Not for architecture but for everything, where there are clear vertical lines, like city scapes. It is a common error of amateur panomakers, that buildings look like build by drunkards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Cityscapes is architecture in my book. There are plenty of other subjets where vertical lines don't need to stay vertical. Besides, the question is mostly how easy it is to make verticals vertical. It can be done with most packages manually.
Had the clouds been moving, Autopano would have created a horrendeous result (like all other automatised processes). PTA too can create a pano automatically, though it does not pay, in my experience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't remember seeing you next to me when I was shooting on that ridge at 3900 m, what makes you think that the clouds were not moving? They were most definitely moving. Again, I am talking about Autopano Pro, a very different beast compared to Autopano. Autopano pro uses proprietary Mac implementation of Smartblend.
Does PTGui not allow for interwention between stitching and blending? PTA does, and that is the best way to handle this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well it does through the multi-layer PS export capability. The various layers are exported after having been deformed for stitching purpose. You can edit the masks any way you want, which I had to do for the second image posted above since the leaves on the water were moving, just like the clouds were.
This was complicated by the fact that this 2 row panorama has infinite DoF thanks to a preliminary DoF stacking job done by hand using Photoshop. I am saying that it complicates the task because of the longer time lag resulting from the numerous exposures (32 for this image). This is one example of an image where a sheet of 4x5 film on my Ebony would have done a similar job in a fraction of the time.
This is one weakness of Autopano pro where the multi-layer export does include non deformed layers from what I could see.
There is NO blender, which can solve the blending of for example lightly wavy water surfaces; only manual intervention helps.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Autopano Pro does again do a very good job here, perhaps not always perfect, but better than any other stitcher I have seen.
Furthermore, panos in the usually posted sizes don't show the problems. I work on my panos in 100% (and more), and when I see an error, I reduce the size to the probable print size to see if the error remains visible or if I can ignore it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It goes without saying that all the panos I post in small sizes here are perfect stitches when viewed at 100% on screen. I do not release any pano that isn't pefect at 100% on screen, even on smaller print sizes where defects might not show. There is always a possibility that I overlook a small defect of course.
Anyway, I am done with this topic. Fine if you prefer to keep using the tools you are used with. As far as I am concerned I prefer to use the best available combination of tool at any given moment in time, be it a new tool from a new company.
I use PTgui as my mainstream stitcher, and Autopano Pro for difficult stitching jobs. Similarly I use different raw converters based on their respective strenghts and weaknesses depending on the constraints.
Cheers,
Bernard
