Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: photomerge 6.4  (Read 4399 times)

zobeleye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 121
    • zobeleye
photomerge 6.4
« on: February 04, 2016, 07:13:29 am »

Hey folks,
now that I've succeeded in installing the update, I was wondering why the the panorama feature tells me that it unable to merge the photos...
any ideas ?
cheers
Z
Logged
mac pro 32 gb,eizoCG318,LR,nikon,fuji,Pentax645Z
http://zobeleye.com/

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2016, 08:21:48 am »

This computer says no lack of explanation is very frustrating. On the occasions it happens, it is hard to say exactly why, but you can generate the message by choosing images that just won't merge - eg from frames with different focal lengths or with no overlap.
Logged

zobeleye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 121
    • zobeleye
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2016, 08:27:35 am »

Thanks John,
I does not feel, it is analyzing the images for content.
the message comes up straight away. these are not raw, but jpg converted from png.
maybe that gives some clue ?

cheers
Z
Logged
mac pro 32 gb,eizoCG318,LR,nikon,fuji,Pentax645Z
http://zobeleye.com/

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2016, 08:45:41 am »

Do they have any EXIF information at all? They I've never tried merging jpegs from pngs, that origin may well explain it. Do they merge in Photoshop?
Logged

Hoggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
  • Never take life, or anything in it, too seriously.
OT: Great Britain?
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2016, 09:05:03 am »

This computer says no lack of explanation is very frustrating.

OT:
hehe..  A Great Britain fan, heh?  I loved those skits!  ;D
I just wish to high heaven it was still shown on some channel here in the US.  Maybe the show is no longer being produced in the UK either..?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 10:04:44 am by Hoggy »
Logged
Cams: Pentax K-3, K-30 & Canon G7X, S100
Firm supporter of DNG, throwing away originals.
It's the hash, man..  That good hash!

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2016, 09:24:26 am »

A few more thoughts, are any of the images virtual copies?  and how much overlap did you use.  LR needs a good bit of overlap, at least to me. 

Also I have found it best to do the pano merge before you work on the files with anything like adjustment brushes, or ND etc, as a lot of those will be dropped when the merge is done.

Are the files raw or jpg, as I have found LR does best on raws.

You might also try Ptgui, or Kolor or Adobe CC and see if you can get a solution from one of them.  Both Ptgui and Kolor allow for demo periods. 

Paul C
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: OT: Great Britain?
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2016, 04:00:37 pm »

OT:
hehe..  A Great Britain fan, heh?  I loved those skits!  ;D
I just wish to high heaven it was still shown on some channel here in the US.  Maybe the show is no longer being produced in the UK either..?

It was Little Britain, but it's not been produced for 10+ years. Maybe it could no longer compete with reality?
Logged

Hoggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
  • Never take life, or anything in it, too seriously.
OT: BBC reruns
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2016, 12:26:14 am »

It was Little Britain, but it's not been produced for 10+ years. Maybe it could no longer compete with reality?

Ahh, yes..  That's it.  I wish BBCAmerica would air the reruns though..  And throw in some Red Dwarf and Faulty Towers, too.  They're always showing Star Trek: TNG - ad nauseum::)   It would be a nice change of pace for something completely different.

Anyways - sorry, people, to derail the thread with some OT.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
Logged
Cams: Pentax K-3, K-30 & Canon G7X, S100
Firm supporter of DNG, throwing away originals.
It's the hash, man..  That good hash!

MattBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3912
  • Looking for that other shot
    • Matt Burt Photography
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2016, 01:06:04 am »

I have had a couple of panos that would not stitch in LR or PS so I tried MS ICE and it could stitch stitch them. Worth a try, especially since it is free.
Logged
-MattB

eliedinur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 328
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2016, 03:59:45 am »

Quote
these are not raw, but jpg converted from png.
Quote
Do they have any EXIF information at all? They I've never tried merging jpegs from pngs, that origin may well explain it.

Png does not support camera Exif. Although it may contain partially Exif-like metadata in a different format, I doubt that LR could read or utilize it.
Logged
Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams th

brianrybolt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 625
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2016, 08:00:48 am »

I have had a couple of panos that would not stitch in LR or PS so I tried MS ICE and it could stitch stitch them. Worth a try, especially since it is free.

Only for PC's.

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2016, 06:40:59 am »

A few more thoughts, are any of the images virtual copies?  and how much overlap did you use.  LR needs a good bit of overlap, at least to me. 

Also I have found it best to do the pano merge before you work on the files with anything like adjustment brushes, or ND etc, as a lot of those will be dropped when the merge is done.

Are the files raw or jpg, as I have found LR does best on raws.

You might also try Ptgui, or Kolor or Adobe CC and see if you can get a solution from one of them.  Both Ptgui and Kolor allow for demo periods. 

Paul C


I use the LR pano function for relatively simple panos. I occasionally get the "unable to merge" message. I have never had any problem merging the images in question in AutoPano Pro. I only ever attempt to merge RAWs in Lightroom. I haven't been able to detect any reason why LR has problems with some images, but do have a general sense that it might have difficulties with more complex stitching tasks and also that it is not good with vertical single column panos.
Logged
Ken Cameron

Robert-Peter Westphal

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 402
    • Nature-Photography Westphal
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2016, 03:03:37 pm »


I use the LR pano function for relatively simple panos. I occasionally get the "unable to merge" message. I have never had any problem merging the images in question in AutoPano Pro. I only ever attempt to merge RAWs in Lightroom. I haven't been able to detect any reason why LR has problems with some images, but do have a general sense that it might have difficulties with more complex stitching tasks and also that it is not good with vertical single column panos.

In most cases changing the projection to Auto or simply choose a different projection helps when the error-message "unable to merge" appears.

Robert
Logged
'visit my completly renewed gallery at http://www.naturfotografie-westphal.com '

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2016, 03:33:43 pm »

In most cases changing the projection to Auto or simply choose a different projection helps when the error-message "unable to merge" appears.

Robert
I always try that. In my experience, it hardly ever works. Interesting to know that you get different results. I think Lightroom' stitching algorithm has its limitations. Maybe optimised for speed at the expense of difficult cases. As well as complete failures to merge, I also get some unusable merges in which the final image is heavily distorted, regardless of which projection I use (and which work fine in other Pano software).
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 03:38:00 pm by kencameron »
Logged
Ken Cameron

David Eckels

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3526
  • It's just a camera.
    • Website
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2016, 08:04:02 pm »

Memory?

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2016, 09:26:38 pm »

I  will have a look but seems unlikely in my case as I have 32 Meg and am not usually running much else
Logged
Ken Cameron

eliedinur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 328
Re: photomerge 6.4
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2016, 07:49:45 am »

I  will have a look but seems unlikely in my case as I have 32 Meg and am not usually running much else
Well, 32 MB of RAM was certainly more than Bill G. ever needed.  ;D
Logged
Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams th
Pages: [1]   Go Up