wrote:Just by chance I found I only needed the same number of shots when set on 14mm..


I don´t understand. How many shots for a sphere do you take using the 14-2 @14mm?

Using the 16mm Nikon FE needs 6 or 7 shots @20% overlap.

Klaus

PS: sorry - i read Andrew´s post.

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 63 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:28 pm

Destiny wrote:Well I could try that.. I am sure my NPP is correct but perhaps the issue is shooting pattern.. Makes me wonder how PTGui does it without issues..

Destiny...



If you like i can try your images processing them in Photomatix and stitch them in APG.

Klaus

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:25 pm

They are here for anyone to try... but only small... I will provide xml later.

Destiny..

klausesser wrote:
Destiny wrote:Well I could try that.. I am sure my NPP is correct but perhaps the issue is shooting pattern.. Makes me wonder how PTGui does it without issues..

Destiny...



If you like i can try your images processing them in Photomatix and stitch them in APG.

Klaus

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7882
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 227 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:29 pm

..and as I have repeatedly stated... Different settings from Photomatic does influence the stitching quality... So we can agree to disagree on that point....

When I get time I will prove it...

Destiny...

klausesser wrote:
Destiny wrote:
I have come to realise that the setting used in Photomatix effects the stitching results in APG. That is why I tend to use EnfusGUI since that provides the best results. When I stated many times that APG does not seem to like my Photomatix images, this is the issue I feel... You can test that for yourself.. Use different settings with the same images and I am sure your results will be different..



As said before: i so far used Photomatix with four cameras: a Canon 20D, a Canon 5D2, a Nikon D800, and a Hasselblad H4D/40.

I NEVER had any issue stitching one of the Photomatix-tonemapped image file-sets. I have some other photographers here around me doing the same by using a variety of different cameras shooting bracketed and using Photomatix-tonemapped images for stitching in APG or PTGui.
Because we talked about your issue different times i several times asked my friends and collegues for their experiences.
No one - NO ONE - did ever exprience ANY kind of incompatibility in terms of Photomatix and APG.

So again - and i´m really sorry to repeat that - i think the issue is neither on Photomatix´s nor
on APG´s side . . ;) (betw.: no one so far had any idea what technical reason the issue might be basing on . . )

Klaus

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 63 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:23 pm

Destiny wrote:They are here for anyone to try...



Where?

Klaus

PS: ok - sorry. Found them.

PS2: cannot unzip the file.

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 63 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:09 am

Downloads only 25MB from 71MB. Whyever. Doesn´t work.

Started the download four times - each time it stopped after 25 up to 35MB . . .

Klaus

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 16415
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 130 posts
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by mediavets » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:15 am

klausesser wrote:Downloads only 25MB from 71MB. Whyever. Doesn´t work.

Started the download four times - each time it stopped after 25 up to 35MB . . .

Klaus

I had no trouble downloading the ZIP file earlier today.

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest