Personally, I hate the fact icons like the Papy Wizard Export are so hidden from view.. There is a stack of space on the menu where it could be made more visual, with a nice wizard hat icon perhaps... This is truly a KEY features of APG so I believe it should be made more visually apparent.. This new feature without a doubt will be a huge assistance to many users who are not using a robotic head, where the xml code is automatically generated, therefore it would benefit those users greatly. To be honest, it should have been part of APG years ago..

Destiny...

??? where can I use a papy wizard Export in APG ???
??? for what is it ???

Georg

Hi Georg..

Its here.. Fantastic if you use a Nodal Ninja with lots of sky or featureless plain walls.. Add your images, detect and then export the Papywizard then re-add your images using the Papywizard xml... I asked for this feature and AlexJ made it happen.. You will find it will make a difference, which you will notice in your detection quality..

All I have done is requested that this feature has its own icon on that tool bar... a little wizard hat perhaps..

Destiny..

ok have it too never saw it before ....
but to be honest I dont see the value of this Feature:

youve a Project with 5000 Images, 1000 such sky or water or other ugly (because ugly dam hard to stitch them without XML files) surfaces Images.
IF you do have an XML file coming from papywizard Software or from from your panohead.... your're on the smile side of life... load XML & Images and stitching....
but you have no XML file, you have to manually move the Images, detect the pano so all Images are somehow more or less precise on correct place....
you now use this Export to papy Option to generate a Fitting XML file you can use... by opening new Project using papy Import XML wizzard loading the original Image so apg can detect the pano again with now more precise results?

this makes no sense at all... it is still time consuming because Ive still to manually place the Images to fit somehow before a pattern is established that can be exported in form of papy XML file.... if I do this I can invest some more decades of hours to place the Images more perfect and I can save the additional Project Import of Images and detection...

Georg

I believe the idea is to shoot a scene with your camera/lens/head setup that stitches well.

Then export as Papywizard XML.

Then later use that XML file witha different set of images - which may contain a lot of 'featureless' images - shot using the same pattern.

But I don't really see why that would work much better than using Papywizard in simulation mode to generate the XML file.

I guess there is always going to be more than one way to skin a Yack, and since I really do not understand how to run Papywizard in simulation mode or what I need to have to achieve this, I for one think this new feature is just awesome.. I have tried it and it works.. As Andrew says, you could use the xml from your stitching pattern that produced a good result and use it with a featureless pano image, but I also used it for adding images without any xml and then re-run using the generated xml, which provided much better RMS so therefore a better stitch result.. As this thread request, it was to ask that an icon be added to the menu rather than hide it from view since as Georg has discovered, "??? where can I use a papy wizard Export in APG ???", which only reinforces that my suggestion to have a more visual icon for this feature has merit...

Destiny..

You just download and install the Papywizard software, then configure it to match your camera/lens and shooting pattern and then run a dummy shoot to generate an XML file.

But...not sure that Papywizard runs with more recent versions of Mac OSX anymore.

http://www.papymerlin.com/t%C3%A9lechar ... d/windows/

I do not think it works with Mac Andrew.. So.. thank goodness for the new Papywizard export in APG 3.5..

Now I just need a nice icon....

Destiny...

even this one does not run on a mac?
[url]http://www.papymerlin.com/télechargement-papywizard/mac/[/url]
or better ( because using non asci characters in Weblinks)
Georg

PS: yes I Support the Icon request

For precisely doing what?

Klaus

For assisting with the location of 'featureless' images when shooting with a manual pano head.

but this is a hen and egg prob...
if I use a lot of featureless Images with no XML file. and I load the Images & detect the pano ... it will fail to place the featureless Images... in more or less cases. so in result I do get a nonperfect pattern detected. so now exporting the XML file is useless. I've to manually move the Images to more or less correct place. than I can Export the XML file .... but at this Point I did invest already a lot of work and time to place the Images to correct place.... so why should I throwh all away to restart again with the still not perfect pattern containing XML file....

Georg

That's not the idea.

The idea is that you shoot a pano which has sufficient features everywhere to get a good stitch.

Then you export the XML from that for use with different image sets shot using the same camera/lens and shooting pattern.

Exactly Andrew...! and it works...

Destiny...

Yeah - no surprise . .

But what i meant: the manual head needs to meet the geometical values in the xml very precsiely.

Klaus

Does it?

No I do not think so Andrew.. APG does its work in detecting... As long as the NNP is quite close or perfect, the Papywizard xml will take its reference from the detected pano. You can then export the xml. If you use this xml with the Papywizard plugin with the exact same images, the RMS go way down and the quality of stitching is improved when using the xml code.. When adding featureless pano images using the same xml code, as long as the pano has been shot using the same settings, the resulting pano image when using the Papywizard plugin are greatly improved...

Destiny..

Sure! Depends on the manual head you use, of course . .

Klaus

Of course! But: as long as the manual head reproduces the adjustment very precisely each time: you also can save a template
for not needing to have the stitcher looking for CPs each time again. Pano-photographers do that for quite a long time.

The major difference: you can use this PW-xml export in other stitchers too - as long as they can read it . .

Exporting PW-xml should be fine to have a manual head do the same as a motorized head with xml export . . which means that
the manual head mechanically needs to meet the mathematical values in the xml precisely enough (which a motorized head of high accuracy does).

That´s what i said.

Klaus

AFAIK by default APP/APG uses the XML positioning data as a guide to positioning the images, it also uses CP detection plus optimisation it does not stick rigidly to the XML image co-ordinates.

So IMO the manual head need not be as precise as the most precise robotic mounts.

I would vcenture to say that no manual head can reproduce a set of image co-ordinates precisely from shoot to shoot, nor can most robotic mounts; nor is it essential unless one is aiming for (batch) stitching without CP detection.

360Precision claims this is possible with some of their manual heads along with PTGui templates but some experts disagree.

Even using xml-positioning by a robotic head a stitch needs to be optimized. No question - especially regarding somewhat higher resolution.

What 360presision claims is meant - as i see it - related to using fisheyes = low resolution. Here - with 15k x 7,5k as average size - that´s less of a problem: you simply can´t see minor errors. This surely is the "domain" of manual heads.

With resolutions of somewhat higher size, providing deep zooms - starting at about 35k x 17,5k - precision becomes very much more critical.

Anyway: precision becomes more and more important. Good (!) "robotic mounts" provide *very* high precision - by their controller´s calculations AND by the precision of their construction of mechanical parts: motors, sensors, gears and mounts.

No matter i use a Rodeon, VR2 or Panoneed (used and tested all of them intensely): their xml provides *very* precise positioning - which nevertheless needs to be optimized by the stitcher, when it comes to *real* highres.
No "robotic-head" in the world provides pixel-precise positioning mechanically which the controller calcuates mathematically - when it comes to very high resolution.

So it´s the *combination* of mathematical calculation AND mechanical realization of positioning the head - basing on this calculations.

Here indeed in theory it might be helpful to have an xml-export from an *already stitched* result - because in that case *all* steps like the controller´s math calculations + "real" positioning due to mechanical precision of a robotic head + final optimization in the stitcher for the final result comes into play
*alltogether*.

In that case the optimization step might be redundant - given the interpretation of the xml in the importer is *really" reliable and correct.

On the other hand: running a stitch with importing the head´s xml plus one step of optimization in the editor surely is the faster way . .

best, Klaus