hugin-devs team mailing list archive

[tmodes <679974@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> If I have a full person on a picture I might want to mark it as: 
>"please include all this", because otherwise enblend might cut 
> of a head or a foot. These are the red and green areas in "ptgui".

This can also be done easily by masking.

> What I was suggesting is that we use the alpha mask for both of these cases. 
> 0.5 means: blend allowed, 0.7 means prefer this image, 0.3 means 
> prefer other picture, 1.0 means This image data HAS to be used 
> (i.e. it's an error to have another image with 1.0 alpha mask at that pixel).

First, that will break existing functionality.
Second, then will need to generate accurate masks if you want to force to include a specific area. This can be done more easily by masking.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Hugin
Developers, which is subscribed to Hugin.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/679974

Title:
  Allow assignment of "image priorities"

Status in Enblend:
  Triaged
Status in Hugin - Panorama Tools GUI:
  Triaged

Bug description:
  Dear Hugin Developers,

I would love to see a feature in Hugin that allows to prioritize the usage of certain images when stitching a panorama over others.

Rationale: When I use hugin to stitch panoramas of landscapes that have significant details/features only in part of the whole panorama (like e.g. the image of desert with a tower visible, that has interesting ornaments) I use different focal lengths - short ones for the parts where little detail is to see, and zoomed images of the parts where lots of details are to see. I guess this is a common approach used by many users.

The problem is that while Hugin even detects and reports automatically there is "redundant coverage" of certain image areas, there seems to be no way to tell Hugin "Yes, I know, please prefer the long-focal-length pictures whereever available".

I can try to workaround by using the "crop" feature to crop all the wide angle pictures such that they do not overlap the zoomed in ones anymore, but that is an extremely tedious task especially if there are lots of pictures to stitch and when the difference in focal lengths is big.

I hope I haven't missed to spot an already existing feature like that, but searching for it didn't reveal any.

Regards,

Peter Niemayer