[ptx] Thoughts on autopano and nona

[Ed Halley]

I would much rather have an "Eraser Mode" in Hugin, where I could just
delete *all* of the control points within a modest radius from the
cursor as I drag the mouse.  Then I could easily scrub the areas which I
know will be problematic:  clouds, people, swaying branches, and other
control-point hazards.

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 07:58, Benoit Posté wrote:
>     Very good ideas indeed. I was thinking along similar lines lately 
> while working on a panorama, mumbling to myself, adding some control 
> points by hand or trying to fix a chopped pedestrian. That said, I'd 
> never have been able to express it that clearly :) .
> 
>     I have no idea how easy or complex it'd be to implement those two 
> suggestions ... but it'd sure be nice to have them :) .
> 
>     Benoit.
> 
> HaJo Schatz wrote:
> 
> > Some, maybe simple-minded, thoughts I recently came up with after
> > stitching quite a few panos in a row:
> > 
> > Most of my panos feature landscapes, usually having sky with clouds at the
> > top. Seems that autopano loves to find matches in clouds - something which
> > is probably not a good idea, especially at windy days. For landscapes,
> > wouldn't it make sense to prioritize points in the vertical middle of the
> > image, thinking that both moving clouds and features at the bottom
> > (usually close-by, assuming hand-held shooting) should be avoided? Maybe
> > this could be overridden by a cmd-line switch for multi-row panos (which I
> > guess the average user doesn't make many of) and non-landscapes. For
> > non-landscapes, I guess that most people will anyhow use a panohead, and
> > then I assume it doesn't really matter that much where the points are
> > located.
> > 
> > And then there are these pedestrians which always just wait for me to
> > shoot and then they start running around! Quite frequently, however, I
> > have them on a clean shot on one picture, while they completely
> > disappeared on the next. It now appears that nona _loves_ to put the seam
> > right through such a moving target, cutting it into half. It seems that a
> > lot of information is, due to overlap, available twice. Couldn't nona
> > support a "preferred picture" where eg I could say "picture 2 has
> > precedence over picture 3 for the redundant area" or vice versa. That way,
> > I could possibly control whether the pedestrian is fully visible or gone.
> > 
> > Other than that, as always, all thumbs up!
> > 
> > 
> 
-- 
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]