I ran Yuv's hugin_6aroundtilted_testcase.pto through hugin_stitch_project. Also almost fine: it produces a panorama tif file, but the command doesn't return to the command line, even after closing the output window. When trying to open the resulting tif file in xv, it warns about an unknown xml tag.
Two questions arose: 1. Enblend is still in CVS, right ? 2. In my pano directory I've found versions of clens, freepv, panoglview and Panotools-Script. What's the current status of this programs ?
built exactly the same on my 32bit ubuntu 7.10 box.
> Everything built fine.
same here.
> I ran Yuv's hugin_6aroundtilted_testcase.pto through hugin_stitch_project.
did you try to start a project from scratch, i.e. use the assistant to load the images?
when I do so, I still get the Error 255 message while trying to execute autopano-sift-C. I get the same Error 255 when I try to run autopano from the Images tab.
When I use exiftool to read the EXIF data from the CR2, it reports a FoV of 110.4 degrees and a focal lens of 8.0mm with a scale factor of 1.6, which is 12.5mm in 35mm equivalent.
When I use exiftool to read the EXIF data from the Lightroom converted TIF, it reports a FoV of 108.4 degrees and an 8.0mm focal lens which it says it is 13mm in 35mm equivalent. I guess the small changes are part of the conversion process.
hugin sets the lens type to rectilinear and hfov to 85.5 degrees. This would be correct if the lens was rectilinear, but in this case it is not.
My guess is that hugin calculates the hfov based on the focal distance and the assumption that the lens is rectilinear.
Since both FOV and focal distance are available in EXIF, would it be possible to make the above calculations for different type of lenses and set the lens type based on the one that gets the closest result to the EXIF reported FOV?
> built exactly the same on my 32bit ubuntu 7.10 box.
>> Everything built fine.
> same here.
>> I ran Yuv's hugin_6aroundtilted_testcase.pto through hugin_stitch_project.
> did you try to start a project from scratch, i.e. use the assistant to > load the images?
> when I do so, I still get the Error 255 message while trying to execute > autopano-sift-C. I get the same Error 255 when I try to run autopano > from the Images tab.
As I wrote, there is no standard exif tag that encodes the lens type or the FOV.
> When I use exiftool to read the EXIF data from the CR2, it reports a FoV > of 110.4 degrees and a focal lens of 8.0mm with a scale factor of 1.6, > which is 12.5mm in 35mm equivalent.
Exivtool is the most advanced program for reading the image metadata (not just EXIF tags) and it knows TONS of custom fields and probably works around lots of inconsistencies in the metadata. Unfortunately, it is written in perl and cannot be easily used from within hugin.
One way would probably be to extract the metadata, convert it to a standart format such as xmp (if xmp can hold the FOV) and then read that with exiv2.
exiv2 itself can also read some MarkerNodes and RAW file meta information, but I'm not sure if it can access the tags that exiftool uses to determine the FOV.
If somebody can find out how exiftool computes the FOV, then it might be possible to use the same approach with exiv2 (maybe..).
> My guess is that hugin calculates the hfov based on the focal distance > and the assumption that the lens is rectilinear.
Exactly.
> Since both FOV and focal distance are available in EXIF,
As said above, unfortunately the FOV is not stored in standard EXIF data.
> would it be
> possible to make the above calculations for different type of lenses and > set the lens type based on the one that gets the closest result to the > EXIF reported FOV?
Yes that would be nice, unfortunately I don't have the time to dig into this myself.
Panotools-Script is alive and well and due for a new 0.12 release. This is basically a perl library for reading, writing and manipulating hugin .pto project files (yes, the name isn't so great).
> > built exactly the same on my 32bit ubuntu 7.10 box.
> >> Everything built fine.
> > same here.
> >> I ran Yuv's hugin_6aroundtilted_testcase.pto through > hugin_stitch_project.
> > did you try to start a project from scratch, i.e. use the assistant to > > load the images?
> > when I do so, I still get the Error 255 message while trying to execute > > autopano-sift-C. I get the same Error 255 when I try to run autopano > > from the Images tab.
> As I wrote, there is no standard exif tag that encodes the lens type or > the FOV.
> > When I use exiftool to read the EXIF data from the CR2, it reports a FoV > > of 110.4 degrees and a focal lens of 8.0mm with a scale factor of 1.6, > > which is 12.5mm in 35mm equivalent.
> Exivtool is the most advanced program for reading the image metadata (not > just EXIF tags) and it knows TONS of custom fields and probably works > around > lots of inconsistencies in the metadata. Unfortunately, it is written in > perl and cannot be easily used from within hugin.
> One way would probably be to extract the metadata, convert it to a > standart > format such as xmp (if xmp can hold the FOV) and then read that with > exiv2.
> exiv2 itself can also read some MarkerNodes and RAW file meta information, > but I'm not sure if it can access the tags that exiftool uses to determine > the FOV.
> If somebody can find out how exiftool computes the FOV, then it might be > possible to use the same approach with exiv2 (maybe..).
> > My guess is that hugin calculates the hfov based on the focal distance > > and the assumption that the lens is rectilinear.
> Exactly.
> > Since both FOV and focal distance are available in EXIF,
> As said above, unfortunately the FOV is not stored in standard EXIF data.
> > would it be > > possible to make the above calculations for different type of lenses and > > set the lens type based on the one that gets the closest result to the > > EXIF reported FOV?
> Yes that would be nice, unfortunately I don't have the time to dig into > this > myself.
> ciao > Pablo
Hello,
I have time to work with Yuv on this. I have recently switched to autopano-c and I have enough perl knowledge to see what is going on inside of exiftool.
First, I need to duplicate the error 255 that Yuv is seeing. Is there a place I can get the project file and source images from?
On Jan 13, 2:48 pm, "Gerry Patterson" <thedeepvo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/13/08, Pablo d'Angelo <pablo.dang...@web.de> wrote:
> I have time to work with Yuv on this. I have recently switched to
> autopano-c and I have enough perl knowledge to see what is going on inside
> of exiftool.
I don't think the autopano-sift-C error is related to the exif issue.
For the exif issue, after a quick analysis my understanding is that
the lack of standard mention by Pablo is the quagmire and he is right
to better steer hugin off that quagmire and only take information that
is passed from the metadata reading library.
The author of ExifTool has done a lot of work to get to the results
that display on my screen and that I unknowingly assumed to be part of
the standard.
I am not sure if the error 255 is on my side. At the next possible
reboot I will see if I can reproduce the issue on my AMD64 box, and I
will try to "downgrade" autopano-sift-C and the libpano13 to the last
revision for which I had autopano-sift-C working properly (I am afraid
I did not note down which version it was, but I will find out).
Thanks for your effort, let me know if I can be of any help.
> On Jan 13, 2:48pm, "Gerry Patterson" <thedeepvo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1/13/08, Pablo d'Angelo < pablo.dang...@web.de> wrote: > > I have time to work with Yuv on this. I have recently switched to > > autopano-c and I have enough perl knowledge to see what is going on > inside > > of exiftool.
> I don't think the autopano-sift-C error is related to the exif issue.
> For the exif issue, after a quick analysis my understanding is that > the lack of standard mention by Pablo is the quagmire and he is right > to better steer hugin off that quagmire and only take information that > is passed from the metadata reading library.
> The author of ExifTool has done a lot of work to get to the results > that display on my screen and that I unknowingly assumed to be part of > the standard.
> I am not sure if the error 255 is on my side. At the next possible > reboot I will see if I can reproduce the issue on my AMD64 box, and I > will try to "downgrade" autopano-sift-C and the libpano13 to the last > revision for which I had autopano-sift-C working properly (I am afraid > I did not note down which version it was, but I will find out).
> Thanks for your effort, let me know if I can be of any help.
> Yuv
Hello,
I am on the exiv2 list as well and read your post. I happen to be also using canon gear so I have access to a lot of RAW CR2 files. In the bug report you posted to Hugin's tracker, you mentioned you could see FOV being reported from exiftool on CR2 files. I am not seeing this. I have been known to miss things starting me in the face, but I checked twice, honest.
I am downloading the test case to see what is happening with the error on autopano-c.
> Gerry Patterson wrote: >> In the bug report you posted to Hugin's tracker, you mentioned you could > > see FOV being reported from exiftool on CR2 files. I am not seeing this. > > I have been known to miss things starting me in the face, but I checked >> twice, honest.
> don't worry. I too, despite laser-corrected 20/20 vision, miss things > starting me in the face.
> when I drag a CR2 file on the latest exiftools that I downloaded two > days ago, I find a line stating:
> Field Of View : 110.4 deg
exiftool on my system (v 6.90) does not output the Field of View of your test files either, so this must be a new feature of release 7.10 or so.
> Gerry Patterson wrote: > > In the bug report you posted to Hugin's tracker, you mentioned you could > > see FOV being reported from exiftool on CR2 files. I am not seeing > this. > > I have been known to miss things starting me in the face, but I checked > > twice, honest.
> don't worry. I too, despite laser-corrected 20/20 vision, miss things > starting me in the face.
> when I drag a CR2 file on the latest exiftools that I downloaded two > days ago, I find a line stating:
> Field Of View : 110.4 deg
> It is the sixth line from the bottom of the output not including the > "press any key" output, just above Focal Length and below Circle of > Confusion.
> Yuv
Hello,
I was able to download the test case. However, when I load the project, clear out the points and press the align button I don't get an error. So I closed hugin and started from scratch (not loading the project). I used the assistant tab to load the images. The autopano output window opened and it completed normaly, no error. I am running (K)ubuntu 7.10 32 bit. Perhaps you can run the autopano command from a terminal window and check the exit status (echo $?). If you get 255. then something is going on inside autopano.
I updated my version of exiftool and now see the FOV tag. I looked at the code in exiftool and the computed FOV is only valid for Rectilinear images..... Hugin changes its FOV calculation for fisheye images. I'll keep looking at this to try to understand more of what is going on. But, in short, I wouldn't trust the output of the FOV field in exiftool for your fisheye images.
Pablo d'Angelo wrote: > exiftool on my system (v 6.90) does not output the Field of View of your > test files either, so this must be a new feature of release 7.10 or so.
Gerry Patterson wrote: > Perhaps you can run the autopano command from a terminal window > and check the exit status (echo $?). If you get 255. then something is > going on inside autopano.
I'll check at the next possible opportunity and will report back.
> I updated my version of exiftool and now see the FOV tag. I looked at > the code in exiftool and the computed FOV is only valid for Rectilinear > images..... Hugin changes its FOV calculation for fisheye images. I'll > keep looking at this to try to understand more of what is going on. > But, in short, I wouldn't trust the output of the FOV field in exiftool > for your fisheye images.
bizarre - the number I got from exiftool for my fisheye images was correct, and it was the same number hugin gave me once i manually changed lens type from rectilinear to fisheye. i have not tested with rectilinear images.
> Gerry Patterson wrote: > > Perhaps you can run the autopano command from a terminal window > > and check the exit status (echo $?). If you get 255. then something is > > going on inside autopano.
> I'll check at the next possible opportunity and will report back.
> > I updated my version of exiftool and now see the FOV tag. I looked at > > the code in exiftool and the computed FOV is only valid for Rectilinear > > images..... Hugin changes its FOV calculation for fisheye images. I'll > > keep looking at this to try to understand more of what is going on. > > But, in short, I wouldn't trust the output of the FOV field in exiftool > > for your fisheye images.
> bizarre - the number I got from exiftool for my fisheye images was > correct, and it was the same number hugin gave me once i manually > changed lens type from rectilinear to fisheye. i have not tested with > rectilinear images.
> Yuv
Hello,
I was wondering, how you know what the correct value of the FOV is for your lens? I found this site that computes FOV for various configurations.
I did notice the assumption of rectilinear lens type produces the wrong degrees of view. To correct this one needs to change the setting and then get hugin to recompute the value. I just re-entered in the focal length and pressed ENTER. Perhaps one could add an event to the dropdown to convince hugin to recompute the degrees of view when the lens type changes. If this sounds like a good idea, let me know and I will try it.
Side note: I have never used a fisheye lens. It took me a while to figure out why your pictures seemed to be at an angle. I am guessing you are keeping the vertical FOV at 180 and rotating as much as you can to increase the horizontal FOV. Basically, rotating the hypotenuse of the sensor to vertical. Which pano head are your using to accomplish this?
Gerry Patterson wrote: > I was wondering, how you know what the correct value of the FOV is for > your lens? I found this site that computes FOV for various > configurations.
I go by a mix of calculation, intuition, approximation. The Sigma fisheye is approximately 181 degrees of circle on 24mm diameter. The sensor of my 350D is about 22mm wide and has a 3:2 form factor. So vertically I have an estimated 166 degrees (92%) in portrait mode, which means somewhere around 111 horizontally, which is pretty close to exiftools' result and to hugin's result when I set the lens type to fisheye. So I assume both programs make the same calculation since when I feed them with the same data they return the same, correct answer.
> Perhaps one could add an event to the > dropdown to convince hugin to recompute the degrees of view when the > lens type changes. If this sounds like a good idea, let me know and I > will try it.
I find it an excellent idea.
> Side note: > I have never used a fisheye lens. It took me a while to figure out why > your pictures seemed to be at an angle. I am guessing you are keeping > the vertical FOV at 180 and rotating as much as you can to increase the > horizontal FOV. Basically, rotating the hypotenuse of the sensor to > vertical. Which pano head are your using to accomplish this?
yes, your guess is right. moreover, Canon sensors are slightly smaller than Nikons, so no full 180° on the vertical (you will notice that the short sides of the sensor touches the circle of the image).
AFAIK the first to publish the idea of tilting the sensor was Helmut Dersch on his old website. You can see my self-modded pano head at <http://www.photopla.net/wwp0506/newnpa.php> - the commercial design by Agnos is the only one known to me to use this orientation and it was too clumpy and heavy for my taste.
I like this kind of workflow because it minimizes shooting time and maximises the use of the sensor surface. Especially the time minimization is particularly important when walking / touring a place with non-photographers whose patience is being tested at every sphere.
Though sometimes even the least patient of the non-photographers can wait for at least five of the six frames :-)
