josefgraessle wrote:Hallo Andrew, please read my answer to Felix about the zenit shoot and sphares. The T&C makes for each session an xml file, which has the exact position of each image. So the stitcher doesn't need common parts in the overlapping pictures to position them, it uses the xml information when it doesn't find common informations. With a manual head, you will not have exact position informations, then you must do some tricks like you recommended, to make a stitch possible.
mediavets wrote:klausesser wrote:mediavets wrote:Wow - now that is really weird.
Weird? Yes - at least . . :cool:
PS: on my manual head i use the same "pattern" as on the Panoneed/TC combination: 6 shots @-12° and 1 Zenith.
Klaus your pattern is fine.; 6-around at -12 and 1 zenith.
Except that I have often found that shooting outdoors with a manual head (no XML) that a +90 zenith shot would often bw omitted from the stitch becasue it lacked any matching features with images in the main row of 6 images.
The 'solution' presented by Hans Nyberg was to shoot the 'zenith shot at about +60-65 which covers the zenith well but when the yaw is also chosen carefully will almost always mean you can get an good link between the 'zenith' shot and the main row of 65.
mediavets wrote:But felix said that the T&C calculated that weird 6 shots at -9° + 6 shots at +1 + zenith pattern.
I can't see that that would ever be 'right'/optimal.
So how did it arise?
mediavets wrote:Unfortunately it apesrs that the Papywizard Import wizard doesn't always seem to respect the XML data. By which I mean the optimiser doesn't seem to be constrained in any way when seeking to resolve the entire pano and sometimes it will move 'featureless' images a long way from their shooting positions.
I don't know why Kolor doesn't appear to incorporate some contstraints to prevent images being moved far from the defined shooting positions.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest