Re: Digital Image Stitching II

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ron Hunter, Nov 1, 2007.

  1. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I downloaded Autostitch, and it is pretty amazing. Fast, simple, and
    produces really good results, although I seem unable to get adequate
    resolution from it. Still experimenting with the options panel.
    For those who don't want to diddle a bunch of settings they don't
    understand, it is VERY good.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ron Hunter wrote:
    > I downloaded Autostitch, and it is pretty amazing. Fast, simple, and
    > produces really good results, although I seem unable to get adequate
    > resolution from it. Still experimenting with the options panel.
    > For those who don't want to diddle a bunch of settings they don't
    > understand, it is VERY good.


    Delighted you tried it, Ron. It /is/ good, isn't it! Try Edit, Options,
    Output size for better resolution (we use 3000-4000 horizontally) and
    perhaps increase the JPEG output quality.

    We eventually bought AutoPano Pro which is not expensive, to add the
    rectilinear (planar) and cylindrical projections, and the ghost-removal
    feature (as we often take panos with people moving in front of the
    camera). It also has layered output, I believe, if you want to tweak
    further....

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Hunter

    ChrisM Guest

    In message TbgWi.40443$,
    David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> I downloaded Autostitch, and it is pretty amazing. Fast, simple, and
    >> produces really good results, although I seem unable to get adequate
    >> resolution from it. Still experimenting with the options panel.
    >> For those who don't want to diddle a bunch of settings they don't
    >> understand, it is VERY good.

    >
    > Delighted you tried it, Ron. It /is/ good, isn't it! Try Edit,
    > Options, Output size for better resolution (we use 3000-4000
    > horizontally) and perhaps increase the JPEG output quality.
    >
    > We eventually bought AutoPano Pro which is not expensive, to add the
    > rectilinear (planar) and cylindrical projections, and the
    > ghost-removal feature (as we often take panos with people moving in
    > front of the camera). It also has layered output, I believe, if you
    > want to tweak further....
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    Can someone explain to me in layman's terms what the differences between
    these various 'projections' are, (eg rectilinear (planar) and cylindrical
    projections)

    Thanks,

    Chris.


    --
    Regards,
    Chris.
    (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
    ChrisM, Nov 1, 2007
    #3
  4. ChrisM wrote:
    []
    > Can someone explain to me in layman's terms what the differences
    > between these various 'projections' are, (eg rectilinear (planar) and
    > cylindrical projections)
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Chris.


    Does this page help, Chris?

    http://en.wiki.autopano.net/Understanding_Projecting_Modes

    Hint: I Googled on "cylindrical spherical rectilinear" (without the
    quotes).

    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Ron Hunter

    ChrisM Guest

    In message cViWi.40551$,
    David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > ChrisM wrote:
    > []
    >> Can someone explain to me in layman's terms what the differences
    >> between these various 'projections' are, (eg rectilinear (planar) and
    >> cylindrical projections)
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Chris.

    >
    > Does this page help, Chris?
    >
    > http://en.wiki.autopano.net/Understanding_Projecting_Modes
    >
    > Hint: I Googled on "cylindrical spherical rectilinear" (without the
    > quotes).
    >
    > David


    Thanks David, that seems to explain it nicely.
    Sorry, I know I could have done that... Sometimes I post a question without
    really thinking I could have just Googled it.
    Having said that, you can often get a better answer(more concise or
    specific) from a knowledgable person in a specialist newsgroup than you can
    easily find by searching the web...

    :)
    --
    Regards,
    Chris.
    (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
    ChrisM, Nov 1, 2007
    #5
  6. ChrisM wrote:
    []
    > Thanks David, that seems to explain it nicely.
    > Sorry, I know I could have done that... Sometimes I post a question
    > without really thinking I could have just Googled it.
    > Having said that, you can often get a better answer(more concise or
    > specific) from a knowledgable person in a specialist newsgroup than
    > you can easily find by searching the web...
    >
    > :)


    Flattery will get you everywhere!

    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Ron Hunter

    Bill Guest

    On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:44:53 -0000, "ChrisM"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Thanks David, that seems to explain it nicely.
    >Sorry, I know I could have done that... Sometimes I post a question without
    >really thinking I could have just Googled it.
    >Having said that, you can often get a better answer(more concise or
    >specific) from a knowledgable person in a specialist newsgroup than you can
    >easily find by searching the web...
    >
    >:)



    Chris,

    Take a look at the panorama that I posted to:

    alt.binaries.photos.original - entitled "Autostitch panorama" and
    dated 10-30-2007.

    This is a mountain scene consisting of about 25 hand held photos with
    the camera set to aperature priority and white balance set to auto.
    There was quite a bit of color depth difference, but Autostitch
    handled it very well.

    Bill
    Bill, Nov 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> I downloaded Autostitch, and it is pretty amazing. Fast, simple, and
    >> produces really good results, although I seem unable to get adequate
    >> resolution from it. Still experimenting with the options panel.
    >> For those who don't want to diddle a bunch of settings they don't
    >> understand, it is VERY good.

    >
    > Delighted you tried it, Ron. It /is/ good, isn't it! Try Edit, Options,
    > Output size for better resolution (we use 3000-4000 horizontally) and
    > perhaps increase the JPEG output quality.
    >
    > We eventually bought AutoPano Pro which is not expensive, to add the
    > rectilinear (planar) and cylindrical projections, and the ghost-removal
    > feature (as we often take panos with people moving in front of the
    > camera). It also has layered output, I believe, if you want to tweak
    > further....
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >

    I don't need the ghost removal since my panos don't often have moving
    things in them, and the other features aren't that attractive to me. I
    did increase the output resolution, and like that much better. The
    program runs very fast on my desktop (AMD 64 3700+ with 1GB), but VERY
    SLOW on my laptop (1.4ghz Intel Centrino M 512Meg). It spends a LOT of
    time swapping on the laptop. I am sure that for really large panos, the
    ram requirements would be rather high. Blending is MUCH better than the
    best that Photoshop Elements 3 can manage, and much faster as well.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 2, 2007
    #8
  9. Ron Hunter wrote:
    []
    > I don't need the ghost removal since my panos don't often have moving
    > things in them, and the other features aren't that attractive to me.


    Different needs; understood.

    > I did increase the output resolution, and like that much better. The
    > program runs very fast on my desktop (AMD 64 3700+ with 1GB), but VERY
    > SLOW on my laptop (1.4ghz Intel Centrino M 512Meg). It spends a LOT
    > of time swapping on the laptop. I am sure that for really large
    > panos, the ram requirements would be rather high. Blending is MUCH
    > better than the best that Photoshop Elements 3 can manage, and much
    > faster as well.


    The systems I've tested on are both 3GB RAM (Pentium 4 HT 2.8GHz, Intel
    dual-core 6600 2.4GHz). As an aside, I did upgrade the memory in my
    1.6GHz Centrino portable from 512MB to 1.25GB (had to loose 1 x 256MB
    module) and found a noticeable improvement in response.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    > []
    >> I don't need the ghost removal since my panos don't often have moving
    >> things in them, and the other features aren't that attractive to me.

    >
    > Different needs; understood.
    >
    >> I did increase the output resolution, and like that much better. The
    >> program runs very fast on my desktop (AMD 64 3700+ with 1GB), but VERY
    >> SLOW on my laptop (1.4ghz Intel Centrino M 512Meg). It spends a LOT
    >> of time swapping on the laptop. I am sure that for really large
    >> panos, the ram requirements would be rather high. Blending is MUCH
    >> better than the best that Photoshop Elements 3 can manage, and much
    >> faster as well.

    >
    > The systems I've tested on are both 3GB RAM (Pentium 4 HT 2.8GHz, Intel
    > dual-core 6600 2.4GHz). As an aside, I did upgrade the memory in my
    > 1.6GHz Centrino portable from 512MB to 1.25GB (had to loose 1 x 256MB
    > module) and found a noticeable improvement in response.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >


    That is usually the case when you more than double available memory.
    Many programs work much faster when they have more RAM available to work
    with, even when they aren't forced into swapping.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 3, 2007
    #10
  11. Ron Hunter wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:

    []
    >> The systems I've tested on are both 3GB RAM (Pentium 4 HT 2.8GHz,
    >> Intel dual-core 6600 2.4GHz). As an aside, I did upgrade the memory
    >> in my 1.6GHz Centrino portable from 512MB to 1.25GB (had to loose 1 x
    >> 256MB
    >> module) and found a noticeable improvement in response.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David
    >>
    >>

    >
    > That is usually the case when you more than double available memory.
    > Many programs work much faster when they have more RAM available to
    > work with, even when they aren't forced into swapping.


    I was pleasantly surprised, and even more surprised that the upgrade was
    easier than adding memory to a desktop. Perhaps your laptop deserves a
    Christmas present of some more memory too?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 3, 2007
    #11
  12. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> David J Taylor wrote:

    > []
    >>> The systems I've tested on are both 3GB RAM (Pentium 4 HT 2.8GHz,
    >>> Intel dual-core 6600 2.4GHz). As an aside, I did upgrade the memory
    >>> in my 1.6GHz Centrino portable from 512MB to 1.25GB (had to loose 1 x
    >>> 256MB
    >>> module) and found a noticeable improvement in response.
    >>>
    >>> Cheers,
    >>> David
    >>>
    >>>

    >> That is usually the case when you more than double available memory.
    >> Many programs work much faster when they have more RAM available to
    >> work with, even when they aren't forced into swapping.

    >
    > I was pleasantly surprised, and even more surprised that the upgrade was
    > easier than adding memory to a desktop. Perhaps your laptop deserves a
    > Christmas present of some more memory too?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >

    I am afraid that after over 3 years, it is probably not economical to
    upgrade the ram. Would probably be better to jack it up and slip a new
    one under it...
    Ron Hunter, Nov 3, 2007
    #12
  13. Ron Hunter wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:

    []
    >> I was pleasantly surprised, and even more surprised that the upgrade
    >> was easier than adding memory to a desktop. Perhaps your laptop
    >> deserves a Christmas present of some more memory too?
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David
    >>
    >>

    > I am afraid that after over 3 years, it is probably not economical to
    > upgrade the ram. Would probably be better to jack it up and slip a
    > new one under it...


    You may be surprised at the price of memory today. These people have 1GB
    SODIMM at about GBP 20 (US $40).

    http://www.mpcomp.co.uk/mpc.php?page=product&product=6048

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 3, 2007
    #13
  14. Ron Hunter

    acl Guest

    On Nov 3, 7:14 pm, "David J Taylor" <-this-
    bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    > > David J Taylor wrote:

    > []
    > >> I was pleasantly surprised, and even more surprised that the upgrade
    > >> was easier than adding memory to a desktop. Perhaps your laptop
    > >> deserves a Christmas present of some more memory too?

    >
    > >> Cheers,
    > >> David

    >
    > > I am afraid that after over 3 years, it is probably not economical to
    > > upgrade the ram. Would probably be better to jack it up and slip a
    > > new one under it...

    >
    > You may be surprised at the price of memory today. These people have 1GB
    > SODIMM at about GBP 20 (US $40).
    >
    > http://www.mpcomp.co.uk/mpc.php?page=product&product=6048
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    When I saw this thread, I checked the prices of ram out of idle
    curiosity. They're really cheap! I know what I'm shopping for on
    Monday! 1.5GB will speed up things nicely!
    acl, Nov 3, 2007
    #14
  15. On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:19:09 -0500, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > I am afraid that after over 3 years, it is probably not economical to
    > upgrade the ram. Would probably be better to jack it up and slip a new
    > one under it...


    Unless it takes some esoteric form of RAM, it's probably not too bad. I
    paid $55 for 2 gigs of laptop RAM a couple of weeks ago (DDR2 667 Mhz
    SODIMMs for a MacBook), and RAM for the previous couple of generations
    of laptops isn't too much more expensive on a per-gigabyte basis. A
    brief scan through NewEgg's catalog of DDR 333 laptop memory shows
    prices in the $50ish/gigabyte range if you buy a pair of 512 meg
    modules. 1 gig modules of the older types of memory are more expensive,
    starting at about $60 or so.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Nov 3, 2007
    #15
  16. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    acl wrote:
    > On Nov 3, 7:14 pm, "David J Taylor" <-this-
    > bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>> David J Taylor wrote:

    >> []
    >>>> I was pleasantly surprised, and even more surprised that the upgrade
    >>>> was easier than adding memory to a desktop. Perhaps your laptop
    >>>> deserves a Christmas present of some more memory too?
    >>>> Cheers,
    >>>> David
    >>> I am afraid that after over 3 years, it is probably not economical to
    >>> upgrade the ram. Would probably be better to jack it up and slip a
    >>> new one under it...

    >> You may be surprised at the price of memory today. These people have 1GB
    >> SODIMM at about GBP 20 (US $40).
    >>
    >> http://www.mpcomp.co.uk/mpc.php?page=product&product=6048
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David

    >
    > When I saw this thread, I checked the prices of ram out of idle
    > curiosity. They're really cheap! I know what I'm shopping for on
    > Monday! 1.5GB will speed up things nicely!
    >


    For many programs, it certainly will. Even more if you like to keep
    several applications open at once.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 4, 2007
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Graeme

    Image stitching

    Graeme, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,381
    Graeme
    Aug 7, 2003
  2. LouisB

    stitching software for digital phots

    LouisB, Aug 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    541
    Bill Funk
    Aug 2, 2006
  3. RJB
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,071
  4. ChrisM

    Digital Image Stitching

    ChrisM, Oct 29, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    900
    Ron Hunter
    Nov 1, 2007
  5. ChrisM

    Digital Image Stitching II

    ChrisM, Oct 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    970
    Ron Hunter
    Nov 2, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page