On Nov 19, 3:25 am, l_d_allan <
ldasig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * In the "Lens Settings" tab, it showed a crop-factor of 1 for your 20d
> crop camera. Is that expected, or "doesn't matter"?
It is irrelevant. All that PTGui is interested in is the horizontal
field of view. The focal length and crop factor may be used by PTGui
to estimate the hfov initially, but note that the cropping circle also
directly affects the field of view. In this case, the effective hfov
value of 180.5 degrees is known from the template stitch and is what
will be used initially.
> * In the "Optimizer" tab, the template had "Minimize lens distortion: No".
> Do you find that preferred over "Heavy + lens shift"? Is that because your
> template supplies appropriate values for "Lens corrections parameters",
> such as from a Lens database?
If you switch into advanced mode via the button on the Optimizer tab,
you have access to each individual parameter that can be optimized.
The lens parameters a,b,c characterize the distortion of the lens -
i.e. how the behaviour of the lens departs from the ideal model of a
fisheye lens. The distortion is always the same (for the same
physical lens settings of zoom and focus), so once the a,b,c values
have been accurately established in a previous stitch, there is no
need to ask the optimizer to determine their values over and over
again. Hand the known values over to the optimizer in the template
and uncheck their optimize parameter boxes so that they will not be
changed.
What of the remaining lens parameters: hfov and the horizontal &
vertical shift parameters d,e? Although the hfov is theoretically a
fixed known value, it can and should be optimized for a 360 panorama
as a fine tuning exercise to make the fit of the images around the
stitching sphere as good as possible. This will take into account
minor imperfections in the control point placements. The shift
parameters can vary from shoot to shoot owing to tolerances in the
mount of the lens onto the camera body, so they too should be
optimized. (DSLR images do not suffer from shear distortion, so there
is no need to optimize those parameters).
Many people like to optimize all the parameters regardless. By doing
so, good results are usually obtained, with minor alignment issues due
to parallax and subject movement effectively "corrected" or hidden.
But the success of this will be highly dependent on the control point
generation. With few points poorly distributed, lens parameters are
free to take up bizarre values that result in nasty visual
distortions, albeit with the optimizer reporting an apparently "good"
result. The alignment is only good in the sense that the images align
well in the (possibly few) places where there are control points.
Elsewhere, there may well be obvious stitching errors. This cannot
happen when the lens parameters are fixed, and the number and
distribution of control points is far less critical. It's up to you
to decide which approach is best for you.
John