Panorama stitchers, feathering, seaming etc..

[Ed Halley]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:
> > Now we are by the numbers, take a look at cinepaint, former filmgimp. It
> > has floating point support - 96bit RGB beside traditional 8-bit and 16-bit
> > per channel integers. If we want be open to do serious HDR, which is
> > impossible even with ImageMagics 16-bit integers(48bit), an open door to
> > cinepaint would be good.

On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 02:17, Pablo d'Angelo wrote:
> I'll write all my image processing stuff with vigra, so it can be adoped to
> use any pixel type one could come up with, without touching the image
> processing code.

I don't think this is a debate hugin needs to have today, but I'll throw
one last iteration in for now.

I am leery of depending on cinepaint, though in the future it may be
good for a minority of superprofessional users.

Today, hugin + panotools is a tiny installation burden.  Cinepaint and
GIMP are massive things, and they are both in a period of flux as GIMP
reorganizes to 1.3/2.0 and cinepaint is a recently-available fork which
focused on power instead of ease of use.

We either have to be flexible and support several image batch engines,
or we have to pick the best for our purposes.  I'd balance the ease and
size with the power and complexity.  I still prefer ImageMagick in most
situations.

-- 
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]