 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | Rules | You are not logged in.
Pages: 1 2
I have shot a panorama using 100mm for the total picture and 400mm for a part of the picture.
In the panorama editor I have to layers, one for each focal length, with the 400mm pictures fully overlapping the 100mm ones.
So now I want a resulting panorama with 100mm details for the outer parts and 400mm details for the part shot with 400mm.
I have tried for hours, but can't find out how to do it (if it's possible?).
Anyone got a clue ?
(I hope I don't have to carve a transparent hole in the 100mm's)
Offline
So far the only solution im aware of is to carve in the transparancy. I use it often, taking wide angle shots incase i miss any bits with the tele shots. It works well but is a little tedious when you have alot of shots to put the transparancy in. I think is somewhere on some to-do list to have APP have the option to either automaticly or by manual selection give priority to certain images, i.e tele over wide images.
Offline
Do you mean you want autopano to output a single image rather than the two images for the two layers?
Offline
I expected "smartblend" to put the 400mm's on top and give it priority over the 100mm's.
Now it blends the detailed 400mm's with the grainy 100mm's og the resulting image is a kind of hybrid.
see http://www.rundskuer.no/blend.jpg
Offline
leifs from what I read on the forums, thats planned for smartblend2, although I cannot provide a relevant link now.
For the time being, just render to 2 layers (group by focal length and render using %L in the filename) and blend in postprocessing.
Offline
I realize that it has to be done outside Autopano:
- I render the layers with the %L parameter, to get separate files
- carve out a transparent hole in the 100mm's
- carve away from the 400mm's the area that has no photos, transparent
- merge the files in Photoshop with the Photomerge tool
It's tedious but the result is fine.
I should like Autopano to do it during blending, Auto !
Offline
is still the case with APG 2.5 ? anyone have a update ?
<<
I expected "smartblend" to put the 400mm's on top and give it priority over the 100mm's.
Now it blends the detailed 400mm's with the grainy 100mm's og the resulting image is a kind of hybrid.
http://www.rundskuer.no/blend.jpg
>>
Offline
leifs wrote:
is still the case with APG 2.5 ? anyone have a update ?
<<
I expected "smartblend" to put the 400mm's on top and give it priority over the 100mm's.
Now it blends the detailed 400mm's with the grainy 100mm's og the resulting image is a kind of hybrid.
http://www.rundskuer.no/blend.jpg
>>
The difference between 100 and 400mm is too big i think.
best, Klaus
Offline
klausesser wrote:
leifs wrote:
is still the case with APG 2.5 ? anyone have a update ?
<<
I expected "smartblend" to put the 400mm's on top and give it priority over the 100mm's.
Now it blends the detailed 400mm's with the grainy 100mm's og the resulting image is a kind of hybrid.
http://www.rundskuer.no/blend.jpg
>>The difference between 100 and 400mm is too big i think.
best, Klaus
yep according to alexandres posting around a maximum difference of 1:3 should work...
so if you mix 100,200,400mm than it should work...
http://www.autopano.net/forum/p46153-20 … -25#p46153
Georg
Last edited by gkaefer (2011-04-24 22:22:08)
Offline
as shown in http://www.rundskuer.no/blend.jpg it does "work"
it blends 100 and 400, which it should not do !
in areas with both 100 and 400 only the 400mm pictures should be used.
last time I tried it was back in 2009, I will give it a try with APG 2.5
Leif
Offline
The blender doesn't use the fact that it's coming from a 400 and not a 100mm to adjust the seam between image. This feature is planed but not yet released.
One solution is to use the layer editor to regroup by focal, you'll get 2 panoramas ( one per focal ) that match perfectly. It's then up to you in photoshop to make your own blend.
Offline
That's what I have been doing since 2009-09-09, and it works. a little tedious though.
It's good news that this feature is planned :-)
Leif
Offline
leifs wrote:
as shown in http://www.rundskuer.no/blend.jpg it does "work"
The point is: it doesn´t work well - it should be at least as sharp as the 400mm. As you can see it´s not. That´s not what i understand "it works" . . 
As Georg mentioned: to get a sufficient quality the steps should be smaller. Besides: that´s related to focus-stackers too.
best, Klaus
Offline
This is whats its about (this is a technology test only):
- the full picture at 100mm eq
- the area of interest at 400mm
rendered to two layers
- 100mm -> PSB-file 61GB
- 400mm -> PSB-file 43GB
now:
make a transparent hole in the 100mm
then merge with the 400mm in Photoshop
Processing files of this size is tedious even with my i7-980X / 24GB / SSD-raid
<<It's good news that this feature is planned :-) >>
Leif
Last edited by leifs (2011-04-27 00:30:30)
Offline
leifs wrote:
This is whats its about (this is a technology test only):
- the full picture at 100mm eq
- the area of interest at 400mm
rendered to two layers
- 100mm -> PSB-file 61GB
- 400mm -> PSB-file 43GB
now:
make a transparent hole in the 100mm
then merge with the 400mm in Photoshop
Processing files of this size is tedious even with my i7-980X / 24GB / SSD-raid
<<It's good news that this feature is planned :-) >>
Leif
Why not shoot the whole thing using 400mm? Sure: it´s a bigger effort, needs bigger machines . . . but the quality will be much better. What about if a viewer wants to view something outside the "400 range"?
KE
Offline
<<Why not shoot the whole thing using 400mm?>>
APG won't autohandle the featureless waters (or the sky)
therefore:
- the big picture including the waters with 100mm
- the point of interest with 400mm
Leif
Last edited by leifs (2011-04-27 11:10:32)
Offline
leifs wrote:
APG won't autohandle the featureless waters (or the sky)
therefore:
- the big picture including the waters with 100mm
- the point of interest with 400mm
I see, thanks. But you could make a template for dealing with featureless shots - someone described it here some time ago. Using a Merlin or others you would get a positioning file for all the images - featureless or not. For the use of a 400mm a programmable head would definitely be preferable - and isn´t much more expensive than a good and sturdy manual head.
KE
Offline
these pictures were taken back in 2009 with my Seitz VRdrive, row by row.
nowadays I use a Gigapan Epic Pro for gigapixel shooting, but I don't think it can produce a positioning file.
to save time there is no point in shooting hundreds of pictures at 400mm of the flat water or the sky
it is still a good idea to shoot
- the big picture including the water and sky at 100mm
- the point of interest with 400mm
I am now looking forward to Kolor implementing the feature making this possible in a better way :-)
Leif
Offline
I have made a little revisit of the project.
using Gigapan Epic Pro I have shot two series:
- the big picture is 168 pictures at 100mm
- the point of interest is 702 pictures at 400mm
I have used AGP Gigapan import, and seperately everything works well, as shown below:
2) is the 168 at 100
3) is the 702 at 400
I want to stich them together and output them to two layers for postprocessing in Photoshop
There starts the struggle:
- all pictures into one group and detect : does not work (the water)
- Gigapan import for 100+400 : does not work
- Gigapan import for 100 then add the 400's - result is shown i 3) with some 100's not in right place
This is a bit odd, since all the 100mm pictures in one group is OK
Add the 400's and the 100's is not OK any more !
Any suggestions how to "merge" the two series ?
Leif
Offline
leifs wrote:
Any suggestions how to "merge" the two series ?
Besides of using an additional focal length between 100 and 400mm as an ecxample 100, 250, 400? No - sorry, i don´t have another suggestion.
Maybe (!) you should try to produce a "third focal length": duplicate the 400mm shots and scale them down to fill the gap between 100 and 400.
best, Klaus
Offline
I will shoot it with smaller steps sometime later.
But: the trouble is outside the overlapping area !
It seems that the 100 - 400 stepping is OK.
Offline
my only suggestion from past experince is to keep on moving out untill you've got a wide angle lens covering the scene. have your area of interst covered by the 400mm lens, then move back changing the focal length by a factor of 2-3 each time, so 400, 200, 100, 50 and maybe an 18mm to finish off depending on how far you want to go. This should allow autopano to connect up all the different focal lengths, and the widest angle shots will cover the whole of the water with some land to provide some detail to put control points off. It may still not be able to put the 100mm images over the water, but you will atelast have something there.
Alternatively, number one looks good but for the few missing water shots, which looks like just 7 shots, you could manually align those and render
Offline
wjh31 wrote:
This should allow autopano to connect up all the different focal lengths, and the widest angle shots will cover the whole of the water with some land to provide some detail to put control points off. It may still not be able to put the 100mm images over the water, but you will atelast have something there.
Right! But with this kind of shooting there´s always one possible problem: what if a viewer wants to zoom into the outer regions? For stitching them all together either the lower-res shots must be scaled up or the high-res shots must be scaled down to meet the quality of the outer range. Otherwise you get visible breaks in quality inside the pano!
For planar projecting highres images it would be wise to shoot the outer ranges using a 400 and the inner ranges using a 200. The outer ranges must be scaled up for being plan projected. So you need much more pixels here to keep quality.
The other way is - that´s what i do - to shoot using ONE focal length and render the image at 50, 60, or 70% so that the inner ranges are scaled down instead of up-scaling the outer ranges for planar projection.
best, Klaus
Last edited by klausesser (2011-05-03 17:59:40)
Offline
I have done the handiwork, moved some pictures and deleted some pictures with no links from the panorama. Then I have rendered it with "no antighost".
The resulting panorama is 19 gigapixel and the PSB-file is 103 GB.
So what is the result ? Better than expected, but still room for refinement !
As shown in the picture:
- 400mm give best details (surprise?)
- the APG blended result is somewhere between 100 and 400
What I would like to see:
in overlapping area: no blending! use the best image (=400mm)
per now I can do it in Photoshop, but I would like APG to do it, auto :-)
Leif
Last edited by leifs (2011-05-04 10:02:08)
Offline
Pages: 1 2
