Lr6: Panorama problems...

[dreed]

Working with some panorama images I created today, in a series of 6 images I can merge..

1,2,3
2,3,4,5
3,4,5
4,5,6

If I try [1,2,3,4,5] then 1 gets put in the middle of the image, if I try [3,4,5,6] then 6 gets put in the middle of the image.

If I create [1,2,3] and [4,5,6], Lr6 won't let me merge that.

Does anyone else see problems like this?

[kers]

Maybe instead of buying LRCC or LR6 you may better put your money on a real panorama program...
On photoshop CS6 i like the fact i can make panorama's, and sometimes it does a good job- but is it like the HDR-- just not it...

[MBehrens]

I've been playing with the pano feature pulling together some 10 - 20 image merges and have not seen this happen. Are they ethereal images that are difficult to merge together.

[Mousecop]

I haven't, but it's impossible to judge without knowing the content of the images.

LR is going to try and put the images in order, but doesn't give you control.  If you want more direct control, you can start with Microsoft ICE.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I haven't, but it's impossible to judge without knowing the content of the images.

Indeed, the contents of the images matters. Assuming the images were taken while minimizing the Parallax error (which would require rotation around the entrance pupil of the lens), there needs to be enough overlap between the adjoining tiles, and sufficient detail in that overlap to be able and achieve a registration match on features.

LR is going to try and put the images in order, but doesn't give you control.

This will remain the Achilles' heel in any fully automatic method. If it works, it works, but if it doesn't then you're usually stuck. I've found a dedicated stitcher like PTGUI a much more robust solution (and with much better resampling algorithms, just to name one additional benefit, as well).

Cheers,
Bart

[dreed]

I've been playing with the pano feature pulling together some 10 - 20 image merges and have not seen this happen. Are they ethereal images that are difficult to merge together.

If they were difficult to merge then there would be a problem where one sequence doesn't work (I have found this to happen with other images.)

If I put them into PtGui, it works without even breaking a sweat.

Does adobe have someone that you can send such images to so that they can analyze their algorithm and see why it gets it wrong with a view to fixing it in a future version of Lr/ACR? Or are we stuck with the current algorithm/s for good?

[BrianWJH]

If you want more direct control, you can start with Microsoft ICE.

Had the same problem with a 6 image panorama in LR6, downloaded the latest version of Microsoft ICE and had no problem, seems this inital version in LR6 has a lot of improvement to make.

Brian.

[dreed]

At least one sequence that I tried (and failed) to merge in Lr6 merges fine in ACR9 ...

What differences are there between the two?

[Jim MSP]

At least one sequence that I tried (and failed) to merge in Lr6 merges fine in ACR9 ...

What differences are there between the two?

Good question. I'm sure there are some that will probably be updated in a future version.
I have taken to using LR to merge my 2 shot panos, as I like the ability to get a "raw" (dng) file back out where I can process the whole scene properly.
Anything more than 2 I use PTGui - faster and reliable with fewer issues.

[RikkFlohr]

Jim MSP - how does your final file size compare when stitching like numbers of images between LR's resultant DNG  and the PTGUI or Photoshop output?

[dreed]

Good question. I'm sure there are some that will probably be updated in a future version.
I have taken to using LT to merge my 2 shot panos, as I like the ability to get a "raw" (dng) file back out where I can process the whole scene properly.
Anything more than 2 I use PTGui - faster and reliable with fewer issues.

ANd if PTGui could produce DNG files as output, I wouldn't consider Lr/ACR at all. It's just too good at what it does.

[Jim MSP]

Jim MSP - how does your final file size compare when stitching like numbers of images between LR's resultant DNG  and the PTGUI or Photoshop output?

I guess I have not looked at them yet that way. I'll do a simple 3 file pano comparison soon when I get a chance.

[Jim MSP]

Jim MSP - how does your final file size compare when stitching like numbers of images between LR's resultant DNG  and the PTGUI or Photoshop output?

I just stitched 5 photos together in LR and PTGui. They were raws from 22 to 28 MB in size.
The LR dng is 159 MB
The PTGui Tiff is 167 MB
The PTGui jpeg @95% is 16.9 MB

Jim

[MBehrens]

The LR dng is 159 MB

Apply the LR Lossy DNG conversion to this pano file and it will reduce it significantly. Not sure how lossy DNG compares to 95% JPEG. I'm betting it is close and you still have a raw file.

[RikkFlohr]

Jim, did you perform a comparison for the Photoshop Stitch to Tiff or PSD?

[Chris Kern]

Indeed, the contents of the images matters. Assuming the images were taken while minimizing the Parallax error (which would require rotation around the entrance pupil of the lens), there needs to be enough overlap between the adjoining tiles, and sufficient detail in that overlap to be able and achieve a registration match on features.

This will remain the Achilles' heel in any fully automatic method. If it works, it works, but if it doesn't then you're usually stuck. I've found a dedicated stitcher like PTGUI a much more robust solution (and with much better resampling algorithms, just to name one additional benefit, as well).

What amazes me is that LR can perform stitches at all from raw data.  Do you have any idea how it accomplishes this?  Without pixels to operate on, how does it merge the individual photos?  Does it produce an intermediate rendered file and then convert the resulting composite image back into a raw DNG?  (If so, isn't that be a bit like going back in time?)  Here's a link (Dropbox; you may need to have or create an account to download it) to a quick test I shot yesterday (handheld with a Canon G7x ) at the Dalecarlia Reservoir in Washington, DC.  It's not optimal, but I can't figure out how LR was able to produce it at all.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What amazes me is that LR can perform stitches at all from raw data.  Do you have any idea how it accomplishes this?

Hi Chris,

I'm not that deeply interested in DNG raws, because they kind of force to use an Adobe centric Raw workflow which is too limiting for me, but presumably the original Raw tiles are demosaiced, stitched, and an RGB DNG is written as if it were 'Raw'. It then looks like a Raw (linear gamma) file to a DNG processing application like ACR/LR.

PTGUI also allows to stitch directly from Raw files, and it (also) converts from Raw to RGB before it can do it's stuff. I prefer to stitch based on superior Raw conversions from Capture One, but there is a lot of flexibility for a fast preview by using the Raws directly. One can e.g. tweak all settings based on a 'Raw' stitch or a JPEG stitch, and then edit the source file references to point to the full quality (with chromatic aberration correction, noise reduction, and other tweaks in place) TIFF versions, and output the improved quality stitch. The project settings do not really care about the images themselves other than their size, it concerns itself with the relative angular positioning and radial distortion of the images , and saves that in the project file, together with the file names of the tiles to use.

Cheers,
Bart

[Chris Kern]

presumably the original Raw tiles are demosaiced, stitched, and an RGB DNG is written as if it were 'Raw'. It then looks like a Raw (linear gamma) file to a DNG processing application like ACR/LR.

That makes sense, Bart; I simply couldn't imagine how it would be possible to stitch together several images based solely on the luminance data from the camera sensor or how the stitched image could be converted into a genuine raw state.  You need pixels to fit the puzzle together and, after that, you can't "uncook the egg."  The approach you describe is what I would have assumed if Julieanne Kost hadn't made this rather startling claim in her video introduction to the new LR pano capability:

Lightroom CC can now stitch together multiple raw files to create seamless panoramas without rendering the files as pixels.  In fact, the panorama that Lightroom creates is just as much of a raw file as the originals.

The LR stitch certainly seems to behave like a raw file when you apply adjustments to it.  Presumably it's a linear DNG, a demosaiced file that is still scene-referred (is that the correct term?), which is susceptible to all the same adjustments as a raw file.  (And, indeed, I just checked and Phil Harvey's exiftool identifies the contents of the container file as "Linear Raw.")

[Jim MSP]

Jim, did you perform a comparison for the Photoshop Stitch to Tiff or PSD?

No, I did not. I have used the PS stitch before, but always preferred PTGui (or MS ICE) both for speed and final result. I have been playing with the LR Pano stitch primarily because I like the concept of getting a raw file back out.