Metadata - why does Ptgui strip out metadata?

[Timothy Selvage]

I was mainly wondering what need there is for Ptgui to strip out metadata such as camera make, model and serial number &etc? It would be nice if more of the metadata fields are left alone or to have an interface on export (similar to the way that Metadata Wrangler works in lightroom) where one could choose precisely which fields to strip out - and/or in the case of Ptgui we could choose additional fields/entires to be included e.g. new rectilinear FOV vs original lens FOV etc. 

I know that it's likely possible that I could replace/edit the metadata using something like exiftool - but it feels as if it should be unnecessary to put back data that was not desired to be stripped out. I know this question was asked way back in 2011 as a request - but was wondering what the position is now and for the future of Ptgui?

[PTGui Support]

Hi Timothy,

Actually PTGui doesn't strip out any metadata; it just doesn't copy all
metadata from the source images to the panorama.

For example I'm not sure if it would be correct to copy the camera
make/model to the panorama EXIF data, because assembling the panorama
results in an image taken with a different 'sensor size'.

Of course this can be made configurable and other fields can be added in
a future release. Just let me know what exactly you need. See 2.18 for
the current behaviour:
https://www.ptgui.com/support.html#2_18

Kind regards,

New House Internet Services BV
Joost Nieuwenhuijse

-----------------------------------------------
PTGui - Photo Stitching Software

www.ptgui.com
For support see: http://www.ptgui.com/faq/
-----------------------------------------------

On 26/06/15 23:32, Timothy Selvage wrote:
> I was mainly wondering what need there is for Ptgui to strip out

> *metadata such as camera make, model and serial number* &etc? It would

> be nice if more of the metadata fields are left alone or to have an
> interface on export (similar to the way that Metadata Wrangler works in
> lightroom) where one could choose precisely which fields to strip out -
> and/or in the case of Ptgui we could choose additional fields/entires to
> be included e.g. new rectilinear FOV vs original lens FOV etc.
>
> I know that it's likely possible that I could replace/edit the metadata

> using something like *exiftool* - but it feels as if it should be

> unnecessary to put back data that was not desired to be stripped out. I
> know this question was asked way back in 2011 as a request - but was
> wondering what the position is now and for the future of Ptgui?
>

> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PTGui" group.
> To post to this group, send email to pt...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com
> Please do not add attachments to your posts; instead upload your files
> at a file sharing site (for example http://ge.tt/ ) and include a link
> in your message.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ptgui
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PTGui Support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[l_d_allan]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 7:40:35 AM UTC-6, PTGui Support wrote:

For example I'm not sure if it would be correct to copy the camera
make/model to the panorama EXIF data, because assembling the panorama
results in an image taken with a different 'sensor size'.

I can understand your reasoning, but I believe that it is useful to have the camera make/model included. 

Of course this can be made configurable and other fields can be added in
a future release. Just let me know what exactly you need.

Also, Lens make/model/focal-length, orientation (portrait or landscape).  The calculated FOV would be of interest, if available and accurate.

It would be advantageous, at least to me, to have this be configurable.

And ... what is the downside to having most or all of whatever is available? Does the EXIF take more than a trivial amount of added file-size?

[PTGui Support]

On 27/06/15 23:03, l_d_allan wrote:
> Of course this can be made configurable and other fields can be
> added in
> a future release. Just let me know what exactly you need.
>
>
> Also, Lens make/model/focal-length, orientation (portrait or
> landscape). The calculated FOV would be of interest, if available and
> accurate.

It definitely would be wrong to include the focal length of the original
lens in the panorama. PTGui does already add a Focal Length field
referring to the field of view of the stitched panorama. Same with
camera orientation: what sense would this make when you are looking at a
stitched panorama?

> It would be advantageous, at least to me, to have this be configurable.
>
> And ... what is the downside to having most or all of whatever is
> available? Does the EXIF take more than a trivial amount of added file-size?

No it would be less than a kilobyte. But as I'm trying to explain, dumb
copying of the exif fields is not a good solution. Also you're dealing
with multiple source images which may have different EXIF data, the
proper way to handle this depends on the meaning of each field. You
cannot simply average GPS longitude or compass angle for example.

Joost

[l_d_allan]

On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 10:10:35 AM UTC-6, PTGui Support wrote:

It definitely would be wrong to include the focal length of the original
lens in the panorama. PTGui does already add a Focal Length field
referring to the field of view of the stitched panorama. Same with
camera orientation: what sense would this make when you are looking at a
stitched panorama?

I think it is useful to have info about what lens was used for the making of the pano. I might upload a pano to my photo sharing website, or DPReview, or Flickr, etc. People looking at the pano can directly have the information on what lens was used, such as an 18-55 kit lens at 18mm vs a prime lens at 14mm.

Another example: a person submits a pano for C&C (constructive criticism) and the EXIF shows an 18-55mm kit lens was used at 24mm. I think this facilitates a comment such as "you might consider using the 18mm widest focal length to make future panos."

Or not?

[Timothy Selvage]

Thanks for the responses. 

Joost - you're right that it wouldn't make sense to mindlessly copy all metadata fields across from numerous images into one image however,  I do believe that I_d_allen has some valid points in terms of lens data.

Maybe we shouldn't be too dismissive of the usefulness of transferring original data such as lens/camera make, model, serial and even focal length etc. Think about it... many people crop their non-pano/single frame images which alters the FOV (in the opposite way to stitching) - however we still accept and deem the lens data as relevant.

Furthermore, lens, camera, and software metadata is especially important when we are thinking about it in terms of it's educational value. The fact that people who check certain metadata will see that ptgui was used (in the software field), and combined with the likelihood that the image is likely to be presented as a 360-vr, gigapixel or some form of panoramic image - most people viewing the metadata are keen to know what lens/focal length was used to create the image - along with what what camera. People are using all sorts of combination of lenses and cameras to produce all sorts of wonderful creative results and the metadata is a good way of allowing people to learn from each other without always having to repeatedly ask, 'What lens did you use?', 'What camera did you use?', 'What stitching software did you use?'

Although the type of sensor/camera in terms of pixel size might be considered irrelevant  - in many ways it still remains relevant. We all know that different sensors produce different results - esp once we're at 100% which is sometimes the case when we're viewing virtual reality environments and a panos zoom capacity. Knowing whether someone used a D7000 with an 8mm compared with a D810 with a 50mm helps us convey our approach to capturing and creating our image e.g. when it comes to gigapixel images people are always keen to know what lens was used to achieve such resolution / ability to zoom in.

Leaving lens and camera serials is also good way of reinforcing identification, copyright and authenticity on the web and assisting with cataloguing / sorting / reviewing / reference e.g. how many panos did I create in 2014 using my 50mm vs my 24mm? (I'm not going to keep all the original files of all the HDR 360s I produce - but may want to know whether I used an 8, 10.5, 16mm fisheye or 14mm rectilinear in combo with x, y, z camera. 

It's a bit of a wild one, but leaving serial numbers of equipment in the metadata could also assist in reuniting owners with stolen/lost equipment - when passed on to unsuspecting 2nd hand buyers.

Lastly, my workflow includes adding keywords and copyright info to my images on import into lightroom. It would be lovely if this was transferred when exporting to/from ptgui. I know it could be synced or re-typed again later, but it's just another repeat step that could be missed/avoided along the way.

At the end of the day there are bound to be mixed responses as people value and use metadata differently, but I think that the bottom line is that it would be nice if it were more configurable within ptgui so that users could choose what is transferred with simple and fast click options. An interface similar to how the 'Metadata Wrangler' [by Jeffrey Friedl] plugin works in lightroom as an export option would be brilliant (see attached screenshot to get idea) - maybe with some field options such as 'use original focal length or use effective pano FOV. More great new features for Ptgui :-D 

I know it's slightly off the original point - but whilst we're talking about metadata, more software is accommodating GPS tagging and as many 360s are being produced in ptgui for web in places such as google views and websites which show orientation of pano on a map etc, it would be fantastic if there was an interface in the editor to orientate panos and affix a heading which is encoded into the exif. Florian at pano.ie wrote a tool to do this (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsGJdxFNyL4&index=13&list=PL15B8C737F69319BE ) to use after stitching, but it would be great if it was done in ptgui - non-cmd line before exporting. What a cool new feature this would be for an already brilliant piece of software ! ;-)

[Timothy Selvage]

some great points l_d_allan, many of which I agree with - see my recent response. 

[PTGui Support]

Hi Timothy,

First of all please check out the Metadata button in the Create Panorama
tab; here you can set the GPS location and heading.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll take this into consideration.

Kind regards,

New House Internet Services BV
Joost Nieuwenhuijse

-----------------------------------------------
PTGui - Photo Stitching Software

www.ptgui.com
For support see: http://www.ptgui.com/faq/
-----------------------------------------------

On 30/06/15 01:28, Timothy Selvage wrote:
> Thanks for the responses.
>
> Joost - you're right that it wouldn't make sense to mindlessly copy all
> metadata fields across from numerous images into one image however, I
> do believe that I_d_allen has some valid points in terms of lens data.
>
> Maybe we shouldn't be too dismissive of the usefulness of transferring
> original data such as lens/camera make, model, serial and even focal
> length etc. Think about it... many people crop their non-pano/single
> frame images which alters the FOV (in the opposite way to stitching) -
> however we still accept and deem the lens data as relevant.
>
> Furthermore, lens, camera, and software metadata is especially important
> when we are thinking about it in terms of it's educational value. The
> fact that people who check certain metadata will see that ptgui was used
> (in the software field), and combined with the likelihood that the image
> is likely to be presented as a 360-vr, gigapixel or some form of
> panoramic image - most people viewing the metadata are keen to know what
> lens/focal length was used to create the image - along with what what
> camera. People are using all sorts of combination of lenses and cameras
> to produce all sorts of wonderful creative results and the metadata is a
> good way of allowing people to learn from each other without always
> having to repeatedly ask, 'What lens did you use?', 'What camera did you
> use?', 'What stitching software did you use?'
>

> Although the type of sensor/camera in terms of pixel size /might /be

[Timothy Selvage]

Joost - brilliant! Yes I missed the option to uncheck and enter heading. Excellent news. 

Kind regards,

Timothy Selvage

Website: www.timothyselvage.com

Social media: G+ | Facebook | Flickr | 500px

--- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "PTGui Support" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ptgui/LCFlfyGyQbI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Matthew Rogers]

Hi Tim,

Your points may seem valid on the surface but when you think a bit more about them they don’t. Once you start adding and expecting this data for panoramic images where does it stop ? You end up moving away from the original idea behind metadata and you lose it’s usefulness.

It also makes zero sense for comparison reasons UNLESS the process everyone follows for their pre processing, stitching and post processing are all identical. If I’m shooting with a D800/16mm my final pano is going to be 20,000px wide, for publishing I’m going to resize it to 10,000px using my own scripts to maintain per pixel sharpness. If I did the same in Photoshop for example my results would be nowhere near the same. Even with identical equipment there’s 50 ways to end up at a published panorama and can all be quite different regards sharpness etc. How do you compare ? If you can’t what’s the point in adding the data. Not only that but you’d end up as the software developing creating a support nightmare.

You end up in a situation where beginners viewing data from perfectly processed panoramas buy the same gear and expect the same results. Very few people look inward when looking for issues, only outwards. As it can takes years of experience to consistently produce results they look for someone/something to blame. I’ve seen it a lot, I can tell you now Joost will end up with a constant stream of I have a D800/10.5 and have seen dozens of awesome panos from this set-up but why are mine crap, in most cases nothing to do with PTGui.

You just can’t look at the end result and the equipment and make a valid judgement as to whether you can learn anything. I see panoramas from hundreds of customers with dozens of set-ups. Even those with identical set-ups can end up producing wildly varying levels of quality. So knowing just the camera and lens really is pointless as is the stitching software to be honest. If you know how to use the app you’re stitching with the results should be flawless.

And it’s why apps like Lightroom and Aperture allow you to both tag, categorise, catalogue and even add you’re own custom data to images. Moving this responsibility over the the stitching app really makes no long term sense.

Matt

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PTGui" group.
To post to this group, send email to pt...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com
Please do not add attachments to your posts; instead upload your files at a file sharing site (for example http://ge.tt/ ) and include a link in your message.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ptgui

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PTGui Support" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<Screen Shot 2015-06-29 at 23.48.45.png>

[Timothy Selvage]

Matt,

Great points. 

I know where you're coming from and it ends up more of a debate on semantics (what does metadata mean to those who are using / interpreting it). As you mentioned - different or same results can be achieved with varied combos of equipment. It therefore illustrates that through metadata we can convey and reinforce the point that xx camera and xx lens isn't necessary to achieve great results.

Your point(s) can therefore reinforce my point, that from an education point of view - it would be good for more people to see that great results can be achieved with a whole range of gear (not necessarily the most expensive or latest).

From Joost's point-of-view he can clearly explain things. Taking your example, if person X has a D800 with 10.5mm, and isn't getting great results, and decides to blame ptgui. Joost along with many others can point out that there are many people who use a D800, 10.5mm & ptgui and get great results (if this info is in the metadata - it makes the message easier to convey).

You also raised a very good point, which is important - that two people having the same gear can achieve poor or excellent results depending on their post processing (as well as initial capture). So if people do know what gear was used, and already have the same gear, they are then able to reflect, "Why am I not achieving the same results?". This is a great place to open up discussions where people can learn and talk more about the post-processing. However a debate about 'equipment vs skill - and how they can compliment each other' is whole other fun discussion in itself! :-D

This is one of the great things about this forum. People are here to share and learn about post-processing techniques to achieve better results. Since starting to learn about 360s, I'm thankful to people like Joost, John H, Klaus, and yourself (among many others) who have freely shared such useful experience and knowledge with the pano community.

So, to summarise. Yes - most will use LR etc for organising data which makes perfect sense - I doubt anyone expects stitching software to 'manage' data - but I'm sure some users would like to 'retain' certain data (without having to type it in). As Joost kindly explained - ptgui is in a position to either copy or not copy existing data. It would therefore be great for users to choose which gets copied across into which fields [let users decide with efficient tick boxes] - therefore improving the 'friendliness' of how ptgui handshakes data from one place to another. 

Tim

***

Kind regards,

Timothy Selvage

Website: www.timothyselvage.com

Social media: G+ | Facebook | Flickr | 500px

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "PTGui Support" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ptgui/LCFlfyGyQbI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com.

[DennisS]

Here is my 2c worth:

 

Meta data attached to a finished panorama provides very little useable information about how the pano was created.

 

There are so many variables and processing steps associated with creating a pano.  Meta data is useful only when attached to the original source images which most of the time nobody but the author has access to.

 

If the lens is attached via an adapter that does not transfer the f stop/zoom/focus setting to the camera, one big significant piece of the puzzle is missing right off the bat.

 

Beginners most likely do not know what metadata is.  They will get more help by asking questions of experienced panographers..  Heck, up until this thread I did not even know metadata existed on the final stitched image.  I assumed all info was stripped out.

 

It is more important to have access to the author than to rely on a very small piece of information attached to a pano.

[ewh...@gmail.com]

Sorry to bother you guys with this old, but Important (at least to me :-) ) subject.

I'm already a loyal PTGui user/fan for years now. And long, long ago, I suggested (in 2009!) to include GPS EXIF metadata in the PTGui generated output. And Joost did!

But I was struggling and searching WHY PTGui did not copy my camera make/model/lens type into the generated output file... and found this topic.

I thought that in 2017 this issue would be resolved by now. But it seems, it isn't, yet.

Time for a change with PTGui 11?

Because, like many others, it would be handy/beneficial to get at least camera make/model/lens type copied from the original input source files, into the resulting pano file.

Please Joost, please? :-)

Op vrijdag 26 juni 2015 23:32:53 UTC+2 schreef Timothy Selvage:

[PTGui Support]

Hi,

All I can say is this is on the wish list. The thing is, I have a long
list of small feature requests for PTGui such as yours, I can't say if
and when this would get implemented.

Kind regards,

New House Internet Services BV
Joost Nieuwenhuijse

-----------------------------------------------
PTGui - Photo Stitching Software

www.ptgui.com
For support see: http://www.ptgui.com/faq/
-----------------------------------------------

On 12/06/2017 21:25, ewh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry to bother you guys with this old, but Important (at least to me
> :-) ) subject.
>
> I'm already a loyal PTGui user/fan for years now. And long, long ago, I
> suggested (in 2009!) to include GPS EXIF metadata in the PTGui generated
> output. And Joost did!
> But I was struggling and searching WHY PTGui did not copy my camera
> make/model/lens type into the generated output file... and found this topic.
>
> I thought that in 2017 this issue would be resolved by now. But it
> seems, it isn't, yet.
> Time for a change with PTGui 11?
>
> Because, like many others, it would be handy/beneficial to get at least
> camera make/model/lens type copied from the original input source files,
> into the resulting pano file.
>
> Please Joost, please? :-)
>
>
> Op vrijdag 26 juni 2015 23:32:53 UTC+2 schreef Timothy Selvage:
>
> I was mainly wondering what need there is for Ptgui to strip out

> *metadata such as camera make, model and serial number* &etc? It

> would be nice if more of the metadata fields are left alone or to
> have an interface on export (similar to the way that Metadata
> Wrangler works in lightroom) where one could choose precisely which
> fields to strip out - and/or in the case of Ptgui we could choose
> additional fields/entires to be included e.g. new rectilinear FOV vs
> original lens FOV etc.
>
> I know that it's likely possible that I could replace/edit the

> metadata using something like *exiftool* - but it feels as if it

> should be unnecessary to put back data that was not desired to be
> stripped out. I know this question was asked way back in 2011 as a
> request - but was wondering what the position is now and for the
> future of Ptgui?
>

> --
> Many people are reading this forum via email and get every post
> delivered to their inbox. To limit the amount of data please do not add
> attachments or images to your posts; instead upload your files at a file
> sharing site (for example http://sendspace.com// ) and include a link in
> your message.

> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PTGui Support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to pt...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:pt...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ptgui.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptgui/ac93ffa5-5a23-401e-b1d8-f228b7c8dd1a%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptgui/ac93ffa5-5a23-401e-b1d8-f228b7c8dd1a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Chasa:Imago]

Ok Joost,

At least thanks for the reply.

Comes to mind:

-maybe just the option (e.g. box to tick) to include/exclude EXIF Metadata from the input files into the generated pano output file?

-Things like camera + lens make/model are valued for a lot of image sharing sites

-Even more so with metadata like author/creator/other name/copyright info from the photographer. Now I have to create EXIFTOOL (batch) scripts for editing PTGui pano files in order to tag them with the proper info. Although my DSLR automatically fills in that data.

-Why should metadata which is already available in the source files not be copied along in the output file? Or at least it should be an option.

Please.... ;-)

Op dinsdag 13 juni 2017 09:57:48 UTC+2 schreef PTGui Support:

[Chasa:Imago]

HI Joost,

Today I installed the fresh & new PTGui 11.2; it looks just great. And it performs very well. Thanks for that!

But I'm still a little disappointed (and I'm not the only one). ☻

Carefully entered metadata in the original files, which are being used to create the panorama output, DISAPPEARS from the generated panorama!

E.g. camera info, copyright info and -tags, description, lens description, flash info, everything, except for GPS data, is omitted. :-(

Why? Why is there not an option to just copy the EXIF metadata from the input files to the output file?

Now, for each created panorama file I have to use tools like ExifTool to get this valuable data back in the output image, where it belongs...

Please, please; could you implement this?

Thank you!

Op dinsdag 13 juni 2017 09:57:48 UTC+2 schreef PTGui Support:

Hi,

[PTGui Support]

Hi,

All I can say is this is on the wish list. There are feature requests
dating back all the way to 2001, and this is one of them.

Kind regards,

Joost Nieuwenhuijse
www.ptgui.com

> www.ptgui.com <http://www.ptgui.com>

> For support see: http://www.ptgui.com/faq/
> -----------------------------------------------
>

> > an email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
> > <mailto:ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>.

> > To post to this group, send email to pt...@googlegroups.com

> <javascript:>
> > <mailto:pt...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>.

> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ptgui

> <https://groups.google.com/group/ptgui>.

> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptgui/ac93ffa5-5a23-401e-b1d8-f228b7c8dd1a%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptgui/ac93ffa5-5a23-401e-b1d8-f228b7c8dd1a%40googlegroups.com>
>
> >

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptgui/ac93ffa5-5a23-401e-b1d8-f228b7c8dd1a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptgui/ac93ffa5-5a23-401e-b1d8-f228b7c8dd1a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout

> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PTGui Support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to pt...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:pt...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ptgui.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptgui/97541c73-099e-43ad-8510-c2dfdcc26ae5%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptgui/97541c73-099e-43ad-8510-c2dfdcc26ae5%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.