Image-stitching and virtual tour solutions My account Updates
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:14 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:32 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 511
Location: Bath, UK
I am having trouble getting the vertical lines in my pano to look vertical. I'm using the vertical lines tool (VLT) but the documentation does not tell you anything (afaik) about what to do when things don't work as expected.

My pano is a 360x170, missing the nadir and I want a spherical projection. I use the VLT to indicate what should be vertical at four, more-or-less equally spaced intervals and press enter. The result is that some of the verticals are OK but others are not. I keep trying with other choices or more accurate choices for vertical line indications, but I never seem to get a result where everything looks right.

I'd be interested to know why this happens with some panos but not with others. Also, some tips on how best to use the VLT would be appreciated. My "tips" are based on experience viz it seems to best (for a 360, spherical projection) to aim for between three and five VLT lines about half the height of the pano.

However, coming from a mathematical background, my guess is that what is going on here is that the VLT defines constraints that AP attempts to solve. For example, if you only draw one or two lines I find that only some parts of your pano are straightened - this seems consistent with solving an under-constrained system of equations. On the other hand, if you draw five or more lines then some constraints (VLT lines) seem to be ignored - consistent with the problem being over-constrained.

So, I would be interested to know what is going on from a theoretical perspective. In particular, I have notice that the VLT changes the vanishing point (VP). Is it the case that what the VLT is actually doing is determining where the VP is? Is there a theorem that says something like "Three VLT lines are necessary and sufficent to locate the VP"?

Aeris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7807
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Aeriscera wrote:
I am having trouble getting the vertical lines in my pano to look vertical. I'm using the vertical lines tool (VLT) but the documentation does not tell you anything (afaik) about what to do when things don't work as expected.

My pano is a 360x170, missing the nadir and I want a spherical projection. I use the VLT to indicate what should be vertical at four, more-or-less equally spaced intervals and press enter. The result is that some of the verticals are OK but others are not. I keep trying with other choices or more accurate choices for vertical line indications, but I never seem to get a result where everything looks right.

I'd be interested to know why this happens with some panos but not with others. Also, some tips on how best to use the VLT would be appreciated. My "tips" are based on experience viz it seems to best (for a 360, spherical projection) to aim for between three and five VLT lines about half the height of the pano.

However, coming from a mathematical background, my guess is that what is going on here is that the VLT defines constraints that AP attempts to solve. For example, if you only draw one or two lines I find that only some parts of your pano are straightened - this seems consistent with solving an under-constrained system of equations. On the other hand, if you draw five or more lines then some constraints (VLT lines) seem to be ignored - consistent with the problem being over-constrained.

So, I would be interested to know what is going on from a theoretical perspective. In particular, I have notice that the VLT changes the vanishing point (VP). Is it the case that what the VLT is actually doing is determining where the VP is? Is there a theorem that says something like "Three VLT lines are necessary and sufficent to locate the VP"?

Aeris


Did you set the editor to 360x180° or "use maximal projection space"? In that case you get a full sphere, but having an empty Nadir space - and you gett the verticals straight.

Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:33 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 511
Location: Bath, UK
Sorry Klaus, I am not sure what you mean. I have not used either of the editor options you mentioned. I don't understand whether you are say I should or should not use either to get my lines straight.

A


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:36 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7807
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Aeriscera wrote:
Sorry Klaus, I am not sure what you mean. I have not used either of the editor options you mentioned. I don't understand whether you are say I should or should not use either to get my lines straight.

A



Having 360x170° doesn´t give you 2:1, right?

Klaus


Last edited by klausesser on Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:38 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 511
Location: Bath, UK
Can you simply tell me what you suggest I do to have the best chance of getting the VLT to work please?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:47 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7807
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Aeriscera wrote:
Can you simply tell me what you suggest I do to have the best change of getting the VLT to work please?



That´s exactly what i did, man. You have 360x170°. You need 360x180°: 2:1. So when you set the working space to max. it has 360x180 instead of 360x170.
This way you can correct your verticals very well all over the image.

Btw.: that is well documented in the tutorials: http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ ... -_Panorama
Instead of "clamp to panorama content" use "maximum proj. range . . "

Attachment:
ProjSpace.png
ProjSpace.png [ 41.54 KiB | Viewed 324 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:59 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 511
Location: Bath, UK
Ok, that makes sense now. Thanks for the suggestion.

A


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group