[ptx] Nona vs. PTStitcher accuracy

[Mike Runge]

I didn't managed till now to save my edits in a multiplane tiff using gimp or
any other software. That's my major concern against the
hugin->nona_multilayer_tiff->gimp->enblend workflow, otherwise I would really
like to go that way.

The nona multilayer tiff format is very special, because:
- it's a tiff with multiple layers of differents sizes
- it contains the transformation information for each layer

Gimp 2 can read that format properly, but unfortunately it cannot write it
:-( So you will be able to read and edit the nona multlayer output, but you
cannot save your work except exporting each layer into a single fullsize Tiff
:-(

best, mike

 
On 8/19/2004, "JD Smith" <jdsmith at as.arizona.edu> wrote:

>On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 14:16, Pablo d'Angelo wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, John Bäckstrand wrote:
>>
>> > Am I right in believing that PTStitcher has got much better accuracy
>> > than nona? I get pretty serious "jaggies" between images with nona, and
>> > a much better result (almots perfect) with PTStitcher, on the same
>> > panorama. Is this rounding-errors or something else?
>>
>> Hmm, nona uses a different algorithm to create the seams. Haven't
>> implemented soft seams, I just use multiple tiff and run enblend.
>
>Has any progress been made on getting Enblend to work with the
>multi-plane TIFF output of nona?  Did the patch for this submitted by
>Edouard Gomez get integrated into the main source.  Do the alpha editing
>tricks for getting Enblend to ignore certain areas of images work with
>the multi-plane TIFF (I suppose Gimp2 still can't write them?).
>
>Thanks,
>
>JD
>
>
>