Received: by 10.58.216.100 with SMTP id op4mr8782978vec.25.1352887205858;
        Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:00:05 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: ptgui@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.20.7 with SMTP id j7ls245443vde.0.gmail; Wed, 14 Nov 2012
 01:59:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.97.101 with SMTP id dz5mr116277vdb.2.1352887199843; Wed, 14
 Nov 2012 01:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 j.hough...@ntlworld.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=j.hough...@ntlworld.com; dkim=pass
 header...@ntlworld.com
Received: by y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:59:59
 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:59:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <571D696E-0D3E-454B-AF99-5A5FE38F4ECB@wanadoo.fr>
References: <4e337198-cced-429b-9865-54ca7b5eaaa0@googlegroups.com>
 <c5f4ce41-6fe6-4a6a-96af-03f3727c082c@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <571D696E-0D3E-454B-AF99-5A5FE38F4ECB@wanadoo.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; Trident/6.0),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <fa90e3ab-665b-41da-8c7c-67f8f465f89d@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Conflicts with Optimizer Info
From: John Houghton <j.hough...@ntlworld.com>
To: PTGui Support <ptgui@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Michel, Inevitably, parallax isn't perfectly corrected either, and
that has an impact on the optimization result:

http://www.johnhpanos.com/Hadron2.gif

The parallax shifts are very small, however, and not really a concern.

John

On Nov 14, 9:10=A0am, Michel Thoby <thobymic...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi John,
> Le 14 nov. 2012 =E0 08:28, John Houghton a =E9crit :
>
> > Ed, I didn't find any problems with the stitch, which I have uploaded
> > to
>
> >http://www.johnhpanos.com/Hadron2.zip
>
> > If you have a good optimizer report AND you have a good distribution
> > of control points, then the stitch ought to be good. =A0I can only
> > assume that your stitching errors were the result of not having
> > control points in those areas.
>
> > John
>
> There are indeed some problems on Ed's panorama: all are located not far =
from the top and bottom of the panorama and on each and every seam between =
adjacent images but they are "small" and need some zooming to view them.
>
> As you suggested, getting rid of these stitching errors is actually possi=
ble by putting much more CP very well spread over the overlap and with some=
 of them in the flawed areas. After optimization (with three coefficients),=
 the CP distance maximum errors then subsequently become higher (~4 to 6). =
While the RMS is still Very Good (~1), the few concerned CP yielding higher=
 CP distance errors are not located where the stitch errors were located on=
 Ed's image. The errors become invisible on the output image though.
> BTW PanoTools Optimizer gives a very similar result with even higher CP d=
istances error figures. That is expected and is not a problem.
>
> I tend to conclude that the =A0EF 24 mm TS-E lens has a very small distor=
tion (a, b and c are tiny figures) but it's an intricate radial mapping (mo=
st probably wavy). That is the case for the majority of modern wide-angle l=
enses with a retro-focus design (that is to say : designed for Single Lens =
Reflex =A0cameras). A rectilinear lens polynomial correction equation with =
a reduced number of terms has a hard time to accurately convert the lens ac=
tual projection into the ideal central perspective projection. But in pract=
ice and in this case, this is not absolutely required as the stitch errors =
are invisible:)
>
> Michel Thoby