Anti-ghost visual feedback ( APG only )
In the Autopano engine, we are still the only stitcher that has an automatic anti-ghost algorithm that works for small projects, up to gigapixels. It does really save a lot of time for fixing ghost / parallax in hand held panorama, and it does so automatically.
We decided to work on this algorithm to make it even more efficient and usable.
What we did:
Seams visual feedback: you can actually see where the anti-ghost algorithm decided to put the seams between images. This visualization of the seams is a great improvement and really helps understand overlapping / moving objects, etc. It is also compatible with our masking markers ( green / red ). Working in the mask editor is improved now.
Stability of anti-ghost decisions: in previous versions, it could happen that the decision taken by the antighost algorithm in the editor, was not the same as the one taken during the rendering. This was not acceptable anymore if you have a visual feedback on seams. The problem with having the same decision is that a render is needed for the whole panorama before we can display anything on the screen ( even if the editor is opened on just a small part of the panorama. The whole panorama influences the antighost, not just the displayed zone ).
So, even if it means an initial, global slow down of the preview at first, we decided to do a quick render of the global panorama when opening the mask editor so we can guarantee to display the real seam locations.
You can also notice that when zooming into the realtime preview, the seams will refine themselves depending on the zoom factor, but they won’t change location anymore.
With these 2 improvements to the anti-ghost system, managing ghosts is really better. And we think that it is way faster than painting into input images.
We were asked several times to add that feature. But with these improvements, we are waiting for feedback to see, if it is still considered needed or not.
Lgum wrote:I would also like to see a mask brush / polygon selection. Here's two examples why:
- Lens flares
It's possible to mask it out but it's a bit of a hassle (sometimes the flares get masked out, sometimes they aren't and the preview is pretty slow on showing it).
- Moving shrubberies/trees
Wind can be a cruel force and the movement of small branches can really destroy the panorama. Again - using the mask-points is pretty frustrating. A possibility to mask the parts out so that only one image is used for a tree would greatly help (I have to add, that it is possible now to place a marker on a single tree and the algorithm will handle the anti-ghosting fine. It's the dense bushes etc. where it fails).
marzipano wrote:
Fusion/stacking however does suffer from the problem you describe as APG have never got near to working out anti-ghosting or alignment in stacked images - which, even though I've paid for it, is why I don't ever it use as Photomatix 5 does a much better job IMO
marzipano wrote:
I haven't had this problem with moving leaves in shrubs except when using the fusion processing in APG4 - although I DO agree with the idea of using a brush rather than coloured circles to select or ignore image areas (as has been done in PTGUI and the Adobe products)
In my experience for unstacked images, the normal anti-ghosting setting will choose either the left or right image sections in the overlap as the "master" but not both at once.
Fusion/stacking however does suffer from the problem you describe as APG have never got near to working out anti-ghosting or alignment in stacked images - which, even though I've paid for it, is why I don't ever it use as Photomatix 5 does a much better job IMO
best
Martin
Lgum wrote:Thanks for your response! Too bad APG does not work well with HDR stacks.
Lgum wrote:I would also like to see a mask brush / polygon selection. Here's two examples why:
mediavets wrote:Do you incorporate the zenith and nadir shots in the stitch?
[...]
Did you try a different shooting pattern with the 3-around (or even try 4-around) set at a positive pitch to eliminate the need for a zenith shot?
Is a minimum number of shots that important to you?slipstick wrote:mediavets wrote:Do you incorporate the zenith and nadir shots in the stitch?
[...]
Did you try a different shooting pattern with the 3-around (or even try 4-around) set at a positive pitch to eliminate the need for a zenith shot?
1) Yes. Lots of control points, good average RMS (~2.5). The stitching part is visually perfect.
2) No on the 4-around (too much overlap). Yes on the positive pitch (as that would save a shot, making for 20% less shooting), had to tip it up quite a ways and didn't get enough of the nadir in.
mediavets wrote:Is a minimum number of shots that important to you?slipstick wrote:mediavets wrote:Do you incorporate the zenith and nadir shots in the stitch?
[...]
Did you try a different shooting pattern with the 3-around (or even try 4-around) set at a positive pitch to eliminate the need for a zenith shot?
1) Yes. Lots of control points, good average RMS (~2.5). The stitching part is visually perfect.
2) No on the 4-around (too much overlap). Yes on the positive pitch (as that would save a shot, making for 20% less shooting), had to tip it up quite a ways and didn't get enough of the nadir in.
[...]
What sort of panos are you shooting?
[...]
Not sure how many people are using a 'shaved' Samyang 8mm fisheye on a fullframe sensor bodies.
[...]
so they choose a fullframe fisheye for the additional resolution and image quality at the 'cost' of a few more shots.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests