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
mgg wrote:.... am I the only one that is confused?
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.
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/view/Understanding_and_using_the_rendering_engine
DrSlony wrote:Alexandre you explained it very well now, thank you.
gkaefer the 5th level covers 16 pixels. See my post #5
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/view/Understanding_and_using_the_rendering_engine
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?
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests