Very faint lines (not parallel) on a stitching of Red Lilies, but only with one of the original images. Alignment looks very good.

[KumsaJack]

https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/117084947478006104564/6428866718844218290?icm=false

On the far left, there are three very faint, straight, lines, almost like spider web strands, but obviously not.

I can clean them up manually, but I'm guessing that a configuration tweak would have fixed it.

Any idea what is the cause ? The alignment looks perfect to me.

Thanks for any guidance.

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 10:53:06 -0700, KumsaJack wrote:
>
> <goog_2039846399>

> https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/117084947478006104564/6428866718844218290?icm=false
>
> On the far left, there are three very faint, straight, lines, almost like
> spider web strands, but obviously not.

It would have helped to say exactly where. I can only see two of
them, one vertical and one going off at an angle to bottom left, round
the centre of the left-hand flower, and they're only visible at
maximum magnification.

This looks to me like an artefact of the stitching. How did you do
it?

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger groo...@gmail.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA

[KumsaJack]

So, first off, I was able to clean them with GIMP and the clone tool. You're right, they wouldn't show up unless I print up large --- but that's my intent.

I'm on Hugin 2016.2.0.be8da0221960.

I used the Advanced menu, dropped in the series, and used Hugin's CPFind + Celeste to find the alignment points. Aligned. Then stitched. I stayed with defaults throughout.

It's not a dealbreaker, but because the alignments worked so well, I was surprised to see the hairline markups.

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2017-06-08 3:17 GMT+02:00 KumsaJack <ph...@leadershipbynumbers.com>:

So, first off, I was able to clean them with GIMP and the clone tool. You're right, they wouldn't show up unless I print up large --- but that's my intent.

I'm on Hugin 2016.2.0.be8da0221960.

I used the Advanced menu, dropped in the series, and used Hugin's CPFind + Celeste to find the alignment points. Aligned. Then stitched. I stayed with defaults throughout.

It's not a dealbreaker, but because the alignments worked so well, I was surprised to see the hairline markups.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 8:13:14 PM UTC-4, Groogle wrote:

On Wednesday,  7 June 2017 at 10:53:06 -0700, KumsaJack wrote:
>
> <goog_2039846399>
> https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/117084947478006104564/6428866718844218290?icm=false
>
> On the far left, there are three very faint, straight, lines, almost like
> spider web strands, but obviously not.

It would have helped to say exactly where.  I can only see two of
them, one vertical and one going off at an angle to bottom left, round
the centre of the left-hand flower, and they're only visible at
maximum magnification.

This looks to me like an artefact of the stitching.  How did you do
it?

Greg 

I found 8 lines all in the left part of the panorama. At least some of them are not quite straight.

--

Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

[Bruno Postle]

Are you using enblend or the Hugin internal stitcher? I could imagine this being caused by the internal stitcher in combination with a weird (or incorrect) colour profile in the photos.


On 7 June 2017 18:53:06 BST, KumsaJack wrote:
>
><goog_2039846399>

--
Bruno

[KumsaJack]

Bruno, a weird color profile would create these artifacts ?

So, I think there might be something to your observation. I work in RAW and normally export in ProPhotoRGB TIFF (it's my standard for printing). As long as my .icc files are in place, a lot of Linux software preserves the gamut (AftershotPro, TurboPrint, GIMP 2.9.x, Zerene, Photomatix, etc.).

So, do you think that staying in ProPhotoRGB is contributing to these lines ?

I believe the entrance pupil was set correctly.

I used the Hugin internal stitcher, as far as I know. I give that caveat because the Hugin incorporates enblend, but everything I did, was through Hugin.

Thanks,