hugin-devs team mailing list archive

[Christoph Spiel <cspiel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Kay,

    I think your idea to improve Enblend or Enfuse is really
worth being implemented. In fact I find your suggestion
so stunningly obvious that I wonder why it did not garner
more interest in the newsgroup.

My plan to implement your proposal would be to code
_none_ of it directly in Enblend or Enfuse, but to supply
a public interface that enables every user (with adequate
programming skills) to add their own weighting or
whatever functions to Enblend or Enfuse dynamically,
thereby instantiating a kind of "separation of concerns"
meta-pattern.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Hugin
Developers, which is subscribed to Enblend.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/927509

Title:
  enfuse feature proposal: weighting 'technical' qualities

Status in Enblend:
  Triaged

Bug description:
  Hi all!

  Enfuse assesses the intensity values of corresponding pixels in the
  set of source images, or values derived from intensity values. Yet at
  times, it would be desirable to look at qualities which have nothing
  to do with intensity-related values. You may ask what these qualities
  might sensibly be, so let me propose a few:

  - focal length of the source image

  when stacking images done with different lenses, if priority is given
  to an image taken with a longer lens, forcing patches with higher
  resolution into a lower-res image becomes simple. Often only a section
  of the target image is covered with the longer lens - like a horizon
  sweep with a standard wide angle lens which is to be layered on top of
  a fisheye set. In this situation, actual blending of the low-res and
  high-res content is undesirable, and using a steep weighting function
  or a hard mask, this could be used to use only the high-res content
  where available. This would make the process of layering higher-res
  content simple and much more convenient than having to deal with masks
  and layers in an image processor further down the line, yet may
  provide perfectly adequate results.

  - other photographic parameters

  analogous to focal length, other parameters spring to mind which might
  be used for prioritization, as exposure time and aperture

  - additional band information

  weighting might have already been derived from some external
  mechanism. This weight might have been stored in a band of the image -
  be it an additional band specifically added for this purpose, or, for
  example, the alpha channel coerced into this function.

  - sequence in the list of input images

  currently, weighting is independent of the order of the input images.
  Yet at times it might be desirable to give more weight to some images
  than to others based on considerations which needn't concern enfuse.
  Giving weight to argument order would be a simple way of allowing
  this. Alternatively one might use

  - explicitly modified weights

  currently, weighting is 'egalitarian' insofar as a pixel which has
  'more' of a certain quality will score 'better' and only global
  statistic parameters can be used to modify this behaviour. At times
  one might wish to 'cheat' and simply prefer some images over others.
  Passing explicit weight modifying factors in the command line could
  provide for such a feature.

  - distance from nearest transparent pixel

  when blending in patches, this parameter could be used to effect a
  smooth transition into the content of the patch, like a feathering.

  so much for my bit of brain storming. I'm certain that the concept of
  'technical' weighting can produce new possibilities for enfuse, making
  it an even more verstile tool. I'd be curious to see more ideas
  following this template, as I'm sure there must be.

  You may have noticed that some of my proposals would conventionally be
  seen to belong to the blending domain rather than to the fusing
  domain. In fact both might benefit from relaxing the boundaries.
  Enblend would do well to offer parameters to prioritize certain
  content. Yet again the field where I have most missed such
  functionality is in insertion of higher-res patches, which is
  cumbersome and circuiticious in my current work flow.

  Kay

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/enblend/+bug/927509/+subscriptions