software <hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com>
Received: by 10.52.35.206 with SMTP id k14mr11081238vdj.5.1320342471739;
        Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.7.146 with SMTP id d18ls2858348vcd.4.gmail; Thu, 03 Nov
 2011 10:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.90.36 with SMTP id bt4mr11072920vdb.7.1320342469884;
        Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.90.36 with SMTP id bt4mr11072919vdb.7.1320342469877;
        Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <r...@speakeasy.net>
Received: from asbnvacz-mailrelay01.megapath.net (asbnvacz-mailrelay01.megapath.net. [207.145.128.243])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id b8si3620326vdu.2.2011.11.03.10.47.49;
        Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of r...@speakeasy.net designates 207.145.128.243 as permitted sender) client-ip=207.145.128.243;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of r...@speakeasy.net designates 207.145.128.243 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=...@speakeasy.net
Received: from mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.41])
	by asbnvacz-mailrelay01.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B47A716E5
	for <hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com>; Thu,  3 Nov 2011 13:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 1501 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2011 17:47:48 -0000
Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 18244, pid: 5069, t: 0.4783s
         scanners: clamav: 0.88.2/m:52/d:10739
Received: from dsl092-065-009.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.65.9])
          (envelope-sender <r...@speakeasy.net>)
          by mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP
          for <hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com>; 3 Nov 2011 17:47:48 -0000
Received: from dsl092-065-009.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dsl092-065-009.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (8.14.4/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id pA3HlkW6012065
	for <hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:47:47 -0400
Received: (from rlk@localhost)
	by dsl092-065-009.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id pA3HlkE7012064;
	Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:47:46 -0400
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:47:46 -0400
Message-Id: <201111031747.pA3HlkE7012...@dsl092-065-009.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net>
From: Robert Krawitz <r...@alum.mit.edu>
To: hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com
CC: hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com
In-reply-to: <17aabbe6-9780-49c6-af9e-73e5dbc7c...@h5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
	(johnpwatk...@gmail.com)
Subject: Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: Vertical line detector
References: <7e508ac6-ec8d-415d-9cc9-12740d049...@d12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 <CAGARPpvKCsq3Jj4zpvUiTTYwUK8bP0riUsBN804j8aSrw6c...@mail.gmail.com>
 <2b3da916-3c23-4802-9792-5fcc6b29c...@h6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
 <CAGARPps+Cj2xVHqCbK3PuCXH4zG0nmnt2t_FVPKAAxJW4Fn...@mail.gmail.com>
 <19914513.558.1319719747858.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhp35>
 <99186cf5-1cd8-4191-86f9-e0c3c5dbc...@o14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <CALj_J35ngML18aW1B0qRQ=1ok-WPtvgyLPjTMi_s2vXbfOF...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111102200402.GI16...@postle.net> <201111030218.pA32ItdY032...@dsl092-065-009.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net>
 <35dedba8-1719-4446-9306-c87564d28...@s9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <201111031215.pA3CFPfb009...@dsl092-065-009.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net>
 <e6faf5b3-8dfd-4e97-bf1f-45b02d1bb...@hv4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <201111031423.pA3EN03V010...@dsl092-065-009.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net> <17aabbe6-9780-49c6-af9e-73e5dbc7c...@h5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT), JohnPW wrote:
> Ah the Pilgrim monument. I haven't been there.
> Very nice panoramas. They all look very well done to me. You clearly
> have very high production standards.

Thanks!

> When I was working for the NPS I did a similar style panorama from the
> top of the Cape Lookout Light (not even remotely as nice as yours
> though.)
> It was my first 360ÅŸ panorama and I wasn't sure it would work since I
> took it from the outer catwalk, but I figured the closest objects were
> far enough away that it wouldn't be a problem. It wasn't that great
> (3.5Mp jpegs, no fusion or TCA correction etc., but this was a few
> years ago and my colleagues (who had never seen stitched panos before)
> were amazed and perplexed by how I got "such nice images" using a
> little digital point and shoot (although the results would probably
> not be acceptable to anyone in this forum.) I stitched them together
> with well aged Apple QTVR Studio Software running on system 7 via
> Rosetta on a G3 PowerMac. Although the whole western sky was blown
> out, I was actually pleasantly surprised myself. I should go  back and
> run it through Hugin. I'm sure there would be a little noticeable
> improvement.

I had the same problem on the Pilgrim monument.  There are only four
spots, at the center of each side, where there's a clear view without
glass and bars getting in the way.  It's fortunate that I have an 8-16
mm lens; I don't think even a 10 or 11 mm lens would have provided
enough overlap for a good stitch and a 12 mm lens probably wouldn't
have been wide enough, period.  I did have to fix some things up by
hand where the parallax error was too great (the parking lot at the
bottom had some problems that I had to fix manually, in addition to
the horizon problem I mentioned earlier).

I actually generally do use JPEGs, and I haven't done TCA correction
or predefined lens models (which are likely to be accurate only at one
particular focal length, anyway).  And all too often I do them
hand-held.  But when I look at my panoramas, I generally don't see a
lot of TCA problems.  As for RAW vs. JPEG, the 7D does a very good job
of in-camera processing.  If the light's such that I'm going to have
serious dynamic range problems, I probably need more than the
additional one or two stops I'll get from my own RAW processing.  The
P-town panorama, for example, did have dynamic range problems, but
simple exposure bracketing and fusion worked very well.

For this one:

http://rlk.smugmug.com/Other/Landscapes/4851912_XB4SmT/1488875261_xzm3Fzn

I really did have to use RAW, though (and fix up a lot of sky by hand,
also).

There is one little trick I sometimes play that I haven't seen
mentioned anywhere to reduce the aspect ratio and get more foreground
detail.  With wide angle lenses, the final output is somewhat torpedo
or barrel shaped due to the projection onto a planar surface.  I make
a second pass with Hugin, treating the first stage panorama as having
been shot by a cylindrical lens (like a Spinshot camera) of between 20
and 35 mm focal length and then re-projecting it as rectilinear, which
applies a pincushion effect.

Panorama stitching really is a lot of fun.