Polygonal mask / Masking tool usage  

Share your tips and tricks here or get help with any Autopano Pro / Giga problem!
No bug reports (of any kind) in this forum!
User avatar
DrSlony
Member
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Polygonal mask / Masking tool usage

by DrSlony » Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:48 pm

I like it when the user has control, and the masking tool gives us just that. However I'm quite fuzzy on actually using it :]
http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ ... sking_tool
The documentation says it uses the anti-ghosting algo and hints it as to what we want to keep. However, just how many of these do I need to place?
Please see the attached screenshots - I want the nadir shots (which are misaligned, not from the nodal point) to fill in just the missing nadir region, nothing else. Did I place too much? Did I place enough?

How about instead of dots we just draw a polygonal mask?
Attachments
scrot_2014-02-25 174637.png
scrot_2014-02-25 174622.png
Last edited by DrSlony on Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Masking tool usage

by HansKeesom » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:23 pm

Looks like you placed more then necesary.

Placing markers is an artform but you can't solve everything with it. The photographer must shoot within certain margins.
Why did you not shoot a nadir shot?
Send me the originals and I will send you a pano-project in retour.
dropbox hans@alsofjeerbent.nl

User avatar
DrSlony
Member
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Masking tool usage

by DrSlony » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:59 am

Thank you Hans but if you do it I don't learn ;]
I shot a nadir but it wasn't well aligned with the NPP (you can see it in the first screenshot) which is why I wanted to mask everything except the hole.

no avatar
lumelix
Member
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Masking tool usage

by lumelix » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:05 am

Hi
If I understand the tool correct, it will be enough if you mark the upper images with green marks. This will mean that this areas should be used for the panorama.
But be carefully to not set two green marks at the same place in two different images. This can confuse the process.
Regards
Martin

User avatar
DrSlony
Member
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Masking tool usage

by DrSlony » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:00 pm

Yeah but they're extremely inefficient. Each marker, according to the documentation, targets 1 pixel, and antighosting-blend then avoids cutting through whatever it thinks is the object that pixel denotes. That's the problem, you can't tell it what the object is, so the only safe way is to spatter plenty of them.
Already opened a feature request for a polygonal mask.

no avatar
lumelix
Member
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Masking tool usage

by lumelix » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:09 pm

Have you tried the "old methode" with editing the nadir image with transparency on alpha layer?
I don't know whether this method is still supported from APG.
Regards
Martin

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Masking tool usage

by HansKeesom » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:29 pm

DrSlony wrote:Yeah but they're extremely inefficient. Each marker, according to the documentation, targets 1 pixel, and antighosting-blend then avoids cutting through whatever it thinks is the object that pixel denotes. That's the problem, you can't tell it what the object is, so the only safe way is to spatter plenty of them.
Already opened a feature request for a polygonal mask.


Each marker targets one pixel? Nah, it has effect on a almost square area, with one point up. Can you point out the documentation?

User avatar
DrSlony
Member
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Masking tool usage

by DrSlony » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:56 pm

According to the documentation it does, and I'm guessing that antighost-blend uses some kind of seam carving or other shape-detection to cut along meaningful edges. Then, if it decides to discard a specific shape, and there happens to be a "keep" marker on it, it looks for a different edge.
I pointed out the documentation in post 1, and the rest is through observation.

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Masking tool usage

by HansKeesom » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:43 pm

DrSlony wrote:According to the documentation it does, and I'm guessing that antighost-blend uses some kind of seam carving or other shape-detection to cut along meaningful edges. Then, if it decides to discard a specific shape, and there happens to be a "keep" marker on it, it looks for a different edge.
I pointed out the documentation in post 1, and the rest is through observation.

It says you target a single pixel, but not that the effect is on one pixel only. The center of the marker is always on one pixel, but that is logical.

User avatar
DrSlony
Member
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Masking tool usage

by DrSlony » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:34 pm

I didn't write the effect was on a single pixel, I wrote the markers, despite being big, targeted only a single pixel. It would be more intuitive and easier to use if we could mask the (un)wanted area, not to rely on pure luck that the algo will cut the exact region we had in mind, but that's a feature-request off-topic for this thread.

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Masking tool usage

by HansKeesom » Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:24 am

making the icon of the marker to show the effected aread would already help.

DrSlony wrote:I didn't write the effect was on a single pixel, I wrote the markers, despite being big, targeted only a single pixel. It would be more intuitive and easier to use if we could mask the (un)wanted area, not to rely on pure luck that the algo will cut the exact region we had in mind, but that's a feature-request off-topic for this thread.

User avatar
DrSlony
Member
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Masking tool usage

by DrSlony » Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm

It's unfortunate that there is 0 response from Kolor regarding this simple yet very time-saving feature.

Related requests or requests resolved by a polygonal mask tool:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17812
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19866
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21138
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21035
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22336
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22338

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Masking tool usage

by HansKeesom » Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:21 pm

DrSlony wrote:It's unfortunate that there is 0 response from Kolor regarding this simple yet very time-saving feature.

Related requests or requests resolved by a polygonal mask tool:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17812
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19866
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21138
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21035
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22336
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22338


First link is my post and is not the same as your request. It is about the shape of the marker itself.
fourth link is mine too and is about the color of the marker not about how it functions
fifth link is like the first link.
sixth one in mine too and is about how you select a different marker. It is not about how masking itself works
So four out of six links are not about a polygonal mask tool............

As I said before, you used more markers then needed. With good shooting and skillfull placement of few markers one can mask very fast most projects. Been there, done that.
Prove me wrong by sending me your files.....

User avatar
DrSlony
Member
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Polygonal mask / Masking tool usage

by DrSlony » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:00 pm

Wouldn't you consider them all obsolete with a polygonal masking tool?

Yes I did use more markers than needed because one never knows how many are needed. When I used less, placed as the documentation describes, there were patches appearing where I did not want them. I'd rather spray 50 clicks in 20 seconds and be sure, than spend many minutes trying to find those magical fewer spots.

The algorithm examines the clicked pixel and masks the contiguous area. What it deems to be the area is never revealed to the user - the documentation hints that it's an area of uniform color and, as I understand it, bordered by a high contrast edge. You can keep placing single points and waiting for the final preview to update, hoping each time that your idea of an "area" is the same as the program's, but in the end it's still a guessing game.

It is not you I seek to convince about the validity of requesting a masking tool that lets us mask a human-defined area instead of a point. :)

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Polygonal mask / Masking tool usage

by HansKeesom » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:13 am

DrSlony wrote:Wouldn't you consider them all obsolete with a polygonal masking tool?

Not really. Still want to select my options in the right mouse menu and to see what the area is that my tools are affecting

DrSlony wrote: I did use more markers than needed because one never knows how many are needed. When I used less, placed as the documentation describes, there were patches appearing where I did not want them. I'd rather spray 50 clicks in 20 seconds and be sure, than spend many minutes trying to find those magical fewer spots.

I guess I am a bit spoiled by my Titan GPU, which btw now comes in a 12 GB version and also a dual GPU version (12 GB Dual core version is 2600 euro only ;-) ). I mostly edit 3 panoramas at the same time, round robing style, and often spend less then 10 minutes on each panorama to get them done, sometimes less then a minute. Is that because of the pattern my photographers use, is it autopano, is it my technique...

DrSlony wrote:The algorithm examines the clicked pixel and masks the contiguous area. What it deems to be the area is never revealed to the user - the documentation hints that it's an area of uniform color and, as I understand it, bordered by a high contrast edge. You can keep placing single points and waiting for the final preview to update, hoping each time that your idea of an "area" is the same as the program's, but in the end it's still a guessing game.

It would be nice if autopano would show us the area of effect of a certain marker. The problem could be that they cannot do so for sure at the moment you place the marker as only after doing the preview it is known. That is inherent at the technique Kolor problably uses, using markers to give a pixel from one photo more weight because of a green marker closeby, then a pixel of another photo with or without a red marker nearby. Kind of flexible z-ordering. Works fine for me, as long as their is plenty of overlap between photo's, good exposure and as less CA as possible.


DrSlony wrote:It is not you I seek to convince about the validity of requesting a masking tool that lets us mask a human-defined area instead of a point. :)

With the risk of getting Klaus in my neck ;-) , I think there are only few situations where you need your solution because markers masking does not work. In those situations using photoshop will do the trick.

Funny thing is that both you and Klaus seem not willing to upload a set of photos that show a situation in which one would really need such masking. Makes me think it is more theoretical then practical.


Return to Using Autopano Pro & Autopano Giga

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest