My comments, questions and enhancements

[Ed Halley]

I've noticed this tendency myself.

If Hugin wanted to avoid this, would it be useful to do the equivalent
of 100 iterations of guesswork (y,p,r), get some better estimates from
that, and then try to optimize the fov and other parameters?

In the meantime, I would suggest that Hugin realize that there are
disastrous results from optimization sometimes, and not even offer the
user a chance to "Apply" those changes to the current project.  If it
could record a disaster/singularity flag in the pano or opts, then the
Druid could try to explain how the user can get better results.

On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 16:47, Bruno Postle wrote:
> On Mon 10-Nov-2003 at 04:16:23 +0100, thp wrote:
> > 
> > (5) Bug? Whenever I optimive view (v) I get a nearly perfect image with 
> > sensational deviation values far below 0! But this is the result of the 
> > optimized focal length of 1000mm. Any ideas?
> 
> PTOptimizer uses a process of trial-and-error to find the correct
> parameters for FOV (field-of-view), roll, pitch, yaw, a, b, c, d & e.
> 
> Sometimes is decides that it can fit all the images together
> perfectly by making the FOV incredibly small - This isn't very
> helpful.
> 
> Basically, you have to be careful; you should already have a close
> approximation of FOV and image position (roll, pitch & yaw) before
> you optimise FOV.
-- 
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]