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.
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 .