http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008X1C4IY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The part that has me stumped is it a normal lens, circular fish eye, a full frame fish eye or something else? I am using it on a cannon rebel t5 if that makes any difference. It has a focal multiplier of 1.585x
I have a new fish eye lens and I do not know what to tell hugin it is.
--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/a57a4223-1b84-462b-af6d-0178aadb7981%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:02:34 PM UTC-7, David Benes wrote:Hi Brandon,
is seems, that it is the same lens as Samyang 8mm f/3.5 (except the removable hood).That Samyang has stereographic projection.RegardsDavid
On the Canon T5, the lens behaves as a full frame fisheye. The focal length usually works out nearer 9mm than 8mm, but the optimizer will evaluate the correct hfov when you stitch a full 360x180 panorama.John
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:02:34 PM UTC-7, David Benes wrote:Hi Brandon,is seems, that it is the same lens as Samyang 8mm f/3.5 (except the removable hood).That Samyang has stereographic projection.RegardsDavid
On your advice I just tried a stereographic projection and re-optimized one of my projects and it looks great! I had tried the other settings that I mentioned above and it never worked out. I was starting to worry that the lens would not work with hugin.
A big thanks, getting that right makes me a lot happier person :)
I was thinking the way you were and had been trying the various fisheye projections and it was not working. Maybe someone has some insight as to why it turns out to be a stereographic instead?