Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Christopher on March 27, 2007, 06:35:53 am
-
Hello,
I'm testing all three programs right now and as soon as finished I will upload some results. Just wanted to ask who tested them before ? What did you find out ? What was the best ? Is there one best or is every programm doing something especially good ?
Thanks for the input.
Christopher
-
My personnal opinion is that PTgui is head and shoulder above the competition.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hello,
I'm testing all three programs right now and as soon as finished I will upload some results. Just wanted to ask who tested them before ? What did you find out ? What was the best ? Is there one best or is every programm doing something especially good ?
Thanks for the input.
Christopher
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108944\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And don't forget Hugin, a freeware based on PT. I tried it very briefly with two well overlapped images, and didn't get too far. The UI is pretty daunting, and I don't understand it well enough from the available documentation. Perhaps that's my problem.
Would like to hear your results.
-
My personnal opinion is that PTgui is head and shoulder above the competition.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can you elaborate why?
-
Can you elaborate why?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes,
I have tried several packages, including the expensive Realviz Stitcher, presented by many as The reference.
None of those could get even close to PTgui in terms of:
1. Ability to do fully automated stitches,
2. Ability to retouch by hand and ease of doing so,
3. Stability when dealing with huge images,
4. Ability to compensate for slightly off axis images even with wide angles and a close foreground
5. Image quality,
6. Options in terms of outputing PS format for manual retouching.
I don't even want to waste time looking any further, none of the gear I use is as close to perfection as PTgui for panorama.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Can you elaborate why?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here is the first test result:
I think I know why he said what he said ;-). The images show it. Now i'm testing the second one.
I did not include PTA or PS CS3 because both were much worse. I only show the two best.
Pano Pro
[attachment=2184:attachment]
PTGui
[attachment=2186:attachment]
Full cropped Panorama:
[attachment=2187:attachment]
-
Ok here is a second test image and I think it really shows HOW GOOD PTGui is.
Again the best two were PTGui and Autopano Pro. PS CS3 was worst.
Full image:
[attachment=2190:attachment]
Pano pro
[attachment=2188:attachment]
PTGui
[attachment=2189:attachment]
To sum it up I think all three programs are good, but I really never thought that PTGui could improve my stitches so much. I always thought that PTAssembler was as good as it gets. I will do some more tests in the future and if anything new comes up i will post it here.
-
I have used, and own, many panoramic packages and now use PTGUI for all my panoramic stitching.
-
I attempted to trial autopano pro but it wouldn't let me. Not only did all images end up in the sRGB color space, and not only could I not save any resulting stitched images, but the trial program wouldn't even let me examine the joins in full resolution.
I can't have any dealings with such a company on principle. I'd prefer a fully operational trial for 30 days with no restriction on saving and no logos plastered all over the image. However, I'll accept a few logos as a modest expression of paranoia. But no saving and no full resolution is total paranoia.
-
I attempted to trial autopano pro would it wouldn't let me. Not only did all images end up in the sRGB color space, and not only could I not save any resulting stitched images, but the trial program wouldn't even let me examine the joins in full resolution.
I can't have any dealings with such a company on principle. I'd prefer a fully operational trial for 30 days with no restriction on saving and no logos plastered all over the image. However, I'll accept a few logos as a modest expression of paranoia. But no saving and no full resolution is total paranoia.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All test were done with trial versions and i had no problems saving images in full size.
-
All test were done with trial versions and i had no problems saving images in full size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's odd, because the website mentions that the save function is disabled in the trial version. What they didn't mention was that one couldn't view the stitched image in full resolution. On the other hand, maybe I just wasn't smart enough to figure out how to do this. There always a learning curve with such programs, but there's not much point in persevering if you can't get a full rez image.
On the other hand, it might just be due to an unannouced incompatibility with my Win XP 64 bit OS. Usually if programs don't work with a 64 bit OS there's some sort of indication when installing the program.
However, even in the low rez stitches, the color and contrast were way off.
I get the impression generally, that certain stitching programs might do a better job in auto mode with just a few images, but with a lot of images you might basically be stuffed, with no recourse to precise manual adjustment which also retains some degree of automatic color adjustment between frames, for example.
Maybe I should trial this program again on my 32 bit system. (But life's too short to mess around like this!)
-
That's odd, because the website mentions that the save function is disabled in the trial version. What they didn't mention was that one couldn't view the stitched image in full resolution. On the other hand, maybe I just wasn't smart enough to figure out how to do this. There always a learning curve with such programs, but there's not much point in persevering if you can't get a full rez image.
On the other hand, it might just be due to an unannouced incompatibility with my Win XP 64 bit OS. Usually if programs don't work with a 64 bit OS there's some sort of indication when installing the program.
However, even in the low rez stitches, the color and contrast were way off.
I get the impression generally, that certain stitching programs might do a better job in auto mode with just a few images, but with a lot of images you might basically be stuffed, with no recourse to precise manual adjustment which also retains some degree of automatic color adjustment between frames, for example.
Maybe I should trial this program again on my 32 bit system. (But life's too short to mess around like this!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All test were run with Windows XP Prof 64 bit system. All ran without any problems. But in the End I would say Autopano Pro is good, BUT not as good as PTGui.
P.S. Yes you only can't save the project files, but you can save the final pircture.
-
Thank you for doing this comparison. I am very interested in the results and in everyone's opinion.
PS CS3 was worst.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which mode of PS CS3 stitching did you use? There are four and I've had reasonable to good results with Perspective mode, but I've not compared the way you have.
-
Thank you for doing this comparison. I am very interested in the results and in everyone's opinion.
Which mode of PS CS3 stitching did you use? There are four and I've had reasonable to good results with Perspective mode, but I've not compared the way you have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok after your post I went back playing around and it reall is strange. On some images like the second one PS gives wonderful results, nearly as good as PTGui, but on others it is not as good. Perhaps if I find some time I will do some further testing, but right now I chose PTGui, because it gave me really good results on all images and it was fast.
-
Here is a stitch I made with a 10mm lens on 20D, four panels, so the perspective is a little strange. PSCS3 did a good job, though it made a mistake. Nonetheless I was impressed.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/billb6/0816-hdr-pan-w450-inet.jpg)
What I am looking for is a way to set control points with high resolution so that architecture can be stitched together with precision and accuracy.
-
Thanks, that help. How steep is the learning curve to become proficient with PTgui?
Yes,
I have tried several packages, including the expensive Realviz Stitcher, presented by many as The reference.
None of those could get even close to PTgui in terms of:
1. Ability to do fully automated stitches,
2. Ability to retouch by hand and ease of doing so,
3. Stability when dealing with huge images,
4. Ability to compensate for slightly off axis images even with wide angles and a close foreground
5. Image quality,
6. Options in terms of outputing PS format for manual retouching.
I don't even want to waste time looking any further, none of the gear I use is as close to perfection as PTgui for panorama.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I have used, and own, many panoramic packages and now use PTGUI for all my panoramic stitching.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In addition to Bernard's comments on PTgui, do you have more?
-
With well shot images containing a reasonnable amount of texture in a sufficient part of the image, it takes about 5 minutes to come up with a first near perfect panorama.
I have never bothered reading the manual or any tutorial for that matter. I found it very intuitive to use.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Here is the first test result:
I think I know why he said what he said ;-). The images show it. Now i'm testing the second one.
I did not include PTA or PS CS3 because both were much worse. I only show the two best.
Pano Pro
[attachment=2184:attachment]
PTGui
[attachment=2186:attachment]
Full cropped Panorama:
[attachment=2187:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the comparisons. Did you try PTAssembler as well?
Also, some context and pics of the unstitched image will help. Such as shot on tripod/panohead, resolution, etc.?
-
Thanks for the comparisons. Did you try PTAssembler as well?
Also, some context and pics of the unstitched image will help. Such as shot on tripod/panohead, resolution, etc.?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I tried it with PTAssembler, but it was not as good as it was with AutoPanoPro
Ok here we go:
Handheld, 16MP - 1DsMk2, 5 images, 24mm (24-105 f4 IS)
As said before PTGui is really amazing over the last week I stitched around 37 different Panos and all came out really good, some of them were shot under extrem conditions, handheld, 19mm, and not leveled correctly.
-
I've tried quite a few programs over the years, and settled with Autopano Pro. PTGUI was ridiculously unstable - some versions wouldn't even start.
With the positive experiences some have with PTGUI in this thread I decided to give it another chance. After downloading and updating pano12.dll - why doesn't the installer install a compatible dll I can't fathom - it started working fine. I was further put off by the clunky UI.
I dragged and dropped files into the window. It failed to find control points to assemble a 10-shot 3-row panorama. I'd have to find control points myself, something which shouldn't be necessary and is quite time-consuming especially on even larger panoramas.
Autopano Pro stitched it without any issues.
-
Yes I tried it with PTAssembler, but it was not as good as it was with AutoPanoPro
Ok here we go:
Handheld, 16MP - 1DsMk2, 5 images, 24mm (24-105 f4 IS)
As said before PTGui is really amazing over the last week I stitched around 37 different Panos and all came out really good, some of them were shot under extrem conditions, handheld, 19mm, and not leveled correctly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Christopher and Bernard. You two made PTGui sound like a no-brainer.
-
I've tried quite a few programs over the years, and settled with Autopano Pro. PTGUI was ridiculously unstable - some versions wouldn't even start.
With the positive experiences some have with PTGUI in this thread I decided to give it another chance. After downloading and updating pano12.dll - why doesn't the installer install a compatible dll I can't fathom - it started working fine. I was further put off by the clunky UI.
I dragged and dropped files into the window. It failed to find control points to assemble a 10-shot 3-row panorama. I'd have to find control points myself, something which shouldn't be necessary and is quite time-consuming especially on even larger panoramas.
Autopano Pro stitched it without any issues.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for a different opinion. Not familiar with Autopano Pro, is it based on Pano Tools?
I would only stitch 3 or 4 images in a single row for 300ppi printing. Personally, I don't mind setting the control points manually. If you have done so with PTGui, how would you compare the result with Autopano Pro in auto mode?
-
I've tried quite a few programs over the years, and settled with Autopano Pro. PTGUI was ridiculously unstable - some versions wouldn't even start.
I dragged and dropped files into the window. It failed to find control points to assemble a 10-shot 3-row panorama. I'd have to find control points myself, something which shouldn't be necessary and is quite time-consuming especially on even larger panoramas.
Autopano Pro stitched it without any issues.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Would you mind showing us what the pano looked like?
I have had to define control points myself with PTgui in a few cases, but these were mostly seascapes with very few features or skies whose clouds were moving significantly because of the wind.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I do both single- and multi-row panos with Autopano Pro, and can't usually find the edges of the frames even when I know where they are. There have been on occasion some instances where it hasn't been able to stitch properly - a plain sky -, but that seems to be rare. For that reason I'm trying to find a program that has better tweaking options.
But as it's producing excellent results with the material I have, I have no reason to change. This is especially true since the competition continues to disappoint due to reasons I delineated above, despite their arguably superior feature set.
Would you mind showing us what the pano looked like?
I have had to define control points myself with PTgui in a few cases, but these were mostly seascapes with very few features or skies whose clouds were moving significantly because of the wind.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110216\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The pano is still a work in progress, quite a bit of post-processing to be done. But admittedly it's a tough pano, a nighttime cathedral shot with reflections off a river, so there's a lot of black and plenty of fuzzyness. Nevertheless, Autopano stitched it without a hiccup, while PTGUI gave me 3 groups of photos, and I would've had to find control points myself. The clunky UI didn't make clear what I was supposed to do, and none of the shot pairings it offered appeared to be able to be stitched - they had no connecting features -, so I just decided to cut my losses and forget it.
-
The pano is still a work in progress, quite a bit of post-processing to be done. But admittedly it's a tough pano, a nighttime cathedral shot with reflections off a river, so there's a lot of black and plenty of fuzzyness. Nevertheless, Autopano stitched it without a hiccup, while PTGUI gave me 3 groups of photos, and I would've had to find control points myself. The clunky UI didn't make clear what I was supposed to do, and none of the shot pairings it offered appeared to be able to be stitched - they had no connecting features -, so I just decided to cut my losses and forget it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good if Autopano did the job for you.
What you need to do when PTgui only manages to stitch sub-groups of images is to define the interface between these groups.
The manual control point GUI enables you to align 2 images and to identify matching points. It is very easy to use and it typically doesn't take more than 2 or 3 minutes to define enough control points for a given pair of images.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As an occasional stitcher, I've followed this thread with great interest. In the past, I tried Canon, PS, CS2, autostitcher and PTAssembler stitching programs. Although the free autostitcher was pretty good, I decided in favor of PTAssembler and liked it fairly well. But all that changed with the introduction of CS3.
For me, CS3 has worked so well -- and is so easy -- that I have no need for other stitching tools. CS3 does a great job on stitching, blending and even gives 16bit layers!
Having sung the praises of CS3, I know enough to realize that sometimes control points must be set manually. If someone came out with a plug-in to manually adjust CS3 control points, I probably purchase it immediately. On the other hand, so far I haven't seen the need for manual control points with CS3 stitching.
-
i just borrowed an ultimate rrs package from a friend to try it out. it was 6PM, so, wasn't exactly the best time to do it. but anyways.
50 jpg images (10 columns, 5 rows) shot with 20D, 100mm at f/11 and stitched in PS3.
since i don't know much about panorama, i just used "Auto" option. the subject has a lot of similar patterns, but i didn't really see any mistake, or mis-alignment at all.
if PT Gui is even much better than this (like everyone is saying), then i guess it must be really truely great.
-
i just borrowed an ultimate rrs package from a friend to try it out. it was 6PM, so, wasn't exactly the best time to do it. but anyways.
50 jpg images (10 columns, 5 rows) shot with 20D, 100mm at f/11 and stitched in PS3.
since i don't know much about panorama, i just used "Auto" option. the subject has a lot of similar patterns, but i didn't really see any mistake, or mis-alignment at all.
if PT Gui is even much better than this (like everyone is saying), then i guess it must be really truely great.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Phuong,
The thing is that pretty much any pano software would do great with such an easy case.
- It was shot with a pano head,
- The focal lenght is long,
- There are many patterns in the image.
It really doesn't get easier than this.
To check how good a pano software is:
- shoot with a wide angle lens,
- include near elements in the composition,
- introduce some mistake with the nodal node position,
- pick a subject with little texture.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hi Phuong,
The thing is that pretty much any pano software would do great with such an easy case.
- It was shot with a pano head,
- The focal lenght is long,
- There are many patterns in the image.
It really doesn't get easier than this.
To check how good a pano software is:
- shoot with a wide angle lens,
- include near elements in the composition,
- introduce some mistake with the nodal node position,
- pick a subject with little texture.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111326\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanks Bernard. can you explain why introducing near (or front?) elements would make it harder to stitch?
-
thanks Bernard. can you explain why introducing near (or front?) elements would make it harder to stitch?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because of parallax.
Regads,
Bernard
-
Because of parallax.
Regads,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111383\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
but isn't parallax elimiated completely if the lens is rotated on its entrance pupil? i mean it's the whole point of having a panohead or a TSE lens, isn't it?
-
but isn't parallax elimiated completely if the lens is rotated on its entrance pupil? i mean it's the whole point of having a panohead or a TSE lens, isn't it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Many people - me included - don't have a panohead, for various reasons - cost, weight, slow/difficult to use, etc. For me it's the fact that my panos are landscapes with little or no foreground subjects which makes parallax a non-issue with any decent pano software. Hell, with good software you can shoot "perfect" panos handheld, and I wouldn't be surprised if CS3 could do that to some extent.
-
The following 3 images were taken using an ultra-lightweight ball-head tripod. The first image is at 21mm and is the last of a series of 3, starting from the right. The next 2 images are at 25mm, panning from left to right. In other words, noticing that the horizon was significantly out of whack, I adjusted the level of the camera, changed the focal length and panned in the opposite direction for a 2-shot stitch.
These images can be stitched perfectly in CS3 with regard to invisibility of joins. Panavue's Image Assembler cannot do a perfect stitch in automatic mode. There's a duplication of figures and part of the landscape in one of the joins.
Using flags, or control points, Image Assembler could do a job at least equally as good as CS3, but took longer. I couldn't get the trial version of Autopano to work properly (apparently) on my 64 bit system. I haven't tried PTGui yet.
There are projects containing lots of images that CS3 cannot handle, whereas Image Assembler can, using the tedious process of positioning flags.
My trial version of Autopano also could not handle these difficult projects, producing lousy color, unacceptable tonality shifts at some of the joins and converting all the images to sRGB.
Also, I couldn't find a way to inspect the Autopano joins in full resolution, in the trial version, apparently because the trial version wasn't working properly. I'll download it again on another computer when I've got the time.
[attachment=2254:attachment] [attachment=2255:attachment] [attachment=2256:attachment] [attachment=2257:attachment]
-
but isn't parallax elimiated completely if the lens is rotated on its entrance pupil? i mean it's the whole point of having a panohead or a TSE lens, isn't it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pretty much so, but I was giving you a list of tough conditions needed to test the abilties of a pano package.
I am saying "pretty much" because even when using a pano head, there are still several approximations coming into play:
1. You are dealing with a faceted cylinder and not a real one,
2. There is usually significant distorsion on the wide end of wide zooms.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Phuong,
The thing is that pretty much any pano software would do great with such an easy case.
- It was shot with a pano head,
- The focal lenght is long,
- There are many patterns in the image.
It really doesn't get easier than this.
To check how good a pano software is:
- shoot with a wide angle lens,
- include near elements in the composition,
- introduce some mistake with the nodal node position,
- pick a subject with little texture.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111326\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard, you hit the nail on the head. Too often, posters don't provide a context about their source images and their output intents (a pano for web can be more forgivng then one for print). Without these, their comments are almost useless. Another example is when sharpening tools are compared.
I often wonder why there is not a "set" of "standardized" images for evaluating each kind of tool. These images will include "easy" as well as "challenging" ones. With them, the tool builders can demo their superiority, and the users can evaluate diifferent tools based on the same images.
As an example, stitching several shots of a well known person's face (such as the photog's) at close up range would be a good test. Since we know the face well, we can easily detect whether the nose is crocked, or the eyeballs are elongated, etc.
-
Well, I've just downloaded again Autopano Pro on a 32 bit machine and tested it on the above 3 images which CS3 Photomerge handles as well as can be expected.
I mentioned the first image was at 21mm FL and the next 2 at 25mm. I got that the wrong way round. The first was taken at 25mm and the following 2, supposed to be part of a 2 shot stitch, at 21mm.
Below are the image details shown in ACR.
[attachment=2262:attachment]
When I selected the above 3 images and opened in Autopano, it did a fairly symmetrical job of the first 2 images, beautiful sky an' all that, but failed to include the 3rd image. It just couldn't handle it.
[attachment=2263:attachment]
The odd thing here is that Autopano was able to stitch a 25mm shot with a 21mm shot that belonged to different sets, but was unable to stitch the two 21mm shots that belonged to the same set.
I tried selecting just the two 21mm shots, also selecting maximum quality in 'settings' and 'forced stitching'. It was a totally botched result as you can see below.
[attachment=2264:attachment]
I also find it odd that the resulting stitched images are stripped of their ProPhoto profile. On opening the stitched image in PS, I have to asign an sRGB profile and then convert to my working space. Any advantage in converting a RAW image into the wide-gamut ProPhoto profile will be lost, it appears.
I tried stitching both converted images and RAW images. Results were about the same. So far, Autopano has failed the test.
-
Has anyone tried any of these programs on a Mac?
I've heard they don't work very well with Macs -but that Realviz Stitcher Express 2 works great on a Mac.
Oh, and I'm also looking for a program that gives excellent results for print, not really for the web.
-
Just in case anyone thinks I'm being unfair on Autopano, I should point out that the above comparisons were largely for auto mode and default capability.
I would say that CS3 Photomerge is the best stitching program that I've come across for fully automatic, load and click okay, stitches.
The problems arise when the fully automatic (or default) modes don't work. What is the potential of the program then.
There's always some degree of learning curve. To fairly compare the full capabilities of different stitching programs requires that one become fully conversant with those programs.
I downloaded the trial version of PTGui and found that that program also appeared to be incapable of stitching the last two images of the above 3 image project. It couldn't find any control points. That's very odd, I thought.
I went back to Autopano and after messing around with the 'settings' and basically pulling out all the stops, increasing the number of key points per image pair to the maximum of 200, forcing every picture to be in the same panorama, setting 'find control points everywhere' etc etc, I was able to get what appeared to be a good stitch of the 3 images. However, on close examination at 100% magnification, I saw that the figures in the foreground were terribly blurred and mixed-up.
I went back to the settings and changed the default bilinear interpolation mode to bicubic and the default multiblend to 'smartblend', then tried again.
This fixed the problem and the resulting stitch is actually better than the CS3 stitch. The horizon is straighter, which means less work with free transform and warp or distort. Even the sky joins are slightly smoother. There's a hint of darkening at the joins which is not there in the Autopano stitch.
[attachment=2279:attachment]
However, these same settings which have produced this marvelous 3-image stitch, better than the CS3 stitch, have not done as good a job with another set of 4 images (the first 4 in a series of 60 or so). But neither has CS3. They both have their faults. The CS3 stitch has a smother sky but a curved horizon. The Autopano stitch has a major problem in the sky but at least has a straight horizon.
[attachment=2280:attachment]
PTGui produced a result similar to Autopano. To find out how to improve upon that I'd have to become fully familiar with the program. I don't need to because Panavue's Image Assembler, with which I'm reasonably au fait, can do do a perfect job, but not in auto mode of course.
-
I do not yet have CS3. I started with PTAssembler about 4 years ago and changed to PTGui about a 1 1/2 years ago. I really would be surprised if something were to come along to better it and it costs a fraction of the ludicrously expensive Realviz Stitcher. I absolutely would go along with Bernard on this. Of the examples above, I can see that the architectural stitch would be bettered in PTGui because you have the option to make a rectalinear rendering (as well as 16 bit with layers and layer masks and so on and on). I find the ease of installability, support and user interface and just general ease of use far superior to PTAssembler (which isn't bad by any means).
-
Has anyone tried any of these programs on a Mac?
I've heard they don't work very well with Macs -but that Realviz Stitcher Express 2 works great on a Mac.
Oh, and I'm also looking for a program that gives excellent results for print, not really for the web.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=111624\")
I've been using PTGui Mac version. It's works very well for print and there are many tutorials and support online.
[a href=\"http://www.ptgui.com/]http://www.ptgui.com/[/url]
-
Just in case anyone thinks I'm being unfair on Autopano, I should point out that the above comparisons were largely for auto mode and default capability.
I would say that CS3 Photomerge is the best stitching program that I've come across for fully automatic, load and click okay, stitches.
The problems arise when the fully automatic (or default) modes don't work. What is the potential of the program then.
There's always some degree of learning curve. To fairly compare the full capabilities of different stitching programs requires that one become fully conversant with those programs.
I downloaded the trial version of PTGui and found that that program also appeared to be incapable of stitching the last two images of the above 3 image project. It couldn't find any control points. That's very odd, I thought.
I went back to Autopano and after messing around with the 'settings' and basically pulling out all the stops, increasing the number of key points per image pair to the maximum of 200, forcing every picture to be in the same panorama, setting 'find control points everywhere' etc etc, I was able to get what appeared to be a good stitch of the 3 images. However, on close examination at 100% magnification, I saw that the figures in the foreground were terribly blurred and mixed-up.
I went back to the settings and changed the default bilinear interpolation mode to bicubic and the default multiblend to 'smartblend', then tried again.
This fixed the problem and the resulting stitch is actually better than the CS3 stitch. The horizon is straighter, which means less work with free transform and warp or distort. Even the sky joins are slightly smoother. There's a hint of darkening at the joins which is not there in the Autopano stitch.
[attachment=2279:attachment]
However, these same settings which have produced this marvelous 3-image stitch, better than the CS3 stitch, have not done as good a job with another set of 4 images (the first 4 in a series of 60 or so). But neither has CS3. They both have their faults. The CS3 stitch has a smother sky but a curved horizon. The Autopano stitch has a major problem in the sky but at least has a straight horizon.
[attachment=2280:attachment]
PTGui produced a result similar to Autopano. To find out how to improve upon that I'd have to become fully familiar with the program. I don't need to because Panavue's Image Assembler, with which I'm reasonably au fait, can do do a perfect job, but not in auto mode of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, thanks for the comparions and comments. Every one of these tools can probably auto stitch some images reasonably well, but I don't expect them to auto stitch every kind of image perfectly. Not unlike what we can expect from a camera's auto metering modes. For the best results that suit a particular user, what separates the good ones from the bad is how well they perform when users tweak them manually. To do that, a tool must have a competent algorithm internally, combined with a good UI and documentation to steer the algorithm.
Which version of Image Assembler are you using? Is it based on Pano Tools, or some other algorithm?
-
Which version of Image Assembler are you using? Is it based on Pano Tools, or some other algorithm?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Chris,
I'm using the Professional Edition version 3.5. I've got no idea what algorithm is used. The program has been available for the past 12 years or so and keeps getting better year by year. I've been using it for a few years now, so switching to a different stitching program would be like switching from a PC to a Mac for me.
However, if any program can save me time, I'm interested. With the right settings, I'm impressed with what Autopano can do with certain images, but I don't see how it's going to manage a mosaic of 100 images well if it can't do a seamless sky with the first 4 images of that set.
-
Hello everybody,
I'm new to this list, but I'm quite familiar to Autopano Pro - APP -
This topic, here, was started very recently, maybe some users haven't tested the latest beta of APP yet.
One thing I can say, this software is growing fast.
Have a look at the forum http://forum.autopano.net/index.php (http://forum.autopano.net/index.php)
There is a lot of hot interaction with the dev team.
APP, is, even in it's last beta version 1.3.1 A2 very stable and stil multi-platform - Win - Mac & linux - http://en.wiki.autopano.net/Latest_Beta (http://en.wiki.autopano.net/Latest_Beta)
Here is an example made by famous photography made by Stott Howard - a 1500 MegaPixels shot - 404 pictures used - (I confess it's a mosaïc picture not a Qtvr)
http://www.docbert.org/MP/ (http://www.docbert.org/MP/)
Take a look at the members gallery… Always commented.
http://forum.autopano.net/f4-gallery-galerie (http://forum.autopano.net/f4-gallery-galerie)
BTW fish-eye lens compatibility will be for next 1.4 version of APP.
Maybe these few details can help new users
-
What I would like to share with you as a regular user…
I don't want to compare this soft with other in the competition… Loads of good softwares indeed
What I like in APP and is not mentioned in users forums… … …
First: No need to make picture on a 'manual base'. As APP can handle Raw files… Aperture/shutter speed/ White Balance
there is almost no more need to de-raw (dematrixing)
The auto color correction makes a regular balance for the whole Pano… pixels are not close to each other because they were taken at the same speed/aperture/iso/.
What changed in my photography experience was… No more one 'average aperture', no more 'average shutter speed'. I became able to shoot as felt pictures (just a couple more pictures for overexposed situations)
Second: no more math choice… Yaw, pitch and roll 'mistakes'
I'm a photographer, not a scientist or mathematic oriented user.
I want to shoot when I need, not when it is possible 'scientifically' Intuitive but technical ;-)
As soon as there are replies… I'll tell you what I don't like in APP and must be improved
Best regards and See you
Beeloba
-
Hugin has not been mentioned. it is open source and free.
While its interface is not perfect (it is being revamped now with financial help from Google) it is as accurate as any other other one.
http://hugin.sourceforge.net/download/ (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/download/)
-
It would take a lot of time to fully assess the capabilities of the various stitching programs available.
Two main issue for me are, (1) How well can the stitching program do a fully automatic stitch, because a perfect automatic stitch clearly saves a lot of time? (2) How well can the program handle the serious parallax errors that occur with close-up objects in the scene?
I was always aware that Panavue's Image Assembler was not too good at correcting for serious parallax errors in close-ups, which is why I ended up buying a TS-E 24mm.
However, I'm now getting the impression that both CS3 Photomerge and Autopano Pro can do a near perfect job with such images and that Image Assembler has got left behind in this regard.
The following shots were taken whilst trekking between Jomsom and Kagbeni, somewhere in the middle of Nepal. I was in awe of the sheer vastness and barrenness of this landscape. My 15mm Sigma lens on my Canon 5D was simply not wide enough. I needed to stitch a few images. I had my TS-E 24mm at hand. I wasn't sure if 2 or 3 stitched images with that lens would be wide enough but in any case my tripod was with the porter who, as always, seemed to race ahead despite his heavy load.
I wondered if I should send my guide, who always kept close to me, to retrieve the tripod. But the wind was beginning to blow in increasingly heavy gusts. This was a gorge which, regular as clockwork, developed strong winds around 10-11am each day. Strong enough to prevent the planes from landing.
I decided it would be a waste of time using a tripod in these conditions and took a series of 4 handheld shots at 15mm and f16, with big overlaps. I was concerned about getting the pebbles in the immediate foreground sharp. I wanted the maximum DoF my system could provide.
In restrospect, I think I probably miscalculated. I'd not taken into account the fact that the closest parts of the foreground would be cropped off after stitching. I think I could have focussed just a little further afield and perhaps (not sure though) got a slightly sharper distant horizon. I should have done some focussing bracketing.
Maybe I didn't think the scene warranted such attention, from a compositional point of view. However, those pebbles in the immediate foreground are literally almost at my feet. This is surely an ideal set of images to test these stitching programs.
Below are the results, but some explanation first.
(1) All images appear to have perfect joins, except with regard to tonal transitions in the sky. Image Assembler shows a slight darkening of the sky in the transition between first and second images.
(2) The distortion of the over all image is unacceptable in the Image Assembler stitch, but that was the best I could do in the time, meticulously placing 5 pairs of flags at each join.
IA simply couldn't manage a fully automatic stitch.
(3) All the CS3 Photomerge stitches are literally fully automatic. Just load the images and click OK. No prior settings to be made.
(4) The Autopano Pro stitch could be described as semi-automatic. One really has to examine the settings menu first, before stitching, and change the default settings to something one imagines might be more appropriate.
(5) The Autopano stitch uses more interpolation, producing the largest file.
In this example, Autopano 199.7MB; IA 168.8MB and CS3 just 139.2MB.
Immediately below are the uncropped resulting stitches from IA, Austopano and CS3.
[attachment=2308:attachment]
I was interested if the significantly larger file that Autopano produced provided any more detail than the CS3 stitch. Very marginal I think, and not an issue.
[attachment=2309:attachment]
I made a 100% crop of the pebbles near my feet in the area of the join between the first and second image. No problems at all.
[attachment=2310:attachment]
I'm imprerssed with the progress that certain stitching programs have achieved. For static subjects, I think MFDB might be on the verge of redundancy .
-
Well, I've just downloaded again Autopano Pro on a 32 bit machine and tested it on the above 3 images which CS3 Photomerge handles as well as can be expected.
…/…
When I selected the above 3 images and opened in Autopano, it did a fairly symmetrical job of the first 2 images, beautiful sky an' all that, but failed to include the 3rd image. It just couldn't handle it.
…/…
I tried stitching both converted images and RAW images. Results were about the same. So far, Autopano has failed the test.
Have a look at this video on APP "Manual" stitching
ftp://ftp.autopano.net/releases/en-tutori...utopano-pro.mov (http://ftp://ftp.autopano.net/releases/en-tutorial-manual-stitching-with-autopano-pro.mov)
Note: these features are new (1.3.0 version) and next version will be improved.
There is also a new way to grab/place/rotate one or more orphan images. (not illustrated here)
In this example, Autopano 199.7MB; IA 168.8MB and CS3 just 139.2MB.
This is a psd encoding compression issue, here is the answer
quote: AlexandreJ wrote:
We don't compress the PSD file, photoshop does compression.
Workaround is to open the psd file in photoshop, get rid of alpha, then save… Size will be decreased up to 50%
http://forum.autopano.net/postgallery.php?...alpha-issue.jpg (http://forum.autopano.net/postgallery.php?pid=9978&filename=Conclusion%26%238230%3B-this-is-not-an-alpha-issue.jpg)
My trial version of Autopano also could not handle these difficult projects, producing lousy color, unacceptable tonality shifts at some of the joins and converting all the images to sRGB.
Sorry it's in French, but playing with anchors can improve a lot your result.
You can have more than one yellow anchor (yellow means that the exposure of that picture is ok for you)
Picture was taken handheld @ 28 mm equiv
http://forum.autopano.net/p5554-2006-11-16-11-38-20#p5554 (http://forum.autopano.net/p5554-2006-11-16-11-38-20#p5554)
PS. there is a new color correction module and 3 new anchors (mono white balance, mono transfer and mono WB + Transfer)
PS.2 Just sign up on APP's forum and ask all the questions you want, lots of users will answer quickly
EDIT: here are some of my tests made with CS3 photomerge and APP
http://forum.autopano.net/viewtopic.php?pid=9042#p9042 (http://forum.autopano.net/viewtopic.php?pid=9042#p9042)
They were all made with Nikon D70 - 18-70mm @52mm equiv - on a Nodal Ninja 3, well positioned on the Non Parallax Point (NPP)
-
It would take a lot of time to fully assess the capabilities of the various stitching programs available.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=113190\")
Agreed. That's why jadazu's comparison between PTAssembler and PS is so helpful:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14341&st=20]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pic=14341&st=20[/url]
-
Agreed. That's why jadazu's comparison between PTAssembler and PS is so helpful:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pic=14341&st=20 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14341&st=20)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But we already know that each stitching program has its own peculiarities and handles different sets of images differently.
I just tried to stitch the above 15mm shots of Nepal with my trial version of PTgui and got the following message.
[attachment=2313:attachment]
-
EDIT: here are some of my tests made with CS3 photomerge and APP
http://forum.autopano.net/viewtopic.php?pid=9042#p9042 (http://forum.autopano.net/viewtopic.php?pid=9042#p9042)
They were all made with Nikon D70 - 18-70mm @52mm equiv - on a Nodal Ninja 3, well positioned on the Non Parallax Point (NPP)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113210\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've never got stitches like that with CS3 photomerge. I did once get a bizarre image of triangles which was quite appealing, but I now realise that that was a result of hitting 'Merge to HDR' by mistake .
So far, any superiority of Autopano over CS3 Photomerge seems marginal, using small sets of 3 or 4 images.
-
Although this thread is specifically about PTgui, Autopano and PTassembler, I see no comparisons of the three with specific images, just motherhood statements about PTGui being the best.
-
But we already know that each stitching program has its own peculiarities and handles different sets of images differently.
I just tried to stitch the above 15mm shots of Nepal with my trial version of PTgui and got the following message.
[attachment=2313:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=113242\")
Ray,
Download PanoTools12_2007Apr09.zip at [a href=\"http://photocreations.ca/panotools/index.html]http://photocreations.ca/panotools/index.html[/url] see if that gets rid of the warning.
-
Ray,
Download PanoTools12_2007Apr09.zip at http://photocreations.ca/panotools/index.html (http://photocreations.ca/panotools/index.html) see if that gets rid of the warning.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is the sort of thing that has really irritated me in trying to use the stitching applications based on panotools. Most of the developers just expect you to be a Unix systems administrator or programmer and point you at a bunch of similar looking files to download and use with their application. I suppose there may be legal or other reasons why the developer can't just bundle everything you need into one app, but you would think they could at least provide a detailed checklist of what to download and how to use it with their app.
I've been using PTMac from Kekus and, after a lot of fiddling and trial and error I can produce decent mosaics with it sometimes but there are all sorts of menu items and buttons that I still have no idea how to use and that don't seem to be documented anywhere.
Thank goodness there are now at least a couple of user friendly stitchers, namely Autopano and CS3.
George Deliz
-
This is the sort of thing that has really irritated me in trying to use the stitching applications based on panotools. Most of the developers just expect you to be a Unix systems administrator or programmer and point you at a bunch of similar looking files to download and use with their application. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The reason I got involved in these stitching threads was as a result of reports that programs like CS3 Photomerge and Autopano Pro were able to do perhaps an even better stitching job in fully automatic mode than other, older programs could do even after time-consuming and painstaking adjustments.
I find that after installing Panotools, PTGui is now able to stitch these 4 handheld 15mm shots automatically. However, it's not a usable stitch and there's a major discontinuity at one of the joins.
This is how the final image should look, done in CS3 with a minimum of fuss (load images and click OK), then cropped. Autopano produces a similar result after making appropriate prior settings.
[attachment=2316:attachment]
However, PTGui has the river flowing downhill and then uphill, not to mention the major fiasco at one of the joins. Of course, I understand that with appropriate adjustments and manipulation of control points etc, I might be able to get PTGui to do a stitch as good as CS3, but that's not the point of the exercise. I'm trying to find out what such programs can do automatically. I haven't got time to spend several days downloading tutorials, browsing forums and generally becoming fully acquainted with this program in order to determine if PTGui can ultimately do as good a job with these 4 images as CS3 can do automatically.
[attachment=2317:attachment] [attachment=2318:attachment]
If anyone wants to have a go at stitching these 4 handheld 15mm shots with wide overlaps, I'll post the individual images.
-
Here is a stitch from CS3. It was shot for a museum client who needed this documented before it was painted over. There were a couple of serious problems. On one of the segments I did not overlap enough and there is a 90 degree wrap of the left third of the mural onto another wall. These problem confused the heck out of PT Gui and I spent hours trying to establish some refernce points it was happy with. Finally I went back to CS3 and it figured it out on first try. The whole thing took about 15 minutes in CS3.
[attachment=2323:attachment]
-
These problem confused the heck out of PT Gui and I spent hours trying to establish some refernce points it was happy with. Finally I went back to CS3 and it figured it out on first try. The whole thing took about 15 minutes in CS3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kirk,
I've just noticed a minor discontinuity in my CS3 stitch. It's not by any means as major as the flaw in the PTGui stitch, but it's nevertheless noticeable and is in the same area.
Autopano Pro has overcome this difficulty. I haven't yet noticed any flaws in the Autopano joins, so in relation to this series of 4 images, and another series of 3 images posted previously, I get the impression that Autopano Pro is the better program.
Below is the Autopano cropped version plus 100% crops of the area where the faulty join can be seen.
[attachment=2324:attachment] [attachment=2325:attachment]
-
after seeing this page (http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/mastering-perspective/Mastering-Perspective-rev4.htm) i start to think Pano Tools type stitchers are actually much better than PS CS3. in PS CS3 you don't have that much control especially over the distortion correction process.
-
Ok here is a very quick result with, PTGui, no Photoshop, just PTGui output.
I can't look closer at it, because I don't have the full res. files, but it looks really good.
[attachment=2326:attachment]
Christopher
-
This is the sort of thing that has really irritated me in trying to use the stitching applications based on panotools.....I suppose there may be legal or other reasons why the developer can't just bundle everything you need into one app, but you would think they could at least provide a detailed checklist of what to download and how to use it with their app.
I've been using PTMac from Kekus and, after a lot of fiddling and trial and error....Thank goodness there are now at least a couple of user friendly stitchers, namely Autopano and CS3.
George Deliz
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes to the legal reason panotools based software can not install the updated PT from Jim Watters' site. There is a patent infringement issue with it so PT developers can not even recommend it on their site.
Had trouble with PTMac...but PTGui works well for me. I just installed CS3 so have to test it out. I think where PTGui might pull ahead are interior architectural shots where walls, doorways and windows need to be square and upright.
Regarding AutoPano....geez how many $100.+ apps do I need to buy? All these have been adding up lately!
-
after seeing this page (http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/mastering-perspective/Mastering-Perspective-rev4.htm) i start to think Pano Tools type stitchers are actually much better than PS CS3. in PS CS3 you don't have that much control especially over the distortion correction process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Probably, but I'm mainly interested in the automatic capabilities. I've got a 100 image project and I don't want to mess around with positioning flags or control points.
Here are the first 15 images of a 100 image project, all vertical shots in 3 rows of 5. It's a mosaic of 15 20D images taken with the Canon 100-400 IS at 400mm and f16.
Both Autopano and CS3 appeared to do a good job with these images.
[attachment=2327:attachment]
But appearances are deceptive. Let's zoom in on these power lines. (If you haven't been to Nepal then you don't know that all good landscapes must have power lines ).
[attachment=2328:attachment]
As you can see, CS3 couldn't quite manage it. I think this is a big 'thumbs up' for Autopano.
-
Ok here is a very quick result with, PTGui, no Photoshop, just PTGui output.
I can't look closer at it, because I don't have the full res. files, but it looks really good.
[attachment=2326:attachment]
Christopher
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Chris,
That's definitely better than my attempt. However, to my eyes there's still a hint of dicontinuity in the problem area as can be seen in these 300% crops comparing your image and Autopano. What adjustments did you make before rendering?
[attachment=2329:attachment]
-
Chris,
That's definitely better than my attempt. However, to my eyes there's still a hint of dicontinuity in the problem area as can be seen in these 300% crops comparing your image and Autopano.
[attachment=2329:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, you are kidding, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Chris,
That's definitely better than my attempt. However, to my eyes there's still a hint of dicontinuity in the problem area as can be seen in these 300% crops comparing your image and Autopano. What adjustments did you make before rendering?
[attachment=2329:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only discontinuity I can find is the missing "s" in "dicontinuity".
But I am very appreciative of the efforts you guys are putting into this, so that lazy folks like me can start doing (modest) panos soon without the steep and messy learning curve.
-
Absolutely not kidding! Stand back 3 or 4 ft from your monitor and you should be able to see at least a hint of that dscontinuity, or staggering of the horizontal line where the base of the hill meets the far shore pebbles, approximately in the centre.
You might think this is just extreme pixel peeping, but you seem to have missed the point that that this is a 300% enlargement of an image that has been reduced in size about 50x. The full stitched image, in 8 bit, is around 70MB, so those comparison crops I've shown would be analagous to viewing the full resolution image at 6% to 7% magnification on the monitor.
If there's any hint of a flaw in a join at that degree of enlargement, you can be quite sure that those who are in the habit of inspecting poster size prints from close-up will see it.
Anyway, Chris has not told us what settings he used in PTGui to get this result. It's definitely an improvement over my attempt with default settings. However, since stitching images can be a huge time waster, I'm much attracted to the potential of fully automatic modes. Since Autopano seems to be able to produce the most 'flawless' stitch automatically, then that's the program I'm going with. I haven't even explored the other options in Autopano yet, for manual control, the automatic stitches are that good.
-
Absolutely not kidding! Stand back 3 or 4 ft from your monitor and you should be able to see at least a hint of that dscontinuity, or staggering of the horizontal line where the base of the hill meets the far shore pebbles, approximately in the centre.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had already spent at least a couple of minutes staring at your comparison from my usual 8-10" from the monitor, so I says to meself, "Ray is crazy! It must come from living upside down (except when he's in places like Nepal). But just to humor him, I'll stand back a couple feet and ..."
By golly, I could see it! Of course, after I found it from a couple of feet away, it was easy to see it from closer up, too.
But my own pano goals are still rather modest: to be able to make a three-image horizontal stitch, hand-held, that works in a huge print (for me that would be something like 13"x40" or whatever). And I'm counting on CS3 to get me there, thanks to all your research.
-
Hi!
Are you using the smart blend option?
Best regard
Erik
Here is the first test result:
I think I know why he said what he said ;-). The images show it. Now i'm testing the second one.
I did not include PTA or PS CS3 because both were much worse. I only show the two best.
Pano Pro
[attachment=2184:attachment]
PTGui
[attachment=2186:attachment]
Full cropped Panorama:
[attachment=2187:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ok here is a second test image and I
Full image:
[attachment=2190:attachment]
Pano pro
[attachment=2188:attachment]
PTGui
[attachment=2189:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=108964\")
Quote is kinda not working here is the direct link : [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15730&view=findpost&p=108964]here[/url]
OK, here I could say Auto Pano Pro fails badly against PTGui, but that's not the point. I own both Programs now and there are some Panos, which work better with one ot another. Both are great, but for me PTGui works more often.
Which settings did I Use, hm normal :-P As I use with all my Panos, for blending I used smartblend and PTGui blend, BUT because the resulution is kinda low it is not possible to say which one is better. I think these "lines" you see are not a bad stitch they are just there because of the low res. orginals.
-
after seeing this page (http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/mastering-perspective/Mastering-Perspective-rev4.htm) i start to think Pano Tools type stitchers are actually much better than PS CS3. in PS CS3 you don't have that much control especially over the distortion correction process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the great link. For stitiching a few 2D images without relying on auto, I think I'll try PTAssembler before PTGui.
As pointed out by others, Pano Tools' algorithms (and additional plugins) are loved by many, but learning how to use them well is the challenge. To choose which frontend for them, it boils down to who provides the best UI, documentation, tutorials, forum and support.
-
Absolutely not kidding! Stand back 3 or 4 ft from your monitor and you should be able to see at least a hint of that dscontinuity, or staggering of the horizontal line where the base of the hill meets the far shore pebbles, approximately in the centre.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=113500\")
Nice, Ray. I can see it without having to stand back 3 or 4 ft.
As mentioned before, evaluating this kind of tool (the other is sharpener) depends a lot on what kind of source images are being used, how obervant and critical a viewer is, and how is a tool used to achieve the result. Without these context info, comments and comparisons are next to useless. The two links cited in this thread are examples with great context:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14341&st=20]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pic=14341&st=20[/url]
http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/mastering-pers...ective-rev4.htm (http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/mastering-perspective/Mastering-Perspective-rev4.htm)
If would be really helpful if there is a *set* of *standardized* source images that everyone can use to evaluate and compare this kind of tools. Much like a known test pattern used to evaluate lens focus sharpness.
-
If would be really helpful if there is a *set* of *standardized* source images that everyone can use to evaluate and compare this kind of tools. Much like a known test pattern used to evaluate lens focus sharpness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would also be helpful if these trial programs would include a big notice like, 'Click here for maximum quality'. With Autopano (and I presume PTGui) the program first opens with low quality default settings which are good for maximum processing speed, but no good for evaluating what the program can really do in automatic mode. I've wasting a lot of time changing settings by degrees. Eventually, I just moved every slider to maximum and selected every option that appeared to be maximum quality, like Spline 64 instead of bilinear or bicubic interpolation.
It could be that as a result, the stitching process is slower than it need be. However, for an automatic mode, overkill is better than underkill in my view.
Those who opt for CS3 Photomerge will not have these problems, but I have found that stitches that don't work well in the CS3 'auto' layout sometimes work better with the 'cylindrical' layout, which is still automatic.
Since getting all the settings at maximum, I haven't come across a series of images yet that Autopano Pro cannot stitch automatically and seamlessly.
-
It would also be helpful if these trial programs would include a big notice like, 'Click here for maximum quality'. With Autopano (and I presume PTGui) the program first opens with low quality default settings which are good for maximum processing speed, but no good for evaluating what the program can really do in automatic mode. I've wasting a lot of time changing settings by degrees. Eventually, I just moved every slider to maximum and selected every option that appeared to be maximum quality, like Spline 64 instead of bilinear or bicubic interpolation.
It could be that as a result, the stitching process is slower than it need be. However, for an automatic mode, overkill is better than underkill in my view.
Those who opt for CS3 Photomerge will not have these problems, but I have found that stitches that don't work well in the CS3 'auto' layout sometimes work better with the 'cylindrical' layout, which is still automatic.
Since getting all the settings at maximum, I haven't come across a series of images yet that Autopano Pro cannot stitch automatically and seamlessly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113536\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Look at the beginning of the topic and yopu will find two :-P
-
Look at the beginning of the topic and yopu will find two :-P
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll rephrase that. I haven't come across any of my images that I haven't been able to stitch seamlessly with Autopano in auto mode, after pulling out all the stops in the settings menu.
-
Ray I will try it on the image I showed above and see how Autopano Pro does. Especially because of the 90 degree wrap and the distortion involved from camera position, this image is a serious test of any software.
-
Ray I will try it on the image I showed above and see how Autopano Pro does. Especially because of the 90 degree wrap and the distortion involved from camera position, this image is a serious test of any software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd be interested to see the results, but beware of those settings under 'edit'.
Below are the settings which I'm now using for every image. They only have to be set once (most of them). These might not all be appropriate or necessary for each set of images, but they work flawlessly for me so far.
[attachment=2337:attachment]
-
My own tests proved to me that the PTGui app is the most solid one out there. I've used it extensively on very large (say 50 images x 10MP TIFF files @16-bit throughout) stitches on XP x64 and vista x64 without any issues.
Then I started using the SmartBlend Plugin, and that eliminated parallax as well!
If you haven't downloaded & enabled that plug-in for blending, you have no idea how powerful PTGui can be.
I posted on another l-l thread (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15508&view=findpost&p=112443)about this.
I believe that PTGui allows you to use AutoPano for control points, as well as many other options that very materially affect control points and blending.
-
Then I started using the SmartBlend Plugin, and that eliminated parallax as well!
If you haven't downloaded & enabled that plug-in for blending, you have no idea how powerful PTGui can be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Autopano Pro already includes Smartblend. This issue should not be about supporting your favourite program but finding out in an objective manner which is best for your needs. That's been my approach.
The only demonstration in this thread so far, that PTGui might be better than Autopano in its ability to stitch images that Autopano can't, is Christopher's comparison shots early in the thread.
However Christopher was a bit vague when asked what settings he used in Autopano. He said he used 'normal' settings. I see no settings described as 'normal' in Autopano, but there is the occasional use of the word 'standard' which I suppose is what Christopher means, and for all I know, maybe some of the settings he used were at their original default level which appears to trade off quality for speed.
My concern with these programs is focussed on automatic capability first. I already have a program that does quite well in time-consuming manual mode (Panavue's IA) but when it comes to automatic stitching there's no contest between IA and Autopano. When I find some images (taken for stitching purposes) that Autopano can't stitch properly, automatically, then I'll start exploring the manual options.
It could well be that with really difficult images, PTGui is better than Autopano. However, after emailing my 4x 15mm handheld shots of Nepal to Chris-T, each reduced in size to 5MB which is not exactly low resolution, Chris failed to do a stitch using PTGui that is as perfect as Autopano produced for me in fully automatic mode. So, what conclusions can I arrive at?
If someone would care to post here what prior settings and adjustments should be made in PTGui for best automatic results, I'll give PTGui another try .
-
Autopano Pro already includes Smartblend. This issue should not be about supporting your favourite program but finding out in an objective manner which is best for your needs. That's been my approach.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Personnally, I think that the goal is to find what is good enough for your needs using a reasonnable amount of time.
If you get perfect stitches from Autopano pro, why keeping looking around for something better?
The key in all these activities is to find the peak of ROI.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Personnally, I think that the goal is to find what is good enough for your needs using a reasonnable amount of time.
If you get perfect stitches from Autopano pro, why keeping looking around for something better?
The key in all these activities is to find the peak of ROI.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do I keep looking around? Aren't we all looking around for better performing products at a better price that meet our 'needs'?? I just deleted my previous post on this thread because I realised I'd got myself into a contradiction of terminology; ie. 'needs'.
As consumers in a developed country, are we really operating on the level of 'needs', or is it more accurate to use the term 'wants'?
This purpose of this thread, I suggest, is to determine the weak points and strong points of 3 similar programs, Autopano, PTGui and PTA, in oder that the reader (consumer) can make an informed decision when purchasing.
If one program is stronger on automatic functions but another stronger in respect of manual flexibility and controls, then that is useful information. I'd like to know that.
I've actually bought Autopano Pro on the basis that it can stitch images automatically in a more accurate manner than CS3 Photomerge and Panavue's Image Assembler.
I don't actually know if I've made the 'best' decision. There might be someone out there who realises that PTGui can do everything in auto mode that Autopano can do, and more, but are keeping the settings and adjustments, for this to happen, a secret.
-
Why do I keep looking around? Aren't we all looking around for better performing products at a better price that meet our 'needs'?? I just deleted my previous post on this thread because I realised I'd got myself into a contradiction of terminology; ie. 'needs'.
As consumers in a developed country, are we really operating on the level of 'needs', or is it more accurate to use the term 'wants'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113710\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, we are not all always looking for something better on every detail of the process.
I am looking for ways to optimize the quality of my images as a whole, some others might be looking at ways to make more money with their images.
If my pano software meets 99% of my needs while my below par physical conditions makes me arrive late on top of mountains for the sunrise, then I'd rather spend time in the gym instead of looking for ways to gain 1% on a process that basically already works.
As far as "needs" vs "wants", well that is indeed exactly my point. If global performance enhancement is the goal, then the key is to focus on what "needs" to be improved.
Pano packages are dirt cheap, nothing prevents you from buying 2 or 3 and to check alternatives when your main solutions doesn't work on a particular case.
A lot of people here believe that Pgui is the best, your test indicates that Autopano pro is even better. More power to you, your selection of tool might be giving you an edge compared to the competition.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If my pano software meets 99% of my needs while my below par physical conditions makes me arrive late on top of mountains for the sunrise, then I'd rather spend time in the gym instead of looking for ways to gain 1% on a process that basically already works.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree completely. I lost 10kg on my last trip to Nepal. I've now put it all back on, sitting in front of the computer, processing images and chatting to people on LL.
Before getting Autopano I was fearful of the effect that even more time sitting in front of the computer would do to my overweight situation, especially with huge 100 image projects.
I recently tried stitching with Autopano 103 images taken with my 20D, 3 rows of 33-35 images. Because the process was automatic, it didn't worry me too much when things didn't go quite to plan.
The first obstacle was a lack of space on the hard drive I had allocated for the temporary scratch folder. When I attempted to render the image (after it took an hour or so for the preview to be created) I got a message to the effect that my hard drive had only 24Gb of free space when 44GB was required. I had to close the program, after renaming the path of the temporary folder, and start again.
The second obstacle occurred about 4 hours into the rendering. A minor storm blew up. There was a bit of thunder and lightning and the usual power cut. I'm connected to a UPS and the computer shut down nicely, but I had to start the rendering a third time when the power came back on. This time I had it running all night. There was no power cut and the stitched, rendered file seem to have been saved okay.
However, the third obstacle was the file size. I'd calculated that 103 x 24MB images should not be larger than 2.5GB at most. I therefore felt safe in using the TIFF file format which has a size limit of 4Gb. I'm sure I clicked on the 8 bit option before rendering but for some reason the saved TIFF file was 4.11GB which appeared to be 16 bit, or maybe that's due to the alpha channel. Anyway, I couldn't find a way of opening the file so I had to begin the rendering again, a fourth time, selecting the PSB format and being very sure I specified 8 bit.
This 4th attempt has worked fine, but oddly enough the finished file size is shown as 4.73GB. However, after opening in CS2 the file size diminishes to 1.77GB. Don't know why this is.
The point of the story is, if I'd had to spend hours doing manual adjustments prior to rendering these images, I'd be tearing my hair out by now.
-
You know Ray... IMHO, if you'd spend one quarter to half of the time you've spent reading and posting in this thread, you would likely have already figured out/mastered how to use PTAssembler or PTGui (along with the accompanying programs like Autopano (the control point generating program, not the complete stitching software) and Enblend/Smartblend) to get better results than you've been getting and could probably have generated (and fixed (just by rerouting seams in PS), if there were any huge problems) a pano or two...
Just give either of them a shot yourself (PTAssembler has become almost completely automated and for about 90% of my images, I don't have to play with any of the stitching parameters...), play around with one or two smaller panos, play around with editing the output from one or two panos where you have stitching problems (ie, reroute the seams so that you can't see them), and then you'll better be able to see how these programs fit into your needs and how well they can work with just a little additional user input (yes stitching 103 images together is time consuming, but so far, in my experience, rerouting the seams isn't that difficult... What I end up finding difficult is finding the bloody errory/misalignments after I've used Enblend or Smartblend. Once I find them, I can simply import one or two of the warped images into the pano and in a minute or two, mask out the offending misalignment). Out of the whole process (with the exception of one or two of my panos), I find that actually stitching the image together, colour corrections (etc.), and sharpening take much more time than dealing with errors in the panos (that said, my computer is fairly slow and I only have a 1.25 gig of ram...).
JMB
-
You know Ray... IMHO, if you'd spend one quarter to half of the time you've spent reading and posting in this thread, you would likely have already figured out/mastered how to use PTAssembler or PTGui (along with the accompanying programs like Autopano [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In restrospect you are probably right, and if not half the time, then possibly all the time. I could have figured it out for myself and having done so, could have not bothered even mentioned my findings on the grounds that I'd spent the allocated time for such matters figuring it out.
In fact, if I'd spent the amount of time learning Photoshop techniques that I've spent on this forum, over the years, I'm sure I would now be a master photoshop user familiar with all techniques and possibilities.
Maybe it's time to change my priorities.
-
Hi Ray,
I appreciate all the testing that you’ve done...is very interesting for sure...and will help out many beginners and intermediate pano shooters.
I did a quick test between PTGui and Autopano Pro...I don’t have time to post many images as I’m packing for vacation that starts tomorrow.
I used most of your settings Ray for Autopano Pro and it does edge out PTGui in stitching by a little - I tried to match the same preference settings in PTGui. AP had two stitching errors while PTGui had three on a three-horizontal-row image with the NPP off by about an inch horizontally.
But the AP image had noticeably more noise especially in the shadows and seemed inherently less sharp over all. Don’t know if that is the result of the Spline-64 interpolation. Even with a curve to match the contrast of the PTGui file and Unsharp Mask I could never match the “clarity” of the PTGui file. Attached “noise” file is with curve and sharpening applied to the AP image...the PTgui image is straight out of the app.
Also AP colors were very saturated, while PTGui’s colors were right on...colors were adjusted to match with attached images.
The horizon was perfect with AP and slightly tilted with PTGui.
AP appears longer width wise and shorter height wise than PTGui. Not sure which one is more accurate! See attached “overall” image.
-
I used most of your settings Ray for Autopano Pro and it does edge out PTGui in stitching by a little - I tried to match the same preference settings in PTGui. AP had two stitching errors while PTGui had three on a three-horizontal-row image with the NPP off by about an inch horizontally.
But the AP image had noticeably more noise especially in the shadows and seemed inherently less sharp over all. Don’t know if that is the result of the Spline-64 interpolation. Even with a curve to match the contrast of the PTGui file and Unsharp Mask I could never match the “clarity” of the PTGui file. Attached “noise” file is with curve and sharpening applied to the AP image...the PTgui image is straight out of the app.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting. I hadn't even addressed such issues as noise and resolution. The only differences between the interpolation algorithms in Autopano, that I observed, were between the default bilinear and bicubic. With bilinear I noticed some very obvious smearing of 'not so fine' detail, in certain parts of the stitch, that simply wasn't there when I switched to bicubic.
I understand that Spline64 is one of those interpolation methods that is supposed to produce a theoretically more accurate result but which might not be noticed. I used that setting simply because I thought it would do no harm but might possibly do some good.
My 103 image stitch in Autopano was done directly from the RAW files. I'm at a different computer where my trial version of PTGui is not installed, but my memory is that PTGui doesn't recognise RAW files. Is that correct?
-
another "me too" voice .
I'm on Mac , tried some options and settled for PTgui ,
and I'm happy with it so much that I dare to stitch handheld shots .
Like this - modest 4 vertical Mk2 24- 105 shots .
perspective distortion fixed in CS3
click on this zoomfly file for the detail
http://www.lipka.se/special/rocK_view/pano_rock.html (http://www.lipka.se/special/rocK_view/pano_rock.html)
-
....but my memory is that PTGui doesn't recognise RAW files. Is that correct?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's correct....PTGui does not recognize RAW files but I do prefer to adjust my XTi raws in Lightroom or CS3 as both have the excellent Fill Light and Highlight Recover adjustments.
-
another "me too" voice .
I'm on Mac , tried some options and settled for PTgui ,
and I'm happy with it so much that I dare to stitch handheld shots .
Like this - modest 4 vertical Mk2 24- 105 shots .
perspective distortion fixed in CS3
click on this zoomfly file for the detail
http://www.lipka.se/special/rocK_view/pano_rock.html (http://www.lipka.se/special/rocK_view/pano_rock.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113942\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
is the Mac version of PTgui identical to the PC version?
i attempted with PS CS3 the second time yesterday, and now i'm sure it isn't half as good as other pano programs. mainly, if there are elements that changed their positions between the shots, PS3 won't recognize those and there are ghostings. in other case, it somehow creates weird halos.
in the first photo, i thought everything was good. until later when i looked at it closely at full crop, the crane is broken.
in the second photo, there are weird halos around the tall buildings. i still don't know why this happens.
i will download PTgui Mac tonight and try it.
-
Yes, I'm afraid the devil is in the detail. I've made the mistake too often of thinking a stitch looks great, perhaps because it's straightened out better than from another stitching program, but on close examination find one or two glitches or flaws at the joins.
-
That's correct....PTGui does not recognize RAW files but I do prefer to adjust my XTi raws in Lightroom or CS3 as both have the excellent Fill Light and Highlight Recover adjustments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113994\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also sometimes prefer to use RSP to convert my RAW files, simply because I can get the effect I like such as the right degree of vibrancy, marginally better detail and a slight painterly effect, or solidity of color and hue (not sure quite how to describe it) which ACR doesn't seem to be able to give me.
Being able to recognise RAW files is not necessarily much of an advantage, but it helps as a time saver when comparing large stitches.
-
That's correct....PTGui does not recognize RAW files but I do prefer to adjust my XTi raws in Lightroom or CS3 as both have the excellent Fill Light and Highlight Recover adjustments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113994\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You'd better be careful with these Lightroom tools for images to be stitched.
I had problems stitching an image with PTgui a few days ago. A very deep blue sky was showing a discontinuity I had never seen before.
I had developped the images in Lightroom and had correctly copied the RAW developement settings on all the images to be stitched, but Highlight recovery was one of those.
It appears that a given amount of highlight recovery will result in different levels of tone compression depending on the image content. This is a recipe for disaster when stitching images where the sky plays a role...
For other images with more texture and native color variation, the problem would probably remain un-noticed, but it does show on skies...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It appears that a given amount of highlight recovery will result in different levels of tone compression depending on the image content. This is a recipe for disaster when stitching images where the sky plays a role...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
this probably explains the halos in my image :/
-
The raw/Lightroom comments bring up another question. Is it better to make tonal/color corrections of individual images before or after stitching, with either PS or Lightroom? My gut feel says it may be better to stitch first and then correct the pano, since it may be difficult to apply the same corrections to each image. But the downside of correcting the pano would be handling a much bigger file.
-
The raw/Lightroom comments bring up another question. Is it better to make tonal/color corrections of individual images before or after stitching, with either PS or Lightroom? My gut feel says it may be better to stitch first and then correct the pano, since it may be difficult to apply the same corrections to each image. But the downside of correcting the pano would be handling a much bigger file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not only that, as we know most Panos can't even edited with Lightroom, because for example mine nearly always exceed 10.000px...
-
Not only that, as we know most Panos can't even edited with Lightroom, because for example mine nearly always exceed 10.000px...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm using CS3 for editing. My 103 image stitch resulted in a 1.75Gb PSB file in 8 bit and 69,000 pixels long. Each edit of this large file was very, very slow even with the minimum level of history states. The stitch was done automatically using the RAW images. It was just an exercise to see how Autopano would handle it.
I can find no flaws in the joins but there are parts of the sky where the tonal changes in the overlaps are visible. However, this only occurs in a rather polluted area of the sky immediately above the city centre. I always intended to replace the sky with a more interesting one, so it occupies a very narrow band at the top of the image. The tonal changes are hardly noticeable below the sky line, so I guess this is not going to be a problem, but I'm wondering what caused it. The pollution, perhaps?
Perhaps more likely, the fact that I had bungled some of the exposures. I began by bracketing each shot in manual mode, since this is a very wide panorama consisting of great variation in lighting, ranging from the sun glinting on white and shiny buildings in the city centre to the dark shadows in foliage and botanical gardens.
However, when I got to the third row I realised that I would run out of flash cards before completing the shoot, so decided to take single exposures from that point on, but forgot to turn off autobracketing in the menu until I noticed what was happening a dozen shots later. I therefore have a series of adjoining images in the third row which are consecutively, normal exposure, -1 stop, +1 stop, normal, -1 stop, +1 stop etc.
-
Just to let everyone know there are two beta PTGui versions available....regular and Pro....
The new beta version includes new output projections, a QTVR converter
and an improved control point generator.
The Pro version additionally supports a full HDR workflow, from merging
bracketed exposures into HDR, to tone mapping.
The beta version can be downloaded from:
http://www.ptgui.com/beta.html (http://www.ptgui.com/beta.html)
And a short HDR tutorial to show the workflow:
http://www.ptgui.com/hdrtutorial.html (http://www.ptgui.com/hdrtutorial.html)
As always, feedback is very welcome: please join
http://groups.google.com/group/ptgui (http://groups.google.com/group/ptgui)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just tested the new PTGui beta vs. AutoPano Pro with a 40+ image stitch and both stitches were fairly flawless but as mentioned in my previous post PTGui's file was so much cleaner...had much less noise and inherently sharper. Could be Smartblend or Spline working against AutoPano Pro's sharpness. I'm still on vacation so cannot post images.
-
If you were using Smart Blender in Autopano - it requires Color correction to be set - this will fix the sky problem.
-
If you were using Smart Blender in Autopano - it requires Color correction to be set - this will fix the sky problem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely! And you need to set a lot of other 'quality options' for Autopano to do a good job.
As I mentioned before, the default settings when you first open Autopano are designed for speed and to be usable with slow computers. They are not set for maximum quality.
It's perhaps a difficult situation for the promoters. If you are trying to sell a product and are offering a trial download, you don't want the customer to experience a system crash, or an 'out of memory' warning, or a tediously long stitch of a few basic images.