Hi Ryan,
rlhelinski wrote:
> IMHO it would require the user creating a
> mask for each image so that the tools can treat the different regions
> separately, perhaps by using alpha channels. Perhaps this could be
> manifested in something like the fuzzy select tool in the GIMP.
may be a good idea too, although if Celeste can provide the masks (it
does already, and although not as fine as needed, they may be a good
starting point for some magic-wand-like tool), why do it manually?
> Also, think of the boundary conditions that could be a show stopper
> for something like this. What if you move the sky in the second row to
> line up with the first row, but you end up with an area for which you
> have no information. In the screenshot, I think this area would be to
> the left. What should the tool do then?
there will be inevitably such areas, e.g. when the sky has moved behind
a static object (such as the clock-tower in the example). Leaving the
empty area for human to fill with an image editor is what comes to my
mind as one option.
some manual touch up will be inevitable, the goal is not to eliminate
manual intervention, but to reduce it - from what it is currently (a lot
of shifting and editing all across the seam and around the border of
static objects) to something less (e.g. only around the border of static
objects, and maybe some refining of masks).
Yuv
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQTo post to this group, send email to
hugin-ptx@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
hugin-ptx-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
