Photoshop Elements has a feature called Photomerge that takes photos and makes them into a panoramic photo. Does Photoshop 7 have something similar that will take most of the work out of organizing and coloring the photo in order to make it a panoramic?
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
I keep getting a "need a command" prompt upon "OK"ing a photomerge. I have three files I put together but upon hitting the OK button I get a "!" window that says I need to execute a command. What am I doing wrong?
I have exactly the same problem…. It worked great earlier today and now whenever I click OK to create the merge I get a message that a it couldnt complete because a command is missing.
Adobe hasn’t released any fixes for Elements. The Preference corruption thing seems to happen in both Elements and full Photoshop on occasion. I’ve yet to figure out a pattern, and I think that’s because there isn’t one. I have noticed in the past that a corruption can occur when using some functions repeatedly, but as soon as I think I’ve figured it out something else happens to blow the theory.
Rich C had a good explanation for why the preference files needing reset. But I don’t remember it:) (surprised that is not in your knowledge base). As I recall it was not PSE causing the problem but errors in the way the OS saved them.
Oh, I think something is tickling my brain about that. I’d do a search, but I’d be here from now until Doomsday reading all of the posts on deleting Preferences! π
I am using Windows XP Pro and Elements 2. I also use Photoshop 7 and am thinking about upgrading to CS. One of the new offerings in CS absent from 7 is the Photomerge from Elements 2. But in Elements the advanced blending feature seems to have no effect at all. I also use Canon’s own Photostitch software and that equalises out all but the most harsh differences in colour/exposure automtaically on stitching. But in Elements, previewing an advanced blend shows exactly the same as the raw stitch and there’s no difference when saved. Am I doing something wrong and is it better in CS?
Mike, Try the following: (I’ve got the hiddenpower tools added (and the book) and one of the steps uses one of these tools. If you go to www.hiddenpower.com you can check this out.
1) Place the pictures into overlapped position. 2) Select the overlapped portion of one of the pictures. 3) Activate that layer. 4) In Bonus Tools (Hidden Power), select Layer Mask. 5) Select Gradient/ Foreground to Transparent. 6) Run the gradient over the selection. 7) Deselect. 8) Repeat 2)-7) for the other picture but before selecting the the other picture, place its layer on top. 9) Move the pictures closer or further away so that the blend is satisfactory.
In CS there have been some general improvements to performance in Photomerge, but I can’t say whether or not it will solve your problem. Another major improvement to Photomerge is you can now output a layered file back to Photoshop CS, which makes the whole thing much more tweakable.
Thanks. I will certainly try that. But it really shouldn’t need any hidden tools – the Canon photostitch is fabulous. Anyway, I will be getting CS for many other improvements so can try it out. Thanks again.
well Richard, I’m glad they got around to adding that layer option for ‘after’ photomerge. Hope they were generous enough to add this to the next PE version.
Something to keep in mind though with photomerge…if you read the ‘help’ section for photomerge it gives you some good pointers on how to take your shots for panoramas….’before’ using the photomerge setting.
Something funny happened on my way to this forum. π
Today I used the merge command again for the first time in several months as I had to create a panorama of the harbour of my home town. It was a very overcast sky, so ideal for shooting panoramas. I set -on a tripod- my camera to manual and produced shots with enough overlap for the merge command. Strangely all my images were darker on the left side than on the right side. It just only showed in the skies so I had to do quite a lot of blurring in these parts of the image. Nevertheless I managed to produce a lovely panorama with a length of almost 6 meters at 72 ppi. Now I’m an expert in horizontal scrolling.
Dick, I believe that’s the single most important factor. Of course, if you have a quickly changing sky with clouds moving over and then away from the sun, that’s not going to keep you out of trouble.
Chuck, I know this is a camera issue. I suppose it is a horizontal shutter, but as it is a digital camera I cannot check it by opening the camera. And I cannot find my manual for a few months. I will try to check it by shooting a white sheet of paper.
Jodi, not yet, but I will ask my webmaster to include it in my website. Within a few days it should be on line.
You’re right there. I have one I did of the mountains just west of us on a particularly blustery day. It went together very nicely except for one little glitch caused by a fast shifting cloud.
I did a pano of our harbor and had problems with boats coming and going. I had to be sure they only showed up in one frame and not in the overlap area. Everything was looking good when I was stitching and then I realized I forgot about the wake they left behind. Luckily there was only one place where it showed and I was able to work it out with the clone tool.
That is a really nice view you put together with photomerge.
I see you had sky problems that are very common. I worked on several that were shot in Colorado trying to get the sky color and contrast to match before the merge but sometimes even that does not work well. Finally selected the terrain and added the sky after the merge. I have had more problems matching overcast days than bright sunlight.
Here is an example of making a panorama with four shots wide but only 1 high. Really needed to make a second row of pictures and make the panorama from 2 high by 4 wide. (This is not a good one; Just posted so that maybe someone else might not make the same mistake).
Thanks Byron, that was about half of one I was trying with about 36 frames. I can’t do more than what I have there because I don’t have enough memory for the program to operate when the files get that large.
Yeah, I really noticed it this time when working on it. I think I cut the left most frame out when I did it before. Your idea about adding the sky is great. Another reason to take sky and cloud pix!
Yes, leaving for FL in the morning. Taking 4 memory cards, the reader and an external hard drive! Friends we’re going with have a lap top!
Should be nice for you all. Temperatures over the weekend are predicted to be in the 80’s. A slight cool down of a few degrees next week. There must be another cool front working its way through. But this time of year rain almost never happens π Have a great time.
I must get out the panoramas I took on my overseas trip last year and actually merge them… I really haven’t gone back and processed those pictures – the task of dealing with such a large number of images is a bit overwhelming and I haven’t quite got around to it – it’s easier to deal with the twenty or thirty at a time that I’ve taken since…. Going back to the original poster, I’ve actually found that with some images Canon’s software does better in merging for me. If it’s just two or three images then hand merging in Elements by copying the images onto a new document and then overlapping the separate layers and individually masking themto blend them together can give a better result….it takes too long with more than two or three though!
That is only seven of the twenty three pictures that will (someday) comprise the entire photomerge. The others have either portions of sky or all sky and I will work them seperately. This really displays how camera settings can fool you like in Leen’s earlier post.
Photostitch is also supplied with (some) Canon printers. I have found it performs amazingly well; it seems to make the join over an area rather than along a line, depending on the amount of overlap in the source images. It also deals with minor variations in brightness over the join area. I recently joined four A4 scans (2 across, 2 down in one operation) with about 20% overlaps and I just cannot find the seams. PSE produced some visible lines, and when I tried manually using feathering I still couldn’t achieve what Photostitch managed.
Thanks for that Davee, I just need to find someone who has a canon.I have had a lot of reports that it works better than photomerge so look forward to trying it
Colin, if you would care to post your email address (camoflage it slightly – %% instead of @ or something so it can’t easily be ‘farmed’ by a spammer) then I can point you to a few useful sites where you might find a Canon utilities CD available. Someone on a camera site I happened across said he/she got a copy when they bought a Canon USB camera cable – probably on the principle that if they were planning to hook up a camera that had no cable, they wouldn’t have the s/w either.
I have Photoshop Elements version 1.0.128.0 which I remember when I first started using it had the photomerge option functional. Now it is grayed out.
Did I do something, can I do something to get it back? or was this an option that expired? (haven’t been editing pictures for awhile, so I’m not sure what’s what)PE came as bundled software with my laptop.
hi all have got photoshop elements 3, when i go on photomerge and use it its ok BUT when i click on ok to exit and view my picture my comp just turns of . any body help. i have got a p4 laptop thanks
Since nothing better has come back you might as well try resetting preferences. It cures a broad range of problems.
With Elements closed go to C:\Documents and Settings\ [user] \Application Data\Adobe\Photoshop Elements (where [user] is replaced with your user name). Rename the folder 3.0 to 3.0.old. Then start Elements and the Preferences will be rebuilt to their default.
When I try do do a photomerge, I go to file > new but the only choices I get are "Blank File" and "Creation" – the "Photomerge Panorama" is grayed out.
I don’t believe that’s correct. Somebody else was having trouble getting it to work, and apparently they were running from Quick Fix instead of Standard Edit (which indicates they, too, were running 3.0 on Windows.) Here’s a link to the thread, which is very short. There’s no response from the original poster, so I’m betting narya’s response solved the problem.
Ed Gover, "Photomerge" #2, 25 May 2005 2:57 am </cgi-bin/webx?13/1>
I still say that Photomerge is not available on my version of Elements 3. It isn’t even on the File menu. Indeed, the help entry for Photomerge says (MAC only).
It could be because I have the Educational version. I don’t understand how I got that version since I accepted an offer from Adobe to upgrade from Elements 2 which I had purchase in a walk-in store.
The Help is rather confusing. Mac has Photomerge in the File Browser. On Windows, just do File/New and you get a list of options including Photomerge Panorama. Look at the Help entry for this.
Charlie, please post exactly what part of the software you’re working from and the exact steps you’re taking when trying to access Photomerge. It truly IS NOT a Mac only feature. The fact it displays as an Educational version doesn’t have anything to do with it, either.
While we’re talking about it, call Adobe Customer Service. There were some people who got a serial number tied to an Educational version, even though Adobe doesn’t produce an Educational version of Elements. I believe Adobe issued new serial numbers that removed that notation.
Colin, just to clarify, Photomerge is available from File>New from either the "editor" portion or the File Browser, plus it is available from the Browser in the way the Help files indicate. So, there are really three places to get it on the Mac side. But we also both agree it’s sure there in Windows, too!
The "Mac only" note in the Help file is against the File Browser variant, which is th efirst one to get listed. I can see why Charlie may have been confused.
If you mean a program where you can combine two, or more, images …. it’s called Adobe Photoshop. Learn Layer Masks & it’s easy. Craig Flory
I believe the OP was asking if the Photomerge feature of Photoshop CS (formerly included only in Elements) is available as a stand alone program.
The answer for the OP is no, but there are some other panorama programs out there. If you do a search using "panorama image software" you’ll find several. —————— Tom
….and expensive. The Panotool based frontends are certainly cheaper and better. Well, in my experience. I bought Stitcher EZ once and it was pure crap. It just wouldn’t stitch any of my panos together at all. Yes, Hugin tool more learning and a tad more time, but it works great.
Try Autostich – much better than the Photoshop built in one and free. It is classed as a beta, but is fully functional and extremely effective. Just look at the website for what it can do to a folder full of pictures – you do not even have to sort them! (One tip – use it on the 100% setting – best quality)
…and expensive. The Panotool based frontends are certainly cheaper and better. Well, in my experience. I bought Stitcher EZ once and it was pure crap. It just wouldn’t stitch any of my panos together at all. Yes, Hugin tool more learning and a tad more time, but it works great. Clyde
I find photomerge to work well on some but not all images. Which Panotool front-end tool are you referring to? What is the "Hugin tool"?
There is no substitute for creating a panorama in Photoshop CS or Elements 2/3.
You can do the initial merge automatically with the "Keep as Layers" option or bring in each image individually.
After the initial merge process: You can move, rotate, scale, skew each image of the panorama independently of the others while monitoring the process with mathematical precision. You can create a meandering merge seam following the best absolute trail in the Difference mode rather than being confined to a straight line seam. You can feather the seams for any degree of softness of the individual seams. You can match the tones of each image using either curves or levels while restricting your adjustments to a single image in the pano. You can edit each image independently or the panorama as a whole.
You have total control of each step and aspect of the merge while monitoring your effects with absolute precision in the Difference mode. No judgment calls or squinting involved :>)
Finally, the experience itself is a joy at every step and the result is superb!
…and expensive. The Panotool based frontends are certainly cheaper and better. Well, in my experience. I bought Stitcher EZ once and it was pure crap. It just wouldn’t stitch any of my panos together at all. Yes, Hugin tool more learning and a tad more time, but it works great. Clyde
I find photomerge to work well on some but not all images. Which Panotool front-end tool are you referring to? What is the "Hugin tool"?
On rare occasions I have got Photomerge to give me a workable stitched picture. It’s pretty rare though.
Hugin is a free frontend to Panotools. http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ That makes it a completely free pano stitching tool. My view is that you won’t get any better either. It’s way better than anything I’ve every tried – except other Panotools frontends.
There is no substitute for creating a panorama in Photoshop CS or Elements 2/3.
You can do the initial merge automatically with the "Keep as Layers" option or bring in each image individually.
After the initial merge process: You can move, rotate, scale, skew each image of the panorama independently of the others while monitoring the process with mathematical precision. You can create a meandering merge seam following the best absolute trail in the Difference mode rather than being confined to a straight line seam. You can feather the seams for any degree of softness of the individual seams. You can match the tones of each image using either curves or levels while restricting your adjustments to a single image in the pano. You can edit each image independently or the panorama as a whole. You have total control of each step and aspect of the merge while monitoring your effects with absolute precision in the Difference mode. No judgment calls or squinting involved :>)
Finally, the experience itself is a joy at every step and the result is superb!
. . . . patrick
Are you kidding? Have you tried anything else at all? Do you like beating yourself over the head with lots of work that you don’t need to do? I can’t think of a worse way to stitch panos together.
One of the big reason is that you can NOT do all the adjustments in Photoshop that you need to do for a properly stitched pano. You need to correct for lens distortion of a, b, and c. You can’t correct for all of those in Photoshop. Therefore you will drive yourself crazy trying to get exact matches for your whole picture. Well, that is unless you happened to have found the one lens in the world with no distortion.
Almost any dedicated pano stitching tool will make panos faster and better than the manual method like to torture yourself with.
I use "hugin" as a frontend to "panotools". Many people like to use "autopano" to automatically set the control points. I find that I can add control points fast and better on my own. I also use "enblend" to blend the colors and exposure. I do use the PTLens plugin in Photoshop to fix the lens distortion before I use hugin; it works faster this way. Of course, PTLens uses panotools.
Every one of these tools is absolutely free, stable, and very well tested. Together I can make panoramic pictures fairly fast, absolutely accurately, and with no visible seams at all. What more could you ask?
So quit beating yourself up and open your eyes. OTOH, if I just spent all this time answering a troll… <sigh>
Try Autostich – much better than the Photoshop built in one and free. It is classed as a beta, but is fully functional and extremely effective. Just look at the website for what it can do to a folder full of pictures – you do not even have to sort them! (One tip – use it on the 100% setting – best quality)
Just look at the demonstration example on their home page. The hiker in red in the intermediate images is clearly visible, but turns into a red blur in the "Final result" image. The snow highlights all turn gray, etc. These are only from a casual observation.
The demo also only accepts jpeg, and not psd or tiff.
Only desperate stitchers needing web displays can recommend this tool.
There is no substitute for creating a panorama in Photoshop CS or Elements 2/3.
You can do the initial merge automatically with the "Keep as Layers" option or bring in each image individually.
After the initial merge process: You can move, rotate, scale, skew each image of the panorama independently of the others while monitoring the process with mathematical precision. You can create a meandering merge seam following the best absolute trail in the Difference mode rather than being confined to a straight line seam. You can feather the seams for any degree of softness of the individual seams. You can match the tones of each image using either curves or levels while restricting your adjustments to a single image in the pano. You can edit each image independently or the panorama as a whole. You have total control of each step and aspect of the merge while monitoring your effects with absolute precision in the Difference mode. No judgment calls or squinting involved :>)
Finally, the experience itself is a joy at every step and the result is superb!
. . . . patrick
Are you kidding? Have you tried anything else at all? Do you like beating yourself over the head with lots of work that you don’t need to do? I can’t think of a worse way to stitch panos together. One of the big reason is that you can NOT do all the adjustments in Photoshop that you need to do for a properly stitched pano. You need to correct for lens distortion of a, b, and c. You can’t correct for all of those in Photoshop. Therefore you will drive yourself crazy trying to get exact matches for your whole picture. Well, that is unless you happened to have found the one lens in the world with no distortion. Almost any dedicated pano stitching tool will make panos faster and better than the manual method like to torture yourself with. I use "hugin" as a frontend to "panotools". Many people like to use "autopano" to automatically set the control points. I find that I can add control points fast and better on my own. I also use "enblend" to blend the colors and exposure. I do use the PTLens plugin in Photoshop to fix the lens distortion before I use hugin; it works faster this way. Of course, PTLens uses panotools.
Every one of these tools is absolutely free, stable, and very well tested. Together I can make panoramic pictures fairly fast, absolutely accurately, and with no visible seams at all. What more could you ask? So quit beating yourself up and open your eyes. OTOH, if I just spent all this time answering a troll… <sigh>
Clyde
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
I’m using PTGui http://www.ptgui.com/ and I am very happy with it. For 49β¬ I think it’s good value. I have tried Hugin but prefer to pay for PTGui I use Autopano -> PTGui -> Enblend
There is no substitute for creating a panorama in Photoshop CS or Elements 2/3.
You can do the initial merge automatically with the "Keep as Layers" option or bring in each image individually.
After the initial merge process: You can move, rotate, scale, skew each image of the panorama independently of the others while monitoring the process with mathematical precision. You can create a meandering merge seam following the best absolute trail in the Difference mode rather than being confined to a straight line seam. You can feather the seams for any degree of softness of the individual seams. You can match the tones of each image using either curves or levels while restricting your adjustments to a single image in the pano. You can edit each image independently or the panorama as a whole. You have total control of each step and aspect of the merge while monitoring your effects with absolute precision in the Difference mode. No judgment calls or squinting involved :>)
Finally, the experience itself is a joy at every step and the result is superb!
. . . . patrick
Are you kidding? Have you tried anything else at all? Do you like beating yourself over the head with lots of work that you don’t need to do? I can’t think of a worse way to stitch panos together. One of the big reason is that you can NOT do all the adjustments in Photoshop that you need to do for a properly stitched pano. You need to correct for lens distortion of a, b, and c. You can’t correct for all of those in Photoshop. Therefore you will drive yourself crazy trying to get exact matches for your whole picture. Well, that is unless you happened to have found the one lens in the world with no distortion. Almost any dedicated pano stitching tool will make panos faster and better than the manual method like to torture yourself with. I use "hugin" as a frontend to "panotools". Many people like to use "autopano" to automatically set the control points. I find that I can add control points fast and better on my own. I also use "enblend" to blend the colors and exposure. I do use the PTLens plugin in Photoshop to fix the lens distortion before I use hugin; it works faster this way. Of course, PTLens uses panotools.
Every one of these tools is absolutely free, stable, and very well tested. Together I can make panoramic pictures fairly fast, absolutely accurately, and with no visible seams at all. What more could you ask? So quit beating yourself up and open your eyes. OTOH, if I just spent all this time answering a troll… <sigh>
Clyde
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
Oh yes! The frontend tools make Panotools a LOT easier. I can’t imagine trying to stitch with just Panotools.
PTGui is a very popular one; it’s probably the most used. PTAssembler is also well loved. Hugin is the free one. PTMac is the one that runs on Macs. I’ve used PTMac in the past and it works great too. Actually, his support is as good as you can get for software.
They all seem to work, work well, and have lots of happy users. Try them and see what works best with your style and vision.
Not to mention overall the thing is a blur compared to the original shots.
wrote in message
Harry Limey wrote:
"Clyde" wrote in message
Marsupilami wrote:
Michael wrote:
Hello,
Is there a photomerge stand alone program ?
Try Autostich – much better than the Photoshop built in one and free. It is classed as a beta, but is fully functional and extremely effective. Just look at the website for what it can do to a folder full of pictures – you do not even have to sort them! (One tip – use it on the 100% setting – best quality)
Just look at the demonstration example on their home page. The hiker in red in the intermediate images is clearly visible, but turns into a red blur in the "Final result" image. The snow highlights all turn gray, etc. These are only from a casual observation.
The demo also only accepts jpeg, and not psd or tiff.
Only desperate stitchers needing web displays can recommend this tool.
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
Oh yes! The frontend tools make Panotools a LOT easier. I can’t imagine trying to stitch with just Panotools.
PTGui is a very popular one; it’s probably the most used. PTAssembler is also well loved. Hugin is the free one. PTMac is the one that runs on Macs. I’ve used PTMac in the past and it works great too. Actually, his support is as good as you can get for software.
They all seem to work, work well, and have lots of happy users. Try them and see what works best with your style and vision.
Clyde
I just downloaded Hugin and have yet to try it. There seems to be a note about it not being able to accept tiff files. Is that correct? Thanks.
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
I’m using PTGui http://www.ptgui.com/ and I am very happy with it. For 49Β€ I think it’s good value. I have tried Hugin but prefer to pay for PTGui I use Autopano -> PTGui -> Enblend
— Bamsen
Thanks for the reference. Why do you prefer PTGui over Hugin? What is PTGui’s support like? What are the file size and resolution of your images? Did you also try PTassembler? ~$50 is a small price to pay if the tool works better and/or is easier to use than a free one.
From the description, Enblend seems like just what I need to solve the problems I have with photomerge. Even in the (rare) cases when photomerge is able to align the component images, the tonal and color differences around the stitch borders are difficult to clean up.
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want
to
do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve
can
be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
I’m using PTGui http://www.ptgui.com/ and I am very happy with it. For 49Β€ I think it’s good value. I have tried Hugin but prefer to pay for PTGui I use Autopano -> PTGui -> Enblend
— Bamsen
Thanks for the reference. Why do you prefer PTGui over Hugin? What is PTGui’s support like? What are the file size and resolution of your images? Did you also try PTassembler? ~$50 is a small price to pay if the tool works better and/or is easier to use than a free one. From the description, Enblend seems like just what I need to solve the problems I have with photomerge. Even in the (rare) cases when photomerge is able to align the component images, the tonal and color differences around the stitch borders are difficult to clean up.
Why: I just find it more easy to use and more natural as I’m using XP instead of Linux.
Support: I have had no particular problems with PTGui so I never tried their support. But new versions are coming out at irregular intervalls with new and improved features.
Images: I use a Canon EOS 300D so my images are 2048 * 3072
Just look at the demonstration example on their home page. The hiker in red in the intermediate images is clearly visible, but turns into a red blur in the "Final result" image. The snow highlights all turn gray, etc. These are only from a casual observation.
The demo also only accepts jpeg, and not psd or tiff.
Only desperate stitchers needing web displays can recommend this tool.
I looked at the demo example and downloaded the complete image, and whilst I agree the snow is a little gray, it is gray in the original unstitched pictures too!! The Hiker is again clearly visible and so is the second Hiker (in blue and yellow) I take your point about jpg only!! but I have to say that with a number of pictures stitched (57 in the example) a compressed (smaller) image must be an advantage?? The ultimate file sizes can be tremendous. Anyway the point is – this is a smallish! Free download I suggested could be tried, that does more than some other applications I have seen, i.e..e. The pictures need not be sorted in any way – the app does all the work itself and the results appear pretty seamless. I think your comment "Only desperate stitchers needing web displays can recommend this tool." is a little judgemental from someone who would appear not to have tried it.
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
Oh yes! The frontend tools make Panotools a LOT easier. I can’t imagine trying to stitch with just Panotools.
PTGui is a very popular one; it’s probably the most used. PTAssembler is also well loved. Hugin is the free one. PTMac is the one that runs on Macs. I’ve used PTMac in the past and it works great too. Actually, his support is as good as you can get for software.
They all seem to work, work well, and have lots of happy users. Try them and see what works best with your style and vision.
Clyde
I just downloaded Hugin and have yet to try it. There seems to be a note about it not being able to accept tiff files. Is that correct? Thanks.
I feed hugin nothing but TIFF files. It works fine with TIFF.
While hugin is free, there are a few issues related to that. One is that updates don’t come out that often. That hasn’t been a problem for me as it works for what I do and I don’t really need the updates.
Another issue is that you don’t really get support – as such. You have to rely on the Internet forums to get answers. That’s not the fastest way to get answers, but often it’s better than a company’s Help Desk.
Hugin is still Beta. Everything I need work though. I’ve never been able to get it to save to all those other file formats. JPEG works and Multiple TIFF does too. Because I use Enblend, I only use the later anyway.
I doubt you will find a lot of difference between any of the Panotools frontend packages. They all have to work with Panotools. Therefore, they can’t do anything that Panotools doesn’t do. When I had a Mac, I used PTMac. When I went back to XP, I found hugin did what I wanted. So, I didn’t need to pay for PTGui or PTAssembler.
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want
to
do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve
can
be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
I’m using PTGui http://www.ptgui.com/ and I am very happy with it. For 49ΓΒ€ I think it’s good value. I have tried Hugin but prefer to pay for PTGui I use Autopano -> PTGui -> Enblend
— Bamsen
Thanks for the reference. Why do you prefer PTGui over Hugin? What is PTGui’s support like? What are the file size and resolution of your images? Did you also try PTassembler? ~$50 is a small price to pay if the tool works better and/or is easier to use than a free one. From the description, Enblend seems like just what I need to solve the problems I have with photomerge. Even in the (rare) cases when photomerge is able to align the component images, the tonal and color differences around the stitch borders are difficult to clean up.
Why: I just find it more easy to use and more natural as I’m using XP instead of Linux.
Support: I have had no particular problems with PTGui so I never tried their support. But new versions are coming out at irregular intervalls with new and improved features.
Images: I use a Canon EOS 300D so my images are 2048 * 3072 I have not tried PTAssembler.
One problem with ng postings is the lack of context. In this case, we are all guilty in not stating how we intend to use the panos and what kind of quality we are looking for.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
Oh yes! The frontend tools make Panotools a LOT easier. I can’t imagine trying to stitch with just Panotools.
PTGui is a very popular one; it’s probably the most used. PTAssembler is also well loved. Hugin is the free one. PTMac is the one that runs on Macs. I’ve used PTMac in the past and it works great too. Actually, his support is as good as you can get for software.
They all seem to work, work well, and have lots of happy users. Try them and see what works best with your style and vision.
Clyde
I just downloaded Hugin and have yet to try it. There seems to be a note about it not being able to accept tiff files. Is that correct? Thanks.
I feed hugin nothing but TIFF files. It works fine with TIFF. While hugin is free, there are a few issues related to that. One is that updates don’t come out that often. That hasn’t been a problem for me as it works for what I do and I don’t really need the updates. Another issue is that you don’t really get support – as such. You have to rely on the Internet forums to get answers. That’s not the fastest way to get answers, but often it’s better than a company’s Help Desk. Hugin is still Beta. Everything I need work though. I’ve never been able to get it to save to all those other file formats. JPEG works and Multiple TIFF does too. Because I use Enblend, I only use the later anyway. I doubt you will find a lot of difference between any of the Panotools frontend packages. They all have to work with Panotools. Therefore, they can’t do anything that Panotools doesn’t do. When I had a Mac, I used PTMac. When I went back to XP, I found hugin did what I wanted. So, I didn’t need to pay for PTGui or PTAssembler.
Clyde
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary. BTW, I’ll be stitching film scans. Will that make any difference between these tools?
Just look at the demonstration example on their home page. The hiker in red in the intermediate images is clearly visible, but turns into a red blur in the "Final result" image. The snow highlights all turn gray, etc. These are only from a casual observation.
The demo also only accepts jpeg, and not psd or tiff.
Only desperate stitchers needing web displays can recommend this tool.
I looked at the demo example and downloaded the complete image, and whilst I agree the snow is a little gray, it is gray in the original unstitched pictures too!! The Hiker is again clearly visible and so is the second Hiker (in blue and yellow)
My comments are based on viewing the images on the web page, and NOT on the downloaded full size images. To demo his tool accurately, author should either present better web page images, or ask viewers to download the full size images.
I take your point about jpg only!!
Many users operate only in jpgs, and there is nothing wrong for products to limit their file format to jpg. In the AutoStitch case, the author admits it is easy to add TIFF support, but provides no explanation why he chose not to. Perhaps he is saving this feature for the "commercial end-user version".
but I have to say that with a number of
pictures stitched (57 in the example) a compressed (smaller) image must be an advantage?? The ultimate file sizes can be tremendous. Anyway the point is – this is a smallish! Free download I suggested could be tried, that does more than some other applications I have seen, i.e..e. The pictures need not be sorted in any way – the app does all the work itself and the results appear pretty seamless.
People provide free software for different reasons. Some, like Hugin, are open source and full featured. Those like the AutoStitch demo are feature clipped on purpose in anticipation of a commercial product later. At this stage of development, these authors are asking demo users to product and market test their products for free. The approach is very different from providing demos with clipped features of fully developed commercial products.
I think your comment "Only desperate stitchers needing web displays can recommend this tool." is a little judgemental from someone who would appear not to have tried it.
I feed hugin nothing but TIFF files. It works fine with TIFF. While hugin is free, there are a few issues related to that. One is that updates don’t come out that often. That hasn’t been a problem for me as it works for what I do and I don’t really need the updates. Another issue is that you don’t really get support – as such. You have to rely on the Internet forums to get answers. That’s not the fastest way to get answers, but often it’s better than a company’s Help Desk. Hugin is still Beta. Everything I need work though. I’ve never been able to get it to save to all those other file formats. JPEG works and Multiple TIFF does too. Because I use Enblend, I only use the later anyway. I doubt you will find a lot of difference between any of the Panotools frontend packages. They all have to work with Panotools. Therefore, they can’t do anything that Panotools doesn’t do. When I had a Mac, I used PTMac. When I went back to XP, I found hugin did what I wanted. So, I didn’t need to pay for PTGui or PTAssembler.
Clyde
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary. BTW, I’ll be stitching film scans. Will that make any difference between these tools?
Nope. Once it’s a digital file the software doesn’t care. Well, with one exception. You may want to optimize for "d" and "e" too. Those are there specifically for scanned film.
I certainly stitched plenty of scanned film on PTMac in the old days. If you scan at a very high resolution, the files will be very big. This will slow down Panotools.
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary. BTW, I’ll be stitching film scans. Will that make any difference between these tools?
Nope. Once it’s a digital file the software doesn’t care. Well, with one exception. You may want to optimize for "d" and "e" too. Those are there specifically for scanned film.
I certainly stitched plenty of scanned film on PTMac in the old days. If you scan at a very high resolution, the files will be very big. This will slow down Panotools.
Is the trade off in image quality v. time taken worth it?
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
I feed hugin nothing but TIFF files. It works fine with TIFF. While hugin is free, there are a few issues related to that. One is that updates don’t come out that often. That hasn’t been a problem for me as it works for what I do and I don’t really need the updates. Another issue is that you don’t really get support – as such. You have to rely on the Internet forums to get answers. That’s not the fastest way to get answers, but often it’s better than a company’s Help Desk. Hugin is still Beta. Everything I need work though. I’ve never been able to get it to save to all those other file formats. JPEG works and Multiple TIFF does too. Because I use Enblend, I only use the later anyway. I doubt you will find a lot of difference between any of the Panotools frontend packages. They all have to work with Panotools. Therefore, they can’t do anything that Panotools doesn’t do. When I had a Mac, I used PTMac. When I went back to XP, I found hugin did what I wanted. So, I didn’t need to pay for PTGui or PTAssembler.
Clyde
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary. BTW, I’ll be stitching film scans. Will that make any difference between these tools?
Nope. Once it’s a digital file the software doesn’t care. Well, with one exception. You may want to optimize for "d" and "e" too. Those are there specifically for scanned film.
Don’t know what those mean yet, but will keep that in mind.
I certainly stitched plenty of scanned film on PTMac in the old days. If you scan at a very high resolution, the files will be very big. This will slow down Panotools.
That’s for sure. I only scan and edit very few of my slides, and I’m used to the huge files (~GB) in PS after adding layers, etc and slow edits. My first panos will only be from a couple of frames each. I expect PT to be slow and the panos to be big, but my real worry is how much worse it will be in PS.
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary. BTW, I’ll be stitching film scans. Will that make any difference between these tools?
Nope. Once it’s a digital file the software doesn’t care. Well, with one exception. You may want to optimize for "d" and "e" too. Those are there specifically for scanned film.
I certainly stitched plenty of scanned film on PTMac in the old days. If you scan at a very high resolution, the files will be very big. This will slow down Panotools.
Is the trade off in image quality v. time taken worth it? —
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
Of course, the answer is "it depends". I still only have my old Minolta Scan Dual II film/slide scanner. It’s max resolution is 2880 dpi. I always thought that was enough – even for sharp Velvia and Kodachrome slides. I know there are people who insist on 4000 dpi. Every way I could evaluate it, the 2880 scans seems to get all the information that was there.
I guess a big question is: what are you going to do with the image? If you are going to print 8x10s, you certainly don’t need 4000 dpi. You may not need 2880. If you are stitching 9 pictures to print at 8×23", you probably don’t need as much dpi scanning as you think. If you are going to print that at 17×44" then 2880 scanning would probably be worth it, and maybe more.
Don’t forget that stitching pano together tends to smooth out grain and noise. You and Panotools work hard to line up all the features in your pictures. However all your grain (from film) and noise (digital) overlaps. I normally shoot for 50% overlap. That means that the grain/noise gets smoothed out pretty nicely. A little Noise Ninja after finishes it.
In short, it’s better to have a tad more quality than you need. It’s a waste to have way more quality than you need. It’s a shame to have less quality than you need. Therefore, test everything to know what quality you can get and honestly evaluate what quality you need.
Sorry, it’s not a firm answer, but very little in life is.
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary.
[snip]
[Hecate] Is the trade off in image quality v. time taken worth it? —
Howdo, Hecate! I suggest we might consider additional arguments for the PS step-by-step procedure. For example: first, gaining an understanding of the process and, second, the sheer delight in doing it.
I was still in an Elements 3 frame of mind when I suggested the manual, linked layers method as superior to automated processes. I had just finished a tutorial for an Elements 3 query and will stand by my comments as addressed to that population.. The manual process would also introduce the neophyte to the Difference Layers Mode, the Transform function, mask manipulation, linked layers and some other tools in an object-oriented exercise.
While I appreciate the leads to the Pano Tools, and do not dispute their power and efficacy, I enjoy doing the photo merging process manually. I do not consider it as banging my head against the wall but as an adventure in awe.
One reason is that I would argue for an understanding and mastering of the step-by-step procedure before invoking an automated process, regardless of the comparative results. Just as I would advise anyone initially to forego the PS Auto Levels function for Curves operating on individual channels — regardless of the comparative results.
Even more compelling is that the process itself is fun! I delight watching a merge seam simply –not disappear — but evaporate! and am constantly amazed at the power of the software that the developers have brought us.
For me, the process is as rewarding as the product.
That being said, I am about to install PT.
Always nice to read your inputs, Hecate! cu . . . . patrick
Sorry, it’s not a firm answer, but very little in life is.
No, but it’s a useful answer. I habitually scan at my maximum dpi simply because it gives me a digital neg that I can repurpose for anything (Scan Elite, so that’s 5400 dpi) and I find the higher scanning level to be useful. But then I’m often looking at making large prints, small prints, web images and so on all from the same image. The extra dpi is useful for the larger images, and doesn’t matter for the smaller, but does ensure I’ve got the maximum available information.
It means, from your answer that I’ll give it a try. Thanks π
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:19:04 GMT, "patrick" wrote:
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:14:06 -0500, Clyde wrote:
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary.
[snip]
[Hecate] Is the trade off in image quality v. time taken worth it? —
Howdo, Hecate! I suggest we might consider additional arguments for the PS step-by-step procedure. For example: first, gaining an understanding of the process and, second, the sheer delight in doing it.
Yes, it’s nice to produce those sorts of images, but…
For me, the process is as rewarding as the product.
For me the process is to get prints that are marketable. Consequently, time is a factor. Time spent doing extra work on an image is time not spent either with my camera or marketing images I already have. It doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy what I’m doing, it just means that I need to create a balance between what I’m doing.
That being said, I am about to install PT.
<g> Hope you enjoy using it. π
Always nice to read your inputs, Hecate! cu . . . . patrick
Thanks Patrick. I try to make constructive comments where people will let me (And where my buttons haven’t been pressed <g>).
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:19:04 GMT, "patrick" wrote: [snip]
Yes, it’s nice to produce those sorts of images, but…
For me, the process is as rewarding as the product.
For me the process is to get prints that are marketable. Consequently, time is a factor. Time spent doing extra work on an image is time not spent either with my camera or marketing images I already have. It doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy what I’m doing, it just means that I need to create a balance between what I’m doing. Hecate – The Real One
You’re going to *love* retirement, Hecate! .. . . .patrick
…and expensive. The Panotool based frontends are certainly cheaper and better. Well, in my experience. I bought Stitcher EZ once and it was pure crap. It just wouldn’t stitch any of my panos together at all. Yes, Hugin tool more learning and a tad more time, but it works great. Clyde
Have to agree with Mr Houba Houba, Stitcher rocks! I am producing 5 feet long, perfect panoramas with it. Anything else simply doesn’t work, even the so very geeky Panotools.
There is no substitute for creating a panorama in Photoshop CS or Elements 2/3.
You can do the initial merge automatically with the "Keep as Layers" option or bring in each image individually.
After the initial merge process: You can move, rotate, scale, skew each image of the panorama independently of the others while monitoring the process with mathematical precision. You can create a meandering merge seam following the best absolute trail in the Difference mode rather than being confined to a straight line seam. You can feather the seams for any degree of softness of the individual seams. You can match the tones of each image using either curves or levels while restricting your adjustments to a single image in the pano. You can edit each image independently or the panorama as a whole. You have total control of each step and aspect of the merge while monitoring your effects with absolute precision in the Difference mode. No judgment calls or squinting involved :>)
Finally, the experience itself is a joy at every step and the result is superb!
. . . . patrick
That’s true and nice if you have a day or two to spend on a panorama. Otherwise you throw the images a Stitcher who will output a nice PSD with layer masks in minutes and use PS to do some minor touch up.
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
Just between you and me: look at your "fine art"om an angle and enjoy the beauty of Metamerism. The 2200 is a terrible printer!
PanoTools is awful to learn and doesn’t work to assemble panos. It is very good a correcting lens distortions but that’s about it
I’m using PTGui http://www.ptgui.com/ and I am very happy with it. For 49Β€ I think it’s good value. I have tried Hugin but prefer to pay for PTGui I use Autopano -> PTGui -> Enblend
Oh , PTgui… Isn’t it fun to place little marks on your images to tell the software where similar points are on adjacent pictures for about twenty minutes only to find out that the end result is complete garbage? Try Stitcher and see how things can/should work
Oh yes! The frontend tools make Panotools a LOT easier. I can’t imagine trying to stitch with just Panotools.
PTGui is a very popular one; it’s probably the most used. PTAssembler is also well loved. Hugin is the free one. PTMac is the one that runs on Macs. I’ve used PTMac in the past and it works great too. Actually, his support is as good as you can get for software.
They all seem to work, work well, and have lots of happy users. Try them and see what works best with your style and vision.
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary. BTW, I’ll be stitching film scans. Will that make any difference between these tools?
No, they won’t work, no matter what you throw at them π
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary.
[snip]
[Hecate] Is the trade off in image quality v. time taken worth it? —
Howdo, Hecate! I suggest we might consider additional arguments for the PS step-by-step procedure. For example: first, gaining an understanding of the process and, second, the sheer delight in doing it.
I was still in an Elements 3 frame of mind when I suggested the manual, linked layers method as superior to automated processes. I had just finished a tutorial for an Elements 3 query and will stand by my comments as addressed to that population.. The manual process would also introduce the neophyte to the Difference Layers Mode, the Transform function, mask manipulation, linked layers and some other tools in an object-oriented exercise.
While I appreciate the leads to the Pano Tools, and do not dispute their power and efficacy, I enjoy doing the photo merging process manually. I do not consider it as banging my head against the wall but as an adventure in awe.
One reason is that I would argue for an understanding and mastering of the step-by-step procedure before invoking an automated process, regardless of the comparative results. Just as I would advise anyone initially to forego the PS Auto Levels function for Curves operating on individual channels — regardless of the comparative results.
Even more compelling is that the process itself is fun! I delight watching a merge seam simply –not disappear — but evaporate! and am constantly amazed at the power of the software that the developers have brought us. For me, the process is as rewarding as the product.
That being said, I am about to install PT.
Always nice to read your inputs, Hecate! cu . . . . patrick
You can’t stitch a panorama with a tool that doesn’t let you correct lens distortions! Try a nice ocean pano to see what I mean: you’ll have a very bumpy horizon line.
Thanks. I’ll start with Hugin, and will try PTGui or PTAssembler if necessary. BTW, I’ll be stitching film scans. Will that make any difference between these tools?
No, they won’t work, no matter what you throw at them π Stephan
I think you were using them wrong. I and MANY others make successful and perfect panos all the time with Panotools and its frontends. I get panos with a couple of images to a full 360 degrees. I get them with my Manfrotto pano head on a tripod AND I get them with handheld shooting. I get everything lines up right with no alignment seems. Using Enblend, I get not color or shading seems either. I get flat horizons and straight buildings.(Ocean horizons are easy; that’s a nice straight line.) i.e. They are perfect.
I have read that plenty of people get just as good of panoramic stitching with Stitcher. However, I’ll be damned if I pay $500 to do the same thing I’m doing now for free. Yes, it took a bit of learning, but learning is fun. Besides, I’m smart.
If I was stitching every day, I might be able to justify the $500, but not at once every week or three.
I and MANY others make successful and perfect panos all the time with Panotools and its frontends. I get panos with a couple of images to a full 360 degrees. I get them with my Manfrotto pano head on a tripod AND I get them with handheld shooting. I get everything lines up right with no alignment seems. Using Enblend, I get not color or shading seems either.
MANY people are perfectly happy with very low quality output. Generating a crappy little 200 x 200px, 360 pano is easy, now try a 20" by 5 foot print.
I get flat horizons and straight
buildings.(Ocean horizons are easy; that’s a nice straight line.) i.e. They are perfect.
No, horizons are not easy and the vast majority of them in stitched panos are bumpy. All lenses introduce distortion, most digital prosumers a plagued by the "evil mustache". Show me one you made.so I can see what you call "perfect"
I have read that plenty of people get just as good of panoramic stitching with Stitcher. However, I’ll be damned if I pay $500 to do the same thing I’m doing now for free.
Funny to see you post this on a forum dedicated to a piece of software priced over $500. Did you get PS for free or are you using the Gimp?
Yes, it took a bit of learning, but
learning is fun. Besides, I’m smart.
If you say so… I couldn’t tell by your post.
If I was stitching every day, I might be able to justify the $500, but not at once every week or three.
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:46:24 GMT, "patrick" wrote:
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:19:04 GMT, "patrick" wrote: [snip]
Yes, it’s nice to produce those sorts of images, but…
For me, the process is as rewarding as the product.
For me the process is to get prints that are marketable. Consequently, time is a factor. Time spent doing extra work on an image is time not spent either with my camera or marketing images I already have. It doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy what I’m doing, it just means that I need to create a balance between what I’m doing. Hecate – The Real One
You’re going to *love* retirement, Hecate! . . . .patrick
LOL! Nope – I’m just growing old disgracefully π
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
I have been making fine art quality prints on an Epson 2200, and want to do the same with panos. I have tried similar photomerge techniques suggested by Patrick, and concur with Clyde that the effort is indeed like "beating yourself over the head with lots of work" AND producing poor results most of the time.
I have read that PanoTools is the way to go, but the learning curve can be steep. Do these free frontend tools make the job easier? There are also a few paid frontend tools. Are they any easier?
Just between you and me: look at your "fine art"om an angle and enjoy the beauty of Metamerism. The 2200 is a terrible printer!
As for the metamerism, the new 2400 apparently deals with that problem. As for the 2100, I disagree – it produces good colour prints, and will producer good B&W if you use it correctly, have a custom printer profile, and for the best results, use something like the Permajet B&W inks. Oh, and the metamerism isn’t conssitent – it depends on the image and how it’s shown.
—
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
As for the metamerism, the new 2400 apparently deals with that problem. As for the 2100, I disagree – it produces good colour prints, and will producer good B&W if you use it correctly, have a custom printer profile, and for the best results, use something like the Permajet B&W inks. Oh, and the metamerism isn’t conssitent – it depends on the image and how it’s shown.
Yes the colors are OK but as soon as you look at your print from an angle it looks like a polarized photo. The new generation of Epson printers, as you said, supposedly fixed that problem. Of course, they came out just after I got the 7600 π
…and expensive. The Panotool based frontends are certainly cheaper and better. Well, in my experience. I bought Stitcher EZ once and it was pure crap. It just wouldn’t stitch any of my panos together at all. Yes, Hugin tool more learning and a tad more time, but it works great. Clyde
Have to agree with Mr Houba Houba, Stitcher rocks! I am producing 5 feet long, perfect panoramas with it. Anything else simply doesn’t work, even the so very geeky Panotools. Stephan
You will damn me I won it as a prize in a contest… erk erk erk
…and expensive. The Panotool based frontends are certainly cheaper and better. Well, in my experience. I bought Stitcher EZ once and it was pure crap. It just wouldn’t stitch any of my panos together at all. Yes, Hugin tool more learning and a tad more time, but it works great. Clyde
Have to agree with Mr Houba Houba, Stitcher rocks! I am producing 5 feet long, perfect panoramas with it. Anything else simply doesn’t work, even the so very geeky Panotools. Stephan
You will damn me I won it as a prize in a contest… erk erk erk
Ok! mais pas de suite…Je ne poste pas de chez moi en ce moment… be patient and I’ll be…;-) (juste une note, je ne suis ABSOLUMENT pas dans la profession)
Crotte, c’est bdoo, pas beedoo dans l’adresse. Fais pas de complexe pour la "porfession"
Finally, the experience itself is a joy at every step and the result is superb! . . . . patrick
That’s true and nice if you have a day or two to spend on a panorama. Otherwise you throw the images a Stitcher who will output a nice PSD with layer masks in minutes and use PS to do some minor touch up. Stephan
Are you referring to the $520 REALVIZ Stitcher ? .. . . . patrick
That’s true and nice if you have a day or two to spend on a panorama. Otherwise you throw the images a Stitcher who will output a nice PSD with layer masks in minutes and use PS to do some minor touch up. Stephan
Are you referring to the $520 REALVIZ Stitcher ? . . . . patrick
Yes, that one. I agree, it is very expensive but try it and see what it can do.
The photoshop CS feature photomerge does not allow me to zoom enough to do accurate merging of images. Is there any way around this? thanks tom
Yes, use a good stitching program. Well, I’ve never found Photomerge very useful. I’ve only found a few times where simple panoramics could be stitched together to look right. About the only thing you can do it drop a picture in about the right place and let the program line things up. If it doesn’t… oh well. Photomerge doesn’t do a lot of the image distortion that the more powerful stitchers do.
The standard in stitching is PanoTools. It is a freeware program that is very powerful. You can do almost any kind of stitching with it. However, it has a huge learning curve and almost no one uses it directly. There are some frontend programs that make it significantly easier to use.
PTGui and PTAssembler are the two most popular shareware frontends for PT. They have lots of fans and users. Hugin is a freeware frontend that is similar. I use Hugin and find that it works very well. Of course, it’s support and development speed aren’t anything like the two shareware programs.
There is still a learning curve for these programs. There are Web sites that will help you through it. However, you will still will spend hours learning how to use them. When you do, you can get great panoramics pictures.
Of course, there are other programs that you can buy that have their fans too. Panoramic Factory is one that gets recommended a lot. I haven’t used it, but it doesn’t cost much either. Every now and then someone brags up REALVIZ Stitcher, but at $500 there aren’t too many people that use it. OK, people that have to do stitching professionally jump on that $500 program. I did try their EZ version and it was crap; zero successful stitches.
Re. CS3/OS 10.4.11 – Attempting to use Photomerge:
When usinge Photomerge with my files open it informs me that JAVA SCRIPT is missing on every image I click on and does not load. Can anyone advise me what this means and how to rectify this problem? All help much appreciated. Keith Trumbo
Dear Buko, Excuse my ignorance! How to create New User without interfering with my ID info on the G4? "Trashing your perfs" ? What & Where do I find this? Thanks for your patience. K.Trumbo
Hi Buko, Did all of the above but still get ‘Java Script Missing message’.
I should have mentioned that everytime I open CS3 I get this warning: "One or more files in the Adobe App.Support folder,necessary for running Photoshop,are missing.Please run the Photoshop installer and re-install Photoshop"
Now I did this awhile back but it made no difference but maybe I didn’t do correctly. Could this be the source of the missing Java Script? Again all I’m trying to use is Photomerge.
I deleted CS3 and loaded a new copy CS3 10.0.1 Now on opening I do not get the previous warning that anything is missing but on trying to use Photomerge I still get the notice that " JAVA SCRIPT IS MISSING" and it goes no further. Although I did upload a new copy , before I deleted the corrupted CS3 I removed the 2 following folders – Plug Ins & Presets’ I did this to save much time on having to reload all again. Could have either of these two folders have a fault in that would effect only Photomerge? At this point I feel like I should just give up on it but still appreciate any comments you might have. Keith Trumbo
I used the CS3 CD Uninstaller first & then Reloaded CS3 10.0 from same disc. Then I downloaded the Update to 10.0.1.
The two things though I did before using the Uninstaller was to save the old Plug Ins Folder & the Preferences Folder. After I Reloaded the new CS3 I exchanged those two folders. Maybe it was OK doing that with the Plug Ins Folder but most likely not the Preferences Folder. As I’m not in my studio I haven’t been able to do try again. Also after Reloading the new CS3 , on opening it I tried to update from the software but had problems. I opened the Software Preferences and Deleted things like "GO to Meeting" for Bridge that have never worked properly for me and kept the parts to be Updated to a minimum. But it still didn’t work properly on downloading with various warnings that the Updates couldn’t load. Therefore I went to the Adobe site and downloaded the Update 10.0.1. from there and that worked.
So again it’s all about not being able to use Photomerge due to "Java Script missing" warning. I appologise though for having to make this reply so lengthy and thank you for your assistance. Keith Trumbo
I used the CS3 CD Uninstaller first & then Reloaded CS3 10.0 from same disc. Then I downloaded the Update to 10.0.1.
The two things though I did before using the Uninstaller was to save the old Plug Ins Folder & the Preferences Folder. After I Reloaded the new CS3 I exchanged those two folders. Maybe it was OK doing that with the Plug Ins Folder but most likely not the Preferences Folder. As I’m not in my studio I haven’t been able to do try again. Also after Reloading the new CS3 , on opening it I tried to update from the software but had problems. I opened the Software Preferences and Deleted things like "GO to Meeting" for Bridge that have never worked properly for me and kept the parts to be Updated to a minimum. But it still didn’t work properly on downloading with various warnings that the Updates couldn’t load. Therefore I went to the Adobe site and downloaded the Update 10.0.1. from there and that worked.
So again it’s all about not being able to use Photomerge due to "Java Script missing" warning. I appologise though for having to make this reply so lengthy and thank you for your assistance. Keith Trumbo
RE. Photomerge not working properly on my Desktop G4:
I’ve just discovered that the CS3 on my home laptop works perfectly i.e. when using Photomerge I get no warning that Java Script is missing.
Question:
If I use the CS3 CD to Uninstall the CS3 on my Desktop G4 and then transfer my G4 Laptop CS3 to replace it ( instead of reloading from the CS3 CD which does solve the missing Java Script problem) does anyone know what issues might occur?
If I do this and still get the Java Script missing issue when using Photomerge this would explain why loading it from the CS3 CD does not work but am hoping that it resolves the issue.
As soon as back at the Studio it will give me something to do …. nothing like a good spring cleaning to start the New Year ! Will follow up when done to let you know the result.
The mystery continues ! I did as you said: Uninstalled CS3 with the CS3 disc and then Installed a new CS3. I did not save any folders from the previous software.
I decided that before I updated to 10.0.1 I would try the Photomerge. I opened 2 NEF images first. Tried Photomerge got the same warning:"JavaScript was missing". Closed those 2 images and tried 2 JPEG’s and got same warning again.
I have now Updated to 10.0.1 and tried Photomerge again: still get warning and will not work.
I’m now at a complete loss of what to do. I am though going to try a few other Photoshop apps in the Automate part to see if there’s any other problems.
Do you have any old plug-ins installed in Photoshop, or a different group of applications installed on the two computers? When you uninstalled, you used the Uninstaller. But there is also a downloadable Clean Script that may ferret out additional components that weren’t caught in the Uninstall.
You should check this folder:[Install directory]/Adobe Photoshop CS3/Presets/Scripts If following files exist: Merge To HDR.jsx Fit Image.jsx Photomerge.jsx
I downloaded from Apple the last Java Update for 10.4.11/Tiger but on trying to load the software it informed me that I did not need it and would not load.
Also since then through advice from Ping Zheng on a previous posting I checked to see in CS3/Presets/Scripts if the following were listed and they are. Merge To HDR.jsx Fit Image.jsx Photomerge.jsx
Hi Neil, I finally used Clean Script /Level 1 after using the Adobe CS3 Uninstaller. Reloaded CS3 from the disc. Before Updating to 10.0.1 I tried Photomerge. Still says Java Script is missing. Only the following does not work Merge To HDR.jsx Fit Image.jsx Photomerge.jsx My G4 Laptop works fine with CS3…no problems. I could erase my G4 Desktop HD and copying my G4’s HD but seems so radical a move for so little needs. For my own sanity I may come to terms with this simply by using my Laptop when I need these 4 Actions and accept the fact that my Desktop CS3 has this flaw. Thank everyone for their advice. Regards, Keith Trumbo
Do you mean ARCHIVE? I am using Tiger. I have the OS X Disc but will I still be able to update that to 10.4.11.? Now that Leopard is out I wasn’t sure.
I Archived and Installed the OS X Tiger and before running the software update I took a chance just to see if Photomerge would work…..and it did….NO javascript missing warnings!
Tomorrow will Update Software.
Thank you all – Nini TjΓ€der, Neil Keller, Ping Zheng & especially Buko !
I agree with Buko about doing an Archive & Install Β but I suggest doing the subsequent upgrade a little differently:
Go to the Apple site and download the latest 10.4.11 Combo Update to your HD and install from there instead of using Software Update. It can save a lot of trouble.
Also, disconnect any external HDs before you do these software installations.
disconnect any external HDs before you do these software installations.
This is one of those documented items in the ReadMe files that is easy to overlook. But it could make a difference in the success of your installation.
I haven’t checked lately, but I believe this also includes other peripherals, such as printers and scanners.
Thank you for your advice. As suggested by Neil also re. disconnecting external HD’s…now I’m really interested to find out why!
Regarding your mentioning "Go to the Apple site and download the latest 10.4.11 Combo Update to your HD and install from there instead of using Software Update. It can save a lot of trouble" —-can you abreviate why it is better? Is this something particular to Apple ?
Hi Ramon, Thank you for that gem of information! I have another desktop G4 that I would also like to UNINSTALL & REINSTALL the OS X Tiger 10.4.06 but it only has a CD read/write. I tried using a La Cie CD/DVD read/write external burner but the Apple DVD will not mount! The La Cie handles all other DVD’s but not this Tiger disc.(Disc works fine in my G4 Laptop). My question: a) Could I firewire/Target this older G4 to my newer G4 that has an internal DVD read/write, Load the Tiger DVD into the newer one, choose the older one on the disc and Uninstall & Reinstall that way ? or b) Firewire/Target the older G4 using my G4 laptop doing the same as above ? Yes I will Update with the Combo through Apple Downloads. Regards, Keith Trumbo
Even though I’m using a five-year old machine myself, I have to say that what you describe sounds positively pre-historic. π
My Dual Bootable DP MDD 1.25GHz G4, built in March of 2003, has two internal SuperDrives, both capable of reading and writing DVDs. You can buy an internal SuperDrive for about $35 from OWC (http://www.otherworldcomputing.com/).
To be perfectly honest, I’ve never had a need to use Target Mode for any reason, so I can’t answer your questions.
Does the Apple DVD mount if you start with the D key held down?
Hi Ramon This G4 is about 4 years old…given to me by a writer and I use it’s as a spare in times of crashes etc.Usually I can load it through the La Cie but I will try your suggestion on holding the D key down.Given your previous answer I had a feelubh that you would come up with an idea…thanks!
Are you referring to Keith’s machine? Mine was a BTO built in March of 2003, and it came with two SuperDrives that work with any DVD. Keith says his box is only 4 years old.
a super-drive which read/wrote to either CDs or to DVD RAM disks and i don’t think that they work with regular DVDs
Not sure I understand that. Regular DVDs as opposed to what?
CD/DVD Superdrives were introduced in 2001 (Macworld).
If your machine is only 4 years old there is NO reason, short of a malfunctioning drive or faulty media, that it isnΒt capable of reading/writing CD/DVDs.
Fact is, the Mac was the first to market with DVD disk burning capabilities, much to the chagrin of PC users. My 2001 Mac with the Superdrive was the envy of my friends.
Some could read all DVDs but not burn them depending on model. My then G4 with shiny front and noisy fans was one of those. Had an external DVD burner for that one.
Well, I’d certainly wander over to otherworldcomputing.com re: replacement DVD drives, check compatibility with your computer, and spend the $30-$35 for this fairly easy DIY project. It’s about 10-15 minutes work, tops. But, you may need to purchase Roxio Toast or other software so the drive is recognized by your computer.
Thanks for the info. Up till now it hasn’t been important as only used as an emergency backup but this is a great idea. Actually thought it would be more difficult to change but thanks for the inspiration…will do as soon as I have a moment.
Truth is I was thinking of getting rid of this G4 but if it’s that cheap to change to a DVD it’s definitely worth keeping.
BTW, Keith, if the old drive is CD only, obviously it will not recognize DVD media — but this drive is atypical for a 2004 computer.
The otherworldcomputing.com site has reference material including instructions on replacement drives you should familiarize yourself with before purchasing. That said I’ve installed four Pioneer replacement drives in recent years in G4 and G5 desktops without a hitch.
Thanks again for all the info! Will have a go at changing it as soon as I have a moment free but again thanks for the inspiration! Regards Keith Trumbo
