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: 7883
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 228 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:21 pm

If I used my NN4 to capture the bracketed shots, I would not have any XML to use.. In fact, not many users would have XML to use..

Destiny...

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7883
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 228 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:23 pm

Why did you set the reference images to 5.. It should really be 3..

I will try 5 now..

Destiny...

klausesser wrote:
klausesser wrote:But i´ll give it a try using the stacks without xml and with hard-linking - though i see no sense in that at all.



ok - here we go:

imported the images-stacks.
set "hard links"
stitched.
no problem, no "blob".:

Bildschirmfoto 2015-07-24 um 13.10.42.png


Bildschirmfoto 2015-07-24 um 13.11.10.png


Bildschirmfoto 2015-07-24 um 13.10.42.png

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7883
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 228 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:27 pm

I have just set the reference image to 5 but I get the other end of the scale... So what are you doing that I am not..

Destiny...
Attachments
Reference5.jpg

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:29 pm

Destiny wrote:Why did you set the reference images to 5..


i didn´t care.

Destiny wrote:It should really be 3..


Why?

Destiny wrote:I will try 5 now..


Shouldn´t matter anyway.

Klaus
Last edited by klausesser on Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:31 pm

Destiny wrote:I have just set the reference image to 5 but I get the other end of the scale... So what are you doing that I am not..

Destiny...



well . . . how would i know what you´re doing different there in "down under" . . ;) :cool:

Klaus

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:38 pm

klausesser wrote:well . . . how would i know what you´re doing different there in "down under" . . ;) :cool:



Let´s try step by step:

1) in the folder order your images by name.
2) grab all images and drag them into APG.
3) in the group-window you see the number of the layer which is used for setting the links.
4) this links will also be used for the other layers.

I didn´t choose "5" deliberately - APG selected it this way.
Basically in the darkest image-layer in a stack there´s the most of cp-related information i learned.

Klaus

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7883
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 228 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:44 pm

Very very strange.. If I set my Reference Images on 1, 4 or 5 it does not make a mess.. If I set my reference image to 2 or 3, I get a mess.. But that varies. Sometimes I get a blob in the middle... Like Andrew got.

I remember Alexandre Jenny telling me two years ago to set the Reference to the middle of the stack...

All very strange.

Destiny...
Attachments
mess.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 » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:48 pm

klausesser wrote:
klausesser wrote:well . . . how would i know what you´re doing different there in "down under" . . ;) :cool:



Let´s try step by step:

1) in the folder order your images by name.
2) grab all images and drag them into APG.
3) in the group-window you see the number of the layer which is used for setting the links.
4) this links will also be used for the other layers.

I didn´t choose "5" deliberately - APG selected it this way.
Basically in the darkest image-layer in a stack there´s the most of cp-related information i learned.


Klaus

5 is the most exposed (not the darkest) image in the bracketed set.

You suggest it makes no difference which level you choose, but I think it will if you choose to have APP/APG detect CPs only in the reference level and use hard links.

I have always chosen a level that is well exposed, neither over nor under exposed, as reference level in order to have the best chance of detecting good CPs.

Andrew

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:54 pm

Destiny wrote:If I used my NN4 to capture the bracketed shots,


Why?? You have the VR2!

Destiny wrote:I would not have any XML to use..


Why not? For what did you buy the VR2?

Destiny wrote:In fact, not many users would have XML to use..


Right - but that´s NOT what we discussed about. You DO have a robotic head and you DO have the option of using XML. Why don´t you use it?

I mean - that´s all rather confuse, Destiny: you have a VR2 - but you use the NN4. You have the option to use xml - but you´re fizzeling around with "blobs" (where ever they may come from =D ).

You very quickly state "BUG!" - many times . . on many occasions . . but . .

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 » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:03 pm

Klaus,

My point - and Destiny's - is that while you and she have a robotic head that creates an XML file many others (most I suggest) who will wish to use the stacks and hard links and exposure fusion feature of APG will not have a robotic head.

So it's a more general 'case' of investigating why using stacks and hard links in some instances result in a 'blob', rather than just seeking a solution for this particular image set.

Clear now?

Andrew

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:06 pm

mediavets wrote:5 is the most exposed (not the darkest) image in the bracketed set.


Depends from where you start counting. See my screenshot: the darkest layer is numberd "5" - isn´t it.

mediavets wrote:You suggest it makes no difference which level you choose, but I think it will if you choose to have APP/APG detect CPs only in the reference level and use hard links.


Right.

Andrew let us make it short: DID my workflow work correctly or NOT? DO you see a "blob" in my stitch or do you see NO "blob" inmy stitch??

mediavets wrote:I have always chosen a level that is well exposed, neither over nor under exposed, as reference level in order to have the best chance of detecting good CPs.


Some years ago Alexandre tought me that the CP-detection also works fine on images which seem to be very dark for our eyes - cp-detection works very much different from the way our eyes work . . :cool:

But basically it´s surely a good way to shoose the "middle of the road" . . . ;)

In fact i didn´t care about selecting a stack-layer when i started the stitch. The point was to achieve a good stitch - not a dedicated layer.

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 » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:12 pm

klausesser wrote:
mediavets wrote:5 is the most exposed (not the darkest) image in the bracketed set.

Depends from where you start counting. See my screenshot: the darkest layer is numbered "5" - isn't it.

Regarding your screenshot, AFAIK the number displayed - '5' - is the number of images in the stack, not the level of image in the stack selected as the reference level.
.............

As Destiny has shown, and I have also experienced, choosing different reference levels (often those that are on the face of it better exposed) can produce very different results, some of them very poor.

Andrew

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:16 pm

mediavets wrote:My point - and Destiny's - is that while you and she have a robotic head that creates an XML file many others (most I suggest) who will wish to use the stacks and hard links and exposure fusion feature of APG will not have a robotic head.


You think i´m stupid enough NOT to understand that "point" ;) :cool:

mediavets wrote:So it's a more general 'case' of investigating why using stacks and hard links in some instances result in a 'blob', rather than just seeking a solution for this particular image set.

Clear now?


"Clear"? To me there was no absence of "clearness". I stitched Destiny´s bracketed stack in all ways it can be stitched.
I didn´t reveal a "BUG!" and i also didn´t get "blobs" in my stitches.

So: "Clear now?"

There was no "unclear" confusion at all - on MY side. :cool:

Klaus

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:22 pm

mediavets wrote:Regarding your screenshot, AFAIK the number displayed - '5' - is the number of images in the stack, not the level of image in the stack selected as the reference level.


"5" is - clearly recognizable - the layer of the darkest images in this stack of 5 layers of images featuring different exposures.

mediavets wrote:As Destiny has shown, and I have also experienced, choosing different reference levels (often those that are on the face of it better exposed) can produce very different results, some of them very poor.


That seems to be for you and Destiny - why ever. This clearly is NOT what happens on MY side.

I can only judge what I experienced.

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 » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:38 pm

klausesser wrote:
mediavets wrote:Regarding your screenshot, AFAIK the number displayed - '5' - is the number of images in the stack, not the level of image in the stack selected as the reference level.


"5" is - clearly recognizable - the layer of the darkest images in this stack of 5 layers of images featuring different exposures.

Two screenshots - first with reference level set to '1', second with reference level set to '4'.

As you can see in both cases the number displayed for the stack is '5' - the number of images in the stack.

Andrew
Attachments
1-apg4x-stacks-level-1.jpg
2-apg4x-stacks-level-4.jpg

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:41 pm

klausesser wrote:
mediavets wrote:As Destiny has shown, and I have also experienced, choosing different reference levels (often those that are on the face of it better exposed) can produce very different results, some of them very poor.


That seems to be for you and Destiny - why ever. This clearly is NOT what happens on MY side.

I can only judge what I experienced.

Klaus


This might need a correction:

Of course "different results" CAN happen depending on what kind of layer you choose in a stack.
Usually it DOESN´T male a RELEVANT difference.

Why? Because all images in the whole stack/layer thing were shot from the very same point.

So when the CP-detection finds CPs at all it relates all other layers in the stack to THESE CPs -
i´m sure you know that.

Conclusion: given there is "information" AT ALL in an image-stack´s image-layer it really doesn´t matter which layer
you choose for hard-linking.

But of course - here you´re right - usually you´ll find most "informations" in a layer featuring mid-range exposure.

Nevertheless the stitch worked fine even using the darkest layer, did it . . .

;) :cool:

Klaus
Last edited by klausesser on Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:46 pm

mediavets wrote:
klausesser wrote:
mediavets wrote:Regarding your screenshot, AFAIK the number displayed - '5' - is the number of images in the stack, not the level of image in the stack selected as the reference level.


"5" is - clearly recognizable - the layer of the darkest images in this stack of 5 layers of images featuring different exposures.


Two screenshots - first with reference level set to '1', second with reference level set to '4'.

As you can see in both cases the number displayed for the stack is '5' - the number of images in the stack.



Andrew - how would i know why sometimes "5" means the darkest layer and why sometimes "5" means the brightest layer: i don´t know anything about your settings in your prefs!!

I´m quite sure that´s related to the kind of your arranging of the layers!

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 » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:48 pm

Klaus,

Yes, you got a good result.

Here's my experience using level 4 as the reference level for CP detection, level 4 appears to be the best exposed of the levels.

You might expect APG to be able to find the 'best' set of CPs using the best expsosed level in teh stack?

And....I get a 'blob'.

Windows 8.1 Pro and APG 4.2.0 beta 3 - 64 bit versions.
Attachments
1-apg-ref-level4-blob.jpg
2-apg-ref-level4-blob.jpg
3-apg-ref-level4-blob.jpg

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:55 pm

mediavets wrote:You might expect APG to be able to find the 'best' set of CPs using the best expsosed level in teh stack?


No - that´s not at all what i expect.

mediavets wrote:And....I get a 'blob'.


Well . . yeah . . so sorry - but i only can say: research your configuration. In ALL aspects.

I think it might be related to the order you arranged the stack´s layers in the editor.

I suggest to research this point intensely.

Klaus

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:01 pm

Destiny, Andrew: i suggest to use "arrange by time" in the layer-editor.

Bildschirmfoto 2015-07-24 um 14.58.50.png


Klaus

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7883
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 228 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:03 pm

This is how Alexandre Jenny told us how to do it over two years ago.. I still do not get why when selecting the mid range, being 3, whey when using Hard Link, also 2 for me, it turns into a Blob or a Mess.. Referencing on the dark image seems to make the entire rendering process a lot slower..

Also using your option, I get some Pale or Blurred areas.. The rendering lacks depth in my opinion either.. I would rather take the middle reference image but it doesn't work.. So its back to using PreFused images...

Destiny...

klausesser wrote:
But of course - here you´re right - usually you´ll find most "informations" in a layer featuring mid-range exposure.

Nevertheless the stitch worked fine even using the darkest layer, did it . . .

;) :cool:

Klaus
Attachments
pale.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 » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:11 pm

I have finally managed to stitch using all 5 levels as reference levels without generating a 'blob'.

But to get these results I had to close and restart APG and reload the images between each attempt.

Unstacking and restacking with a different reference level and then detecting again seems the way to create 'blobs'.

So I think there's something not quite right about APG.

Anyway here are my results - you can see from the screenshots that the reference level changes from darkest to lightest exposure.
Attachments
1-apg4x-level1.jpg
2-apg4x-level2.jpg
3-apg4x-level3.jpg
4-apg4x-level4.jpg
5-apg4x-level5.jpg

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7883
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 228 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:13 pm

Where.. I cannot get this option to show.. Only get N_0 to N_4....

How did you get the shutter speed....

Destiny...

klausesser wrote:Destiny, Andrew: i suggest to use "arrange by time" in the layer-editor.

Bildschirmfoto 2015-07-24 um 14.58.50.png


Klaus

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by klausesser » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:14 pm

klausesser wrote:Destiny, Andrew: i suggest to use "arrange by time" in the layer-editor.

The attachment Bildschirmfoto 2015-07-24 um 14.58.50.png is no longer available


Klaus



set it in the prefs:

Bildschirmfoto 2015-07-24 um 15.12.20.png


Klaus

no avatar
Destiny
Moderator
 
Topic author
Posts: 7883
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 228 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Location: Australia
Info

Re: BUG!... ??

by Destiny » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:15 pm

I will have to continue with this in the morning.. Getting late down under...

Thank you for all your testing guys. Clearly there is something not right with APG.. I have found it tends to remember stuff which causes issues.. Like having its own little Cache..

Destiny...

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests