Maukoop.nl wrote:No one else who thinks this masking tool could be better?
Maukoop.nl wrote:Thanks for your responses. I think they work well, but it is way to much 'clicks' for some patching.....
slipstick wrote:The issue is both masking, and stored masks. For example, I use a consistent pattern (three around, zenith, nadir), and end up doing the same hand-entered clicks on all of the zenith and nadir shots. Takes too much time, and is inconsistent. If a mask (masking-in the center of the zenith, and masking-out the tripod and outer areas of the nadir, while masking-in the center parts of the nadir) could be saved and just applied, it would be much, much better.
slipstick wrote:Then there is the issue of masking-in. Many of my zenith shots are not used by APG, so I get a triangular color distortion / fuzziness at zenith where the around shots merge.
slipstick wrote:I have tried that (masking-out tripods with an alpha channel), but find it as bad or worse in terms of time, because of disruption in workflow.
Then there is the issue of masking-in. Many of my zenith shots are not used by APG, so I get a triangular color distortion / fuzziness at zenith where the around shots merge. So I mask-in the center of the zenith and everything looks good - can't do that, I don't think ,with masking outside of APG.
In the end, a hugin / ptgui style mask, reusable, is the way to go. If it could be auto-loaded (based on the sequence number of the image) all the better, but even manually pasting it in would be a big improvement.
mediavets wrote:slipstick wrote:Then there is the issue of masking-in. Many of my zenith shots are not used by APG, so I get a triangular color distortion / fuzziness at zenith where the around shots merge.
What camera/lens and shooting pattern are you using?
slipstick wrote:I should have said thank-you for the offers of help - they are appreciated. It's just that a) I think my shooting pattern is good - it is quite common, and b) I think the core issue is reusable masking.
HansKeesom wrote:slipstick wrote:I should have said thank-you for the offers of help - they are appreciated. It's just that a) I think my shooting pattern is good - it is quite common, and b) I think the core issue is reusable masking.
You don't have a problem, you just have an opinion ;-)
HansKeesom wrote:As you can imagine I am not keen on sharing the pattern with what might be my competition.
slipstick wrote:HansKeesom wrote:As you can imagine I am not keen on sharing the pattern with what might be my competition.
Fair enough!
I'll hang in and see if APG gets masking or not.
AlexandreJ wrote:Some tutorials about that here:
http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ ... s_to_avoid
HansKeesom wrote:
I agree with what I read at http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ ... _same_work
"Autopano Anti-ghost Markers are 6 times faster than the Layer Masks in Photoshop. Learn more about Anti-ghost markers in Using Anti-ghost"
klausesser wrote:HansKeesom wrote:
I agree with what I read at http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ ... _same_work
"Autopano Anti-ghost Markers are 6 times faster than the Layer Masks in Photoshop. Learn more about Anti-ghost markers in Using Anti-ghost"
Sounds good - tells nothing. It´s not possible to work precisely using this tools. It´s kind of hunting in the dark
using a shotgun for hitting something.
Nice for playing - bad for doing real work. I realized that again finalizing an interesting and challenging job this week.
Photoshop is no alternative - of course not.
Klaus
HansKeesom wrote:klausesser wrote:HansKeesom wrote:
I agree with what I read at http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ ... _same_work
"Autopano Anti-ghost Markers are 6 times faster than the Layer Masks in Photoshop. Learn more about Anti-ghost markers in Using Anti-ghost"
Sounds good - tells nothing. It´s not possible to work precisely using this tools. It´s kind of hunting in the dark
using a shotgun for hitting something.
Nice for playing - bad for doing real work. I realized that again finalizing an interesting and challenging job this week.
Photoshop is no alternative - of course not.
Klaus
it is more like
1. doing a preview,
2. mark red what you don't like, mark green what you like
3. do preview
4. if you don't like the preview, go to step 2
My results are exact enough to me. No photoshop needed, so I would love to be challenged by that difficult of yours ..... ;-)
HansKeesom wrote:Hey Klaus!
I would hope these 450 tons were euro's for you ;-)
There is no law that forbids you to use photoshop in post of course, certainly as it is as easy as the clip showed us.
I agree that there are sometimes projects where you need to do some work using transparency. Your project is another example of the fact that moving objects make things a lot more difficult, certainly if they do not fit into the frame of one photo.
The clip also showed that for each pixel in the final panorama you would like to have a source photo without the moving object at that pixels or to have any moving object fully inside one photo. That way you can allways remove objects that are only partially in view.
When moving objects are too large to fit into a photo, then you have a more complicated situation. Using multiple focal lenghts is a possibility. Shoot higher lengths before the action starts and fisheye when your objects are moving.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests