Vuescan trouble with Xpan images and Canoscan FS4000

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steff
  • Start date Start date
Steff said:
I have trouble getting the colors of the to scanned halfs of my Xpan
frames to match when i do my stitching does anyone have the perfect
solution??
Click to expand...

Lock anything. That is: Lock exposure and if you use media type slide,
lock film base color, too. In other words: use advanced workflow (see
manual). In addition Lock image color and don't use Restore fading and
Restore colors on the filter tab.

I do scanning for panorama stitching and get matching colors most of
the time. The only differences I get are due to lens flare if the sun
shines into the lens.
 
Steff said:
I have trouble getting the colors of the to scanned halfs of my Xpan
frames to match when i do my stitching does anyone have the perfect
solution??
Please follow this link to view image samples of the problem.
http://hem.bredband.net/evapeva/xpan/

Best regards/Stefan
Click to expand...

I took this opportunity to try out some software I got recently. I
downloaded your two parts and put them through the automatic settings in
ArcSoft Panorama Maker 3. This software has an auto exposure correction
and equalization feature. I posted the result at:

<http://www.allgstudio.com/samples/TestPM3.jpg>

Let me know after you see that, and then I will remove that file. That
took about 10 to 15 seconds. With a little more work, it could probably
look better. However, it immediately looks better than your stitched
sample. Hope that helps a bit, though feel free to ask more questions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated!
 
Erik said:
In this case I would prefer enblend:
http://www-cad.eecs.berkeley.edu/~mihal/enblend/
Click to expand...

Looks like enblend would work fine. It also states that it works better with
Hugin <http://hugin.sourceforge.net>, so I checked that out as well. I have
never heard of either prior to your posting. Unfortunately, there is not yet
a version of Hugin for Mac OS.

I have Panorama Tools as well, though it just does not work as quickly and
easily as Panorama Maker 3. My dislike of the GUI of Panorama Tools is what
led me to Panorama Maker 3. Apple QuickTime VR Studio was another
consideration, except the price is much higher.

If you have the enblend software running, I would like to see how it did with
the same two images the original poster provided. It should make an
interesting visual comparison.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated!
 
Im Posting von Gordon Moat said:
Looks like enblend would work fine. It also states that it works better with
Hugin <http://hugin.sourceforge.net>, so I checked that out as well. I have
never heard of either prior to your posting. Unfortunately, there is not yet
a version of Hugin for Mac OS.
Click to expand...

You can get PTMac from kekus.com as a popular PanoTools frontend.
I have Panorama Tools as well, though it just does not work as quickly and
easily as Panorama Maker
Click to expand...

There are lots of panorama programms that work faster than panotools
but there are few that give the same quality and none that have the
same flexibility. Max Lyons stitched a gigapixel image last year
consisting of 196 single images using panotools:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
If you have the enblend software running, I would like to see how it did with
the same two images the original poster provided. It should make an
interesting visual comparison.
Click to expand...

Have a look at http://www.erik-krause.de/bilder/test.jpg
 
Erik said:
You can get PTMac from kekus.com as a popular PanoTools frontend.
Click to expand...

Danke sehr! I will give the 15 day trial a run, and see how I like it. Cost is
currently $49.95.
There are lots of panorama programms that work faster than panotools
but there are few that give the same quality and none that have the
same flexibility. Max Lyons stitched a gigapixel image last year
consisting of 196 single images using panotools:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
Click to expand...

Quite a bit of work. Definitely an interesting idea, though not without unique
problems. The first issue is that it took 13 minutes to get all the images. If the
clouds were moving faster, or with any shot involving some movement, the stitched
image runs into problems that a single image would not. The other thing is that
his tripod was in a fixed location, so the side images are actually further than
the centre images, which would give a slightly circular result to the final image.
Also, his comment about PhotoShop limitations could have been avoided by using an
older software called LivePicture, which is actually much better for handling very
large image compositing. Unfortunately, the company that bought LivePicture
decided to kill off the product. Anyway, a great effort on his part, and I hope he
finds some way to print it.

I am still keeping Panorama Tools installed, though I see myself using it a bit
less since I got Panorama Maker 3. I cannot think of any image I would do that
would run more than two dozen images. Brain Caldwell originally led me towards the
stitching usage of Panorama Tools, though he is much more active with many image
stitching than I would ever likely become.
Have a look at http://www.erik-krause.de/bilder/test.jpg
Click to expand...

Danke! I notice that you applied some Unsharp Mask to the final image, though
other than that, what did you do to solve the original posters uneven exposure?
Was the uneven exposure accommodated automatically by enblend?

I took both test panorama images into PhotoShop, and overlaid them as layers. It
is interesting that under Difference, or Exclusion, a slight difference can be
seen in the left and right sides. Your test image is slightly longer to the right
than the one I did. In the centre, near the red house, is visible perhaps the most
important difference; on the waterline are four shadows from trees, and one of
them is slightly bent looking in my test image from using the automatic settings
in Panorama Maker. There is a provision to adjust the stitching, but I did not use
it when I did that image, mostly since I was only addressing the OPs question
about uneven exposure.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated!
 
Im Posting von Gordon Moat said:
Quite a bit of work. Definitely an interesting idea, though not without unique
problems. The first issue is that it took 13 minutes to get all the images.
If the clouds were moving faster, or with any shot involving some movement,
the stitched image runs into problems that a single image would not.
Click to expand...

This is a common problem with all kinds of stitched panoramas. It is
even a problem with scanning cameras. If there are fast moving clouds
you simply shoot with more overlap. Then you edit the seams in
photoshop.
The other thing is that
his tripod was in a fixed location, so the side images are actually further
than the centre images, which would give a slightly circular result to the
final image.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. PanoTools can remap to rectilinear projection, that is
the same as if taken with a wide angel lens.
Also, his comment about PhotoShop limitations could have been avoided by
using an older software called LivePicture, which is actually much better for
handling very large image compositing.
Click to expand...

....or waiting until photoshop CS is out. The 30000 pixel limit is
gone...

[...]
I am still keeping Panorama Tools installed, though I see myself using it a
bit less since I got Panorama Maker 3. I cannot think of any image I would do
that would run more than two dozen images. Brain Caldwell originally led me
towards the stitching usage of Panorama Tools, though he is much more active
with many image stitching than I would ever likely become.
Click to expand...

Most people stich sphericals with panotools using 4 to 6 images...
Danke! I notice that you applied some Unsharp Mask to the final image,
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. But they are not remapped, as Panorama Maker most
probably does. Each remapping introduces blurring. This is one point
where the panotools give higher quality: They remap only once and you
have the choice between 8 different interpolators. If you are
interested see here:
http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
though
other than that, what did you do to solve the original posters uneven
exposure? Was the uneven exposure accommodated automatically by enblend?
Click to expand...

Yes. To be exact it is not accomadated but blended, that is, enblend is
averaging brightness and color values. This is done over large
distances in areas where there is uniform color and in small distances
where there are lots of details.

I had to create an alpha channel that masks away the non image portions
for each image. Then saved each one as Tiff with alpha channel and
called enblend to blend them. The result image is slightly cropped and
saved with 30% jpeg quality.
I took both test panorama images into PhotoShop, and overlaid them as layers.
It is interesting that under Difference, or Exclusion, a slight difference
can be seen in the left and right sides.
Click to expand...
Your test image is slightly longer to the right
than the one I did. In the centre, near the red house, is visible perhaps the
most important difference; on the waterline are four shadows from trees, and
one of them is slightly bent looking in my test image from using the
automatic settings in Panorama Maker.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I used the clone stamp to retouche the vertical streak
near the seam because it prohibited a judgment of the seam. The shadow
is bent in the original image, too...
 
Back
Top