2

I have a panorama that is stitched just fine by AutoPano up until it reaches a certain size. If I use only the 4 left-most pictures, I get this panorama:

enter image description here

If I add another picture to the right, i.e. expand the panorama to the right, the highlighted person on the left hand side suddenly won't be stitched together correctly anymore:

enter image description here

I fail to correct for this. Can I manually support AutoPano here? I tried stitching parts of the panorama first and then do the final picture out of the pre-stitched parts, however AutoPano does the color correction and other things on each part individually then, which makes the pictures incompatible.

2

I do not know Autopano --- but Hugin has masks to correct this problems. Hugin is not the most user friendly app, but it's really powerful and has a lot of advanced options for stiching. And it's open source, and free.

In your case, the trick is to use masks to tell the program that one part of the panorama has to come form just one image. There is a nice tutorial here: http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/Blend-masks/en.shtml

  • Even though the answer doesn't fully relate to the question, the tool you suggested is indeed a great alternative I wasn't aware about. I applied it to my pictures and got great results, the artifact didn't even show up in the first place. Thanks :) – barbaz Dec 9 '13 at 9:55
0

I do not know AutoPano, but are you able to mask parts of photos you do not want to use and/or force to use other parts?

  • Well thats basically what I'm asking for. I don't find any such feature. – barbaz Dec 8 '13 at 14:07
  • PTGui has this feature. – user1681 Dec 8 '13 at 14:28
  • Found that AutoPano Giga has this as well. So it's premium feature then. – user1681 Dec 8 '13 at 22:17
0

Although it would reduce the quality a little, you might try exporting the results of your first example using the highest quality compression settings available and then stitching the last photo to your saved image. If you could save the first effort as a 16-bit tiff, for example, you would lose very little in terms of image quality.

  • Sorry I formulated that a bit confusing, but I tried that already. The result was rather poor :( – barbaz Dec 9 '13 at 9:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.