MASK BRUSH

[itsrichphoto]

MASK BRUSH

by itsrichphoto » Wed Mar 18, 2015 2:07 am

I think the masking is great, but it isn't best. If I want an image to look its best, I will export all the layers then clean up in photoshop.

I would love for there to be a masking brush so I can actually paint what is visible.

Just as photoshop has layers, it would be useful if Autopano did the same. So you can rearrange the layers so if there is something you don't want shown, you can put an adjoining layer above it to cover it up.

[Annis]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by Annis » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:57 am

Have you tried Autopano 4 which brings some improvements to the Masking tool (notably the visible seams when masking)
http://www.kolor.com/wiki-en/action/vie ... tool#Seams

If you have, did you find that that was an improvement at all?

When we released the betas, it was stated

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.

So we would really appreciate your input on that feature.


Annis

[itsrichphoto]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by itsrichphoto » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:14 pm

Hi Annis

Thanks for your reply. It is great to hear this. From the email and online marketing that gets sent out, this really hasn't come across (to me). It just looked like a slightly improved engine for when shooting with an 8mm fisheye...

[Lgum]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by Lgum » Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:37 am

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]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by marzipano » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:46 am

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).

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

[klausesser]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by klausesser » Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:33 pm

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

Yes! Photomatix does a really great job in such cases. Automatically and manually.

Klaus

[Lgum]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by Lgum » Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:55 pm

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

Thanks for your response! Too bad APG does not work well with HDR stacks.

[klausesser]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by klausesser » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:57 pm

Thanks for your response! Too bad APG does not work well with HDR stacks.

Well - in some way it works good! But it´s rather hard to control.

Klaus

[slipstick]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by slipstick » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:15 pm

I would also like to see a mask brush / polygon selection. Here's two examples why:

So would I. At the very least, the ability to save and re-use marker locations.

When I do spherical panos, every one requires markers to mask-out the tripod and mask-in the top of the zenith to avoid lines where the three-around shots converge. It's an 8mm samyang on a full-frame, pattern three-around, one zenith, and one nadir shot with displaced tripod (NN nadir adapter). I think this is a common use and common pattern.

I tried v4.0.0 - the seams are an improvement in visualization, but not automation. Also, it looks like I need fewer markers to get rid of the tripod, which is good. And I must say the stability of anti-ghost decisions is a huge improvement - the preview finally matches the rendered version, which will be a big time-saver.

Markers seek to find and work with objects. The problem is that a) they can't be saved and reused and b) the software trying to find an object (e.g., my tripod) is depending on contrast, colour, etc - and the tripod may match the ground enough that it, and the legs, aren't seen as entire object. A mask is just saying "do or don't use this area", regardless of perceived objects, and is perfect for repetitive things like tripods and zeniths.

So Annis, will we at least be able to save and re-use markers? That would be a huge improvement, and I'm thinking relatively easy to code and implement.

[mediavets]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by mediavets » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:20 pm

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?

[slipstick]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by slipstick » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:26 pm

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.

In any event, save/reuse of markers would largely resolve the issue. Masking would entirely resolve it.

[mediavets]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by mediavets » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:43 pm

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.

Is a minimum number of shots that important to you?

What sort of panos are you shooting?

Not sure how many people are using a 'shaved' Samyang 8mm fisheye on a fullframe sensor bodies.

Many people feel that the additional time to take a few extra shots is worthwile when considering the total amount if time required to setup for a pano shoot, so they choose a fullframe fisheye for the additional resolution and image quality at the 'cost' of a few more shots.

[slipstick]

Re: MASK BRUSH

by slipstick » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:49 pm

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.

Is a minimum number of shots that important to you?
[...]
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.

1) yes.
2) spherical panos for virtual tours. Indoors and outdoors.
3) not really solving the issue of re-use of markers and/or masks, but to reply to your comment, it isn't shaved, it has a removable hood. I don't know how many people use a samyang, but it does look like 3-around is common enough. Having said that, right or wrong, and regardless of the number of shots, re-use of markers and/or masks is the issue.
4) not really solving the issue of re-use of markers and/or masks, but to reply to your comment, I'm happy with 3-around. I have tried a 14-24 (six around) and like the increased resolution, but it is twice the number of shots (additional nadirs required) and flares badly. Of course, I could buy a lens (say, a 15mm or 16mm fisheye) that didn't flare as much, but I'm okay with the quality of the 8mm samyang.

So (and I should have said this earlier), I appreciate that you're trying to help. I'd mostly like to hear from Annis or other Kolor rep re: at least the save / reuse of markers. APG has a lot of batch / automation features, so reuse seems like a natural fit. And it would be a significant time saver for larger tours.