The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Autopano pro with P1 raw files
- Thread starter etrump
- Start date
kdphotography
Well-known member
I didn't know that AutoPano Pro could process or stitch raw files. I've used Auto Pano Pro successfully in the past when older versions of PS couldn't (for whatever reason) successfully complete a single row pano. APP just worked. But this was with older versions of PS (I think around CS3 timeframe?) and I think current versions of PS CC are much more effective with stitching now, and I no longer use APP.
Maybe if you had a real stinker, you might try APP or PTgui, but otherwise I simply use PS CC now.
ken
Maybe if you had a real stinker, you might try APP or PTgui, but otherwise I simply use PS CC now.
ken
Ed:
I use both autopano Pro (Kolor) and PTgui, along with CC for stitching with P1 files.
Autopano will have problems with the exif info, as for some reason, C1 does not export it the way it's needed by Autopano Pro, PTGUI seems OK. But even PTgui seems to have problems seeing all the focal data, from a tech camera, since the lens info is missing and PTgui will ask for the sensor size sometimes and other times it sees it correctly. But both tools allow for an easy way to input the data when needed. I seems that both companies are not looking much at the Phase One files when writing the programs.
I have found that most inline stitching CC will do fine, but there are certain times where I have a lot of color shifting even with the LCC correction in C1, (mainly with the 40mm Rod and blue skies), where I can't get a good blend with CC, especially if I had a CLPL on. With nodal pans from a tech camera, the wider the lens, the less likely CC will get a good solution even with a pretty good nodal placement.
PTGUI and Autopano work better on nodal pans, as they give you a lot more solutions to pick from. They also work much better on multi-layer stitches, like 6 ot 9 shots, where CC seems to both get bogged down and lost at times. CC's engine is pretty much the same as CS5, I see no changes or differences in results between all of them. Where as both PTGui and Autopano make a lot of upgrades.
Exposure blending again I often will have to work with all three at times to find one tool that gets the best solution. Solid blue skies with a lot of gradient to the sky will be the most problematic, and PTGui works very well here.
All 3 work fine on 16 bit images (but CC can bog down on multilayer stitches in 16 bit for me) I am windows based all 64 bit.
You will find a ton of control features in both Autopano and PTgui, none in CC, Both tools I feel would benefit from a better user guide, but I have basically learned by trial and error. Autopano has a nice video guide that can help.
I just finished what I though would be a simple 3 part from a 15mm L C and 15mm R stitch, that I ended up having to use both tools to finally get a good solution. But most times I get a clean one the first time.
I would consider both of them, along with CC.
Paul
I use both autopano Pro (Kolor) and PTgui, along with CC for stitching with P1 files.
Autopano will have problems with the exif info, as for some reason, C1 does not export it the way it's needed by Autopano Pro, PTGUI seems OK. But even PTgui seems to have problems seeing all the focal data, from a tech camera, since the lens info is missing and PTgui will ask for the sensor size sometimes and other times it sees it correctly. But both tools allow for an easy way to input the data when needed. I seems that both companies are not looking much at the Phase One files when writing the programs.
I have found that most inline stitching CC will do fine, but there are certain times where I have a lot of color shifting even with the LCC correction in C1, (mainly with the 40mm Rod and blue skies), where I can't get a good blend with CC, especially if I had a CLPL on. With nodal pans from a tech camera, the wider the lens, the less likely CC will get a good solution even with a pretty good nodal placement.
PTGUI and Autopano work better on nodal pans, as they give you a lot more solutions to pick from. They also work much better on multi-layer stitches, like 6 ot 9 shots, where CC seems to both get bogged down and lost at times. CC's engine is pretty much the same as CS5, I see no changes or differences in results between all of them. Where as both PTGui and Autopano make a lot of upgrades.
Exposure blending again I often will have to work with all three at times to find one tool that gets the best solution. Solid blue skies with a lot of gradient to the sky will be the most problematic, and PTGui works very well here.
All 3 work fine on 16 bit images (but CC can bog down on multilayer stitches in 16 bit for me) I am windows based all 64 bit.
You will find a ton of control features in both Autopano and PTgui, none in CC, Both tools I feel would benefit from a better user guide, but I have basically learned by trial and error. Autopano has a nice video guide that can help.
I just finished what I though would be a simple 3 part from a 15mm L C and 15mm R stitch, that I ended up having to use both tools to finally get a good solution. But most times I get a clean one the first time.
I would consider both of them, along with CC.
Paul
AutoPano does stitch RAW files, but with IQ files does not quite work. I spoke to them about it a while ago, but have not seen much progress.
Doesn't matter though if you are using a tech cam, as LCC files still need to be processed in C1, so I think it is still best to do the conversion in C1, and work with AutoPano in 16bit TIFF.
With flat stitching, I find the PS does a fine job, it is quite rare when I use AP.
Doesn't matter though if you are using a tech cam, as LCC files still need to be processed in C1, so I think it is still best to do the conversion in C1, and work with AutoPano in 16bit TIFF.
With flat stitching, I find the PS does a fine job, it is quite rare when I use AP.
Andy Biggs
Member
I would never even expect a tool like Autopano Pro to stitch raw files. You will always be better off doing the raw conversions yourself and then stitching, no matter the software used.
markymarkrb
New member
Ed,
All of my work was done using AutoPano Pro. I have had great results with it. I usually do minor tweaking on the photos in C1 including applying any LCC. I then stitch the TIFF files using autopano pro and then import them back into C1 or LR depending on the situation. Not sure if this is the best thing to do but I have had good results using Autopano Pro. One time I was utterly blown away by the program and I will tell you what I did. The photo I took called "RUSH" on my website of Snoqualmie Falls in WA was all done using AutoPano Pro. Now here is the strange part. I took a photo of the waterfall closer to it, and then went to an entirely new location further away and took some more photos of it. For whatever reason, I don't remember, I put both the close up photos and the further away photos both into AutoPano pro and voila, it stitched them together and gave me the RUSH picture. I have no clue how the stretching/blending/magic worked but somehow it gave me a clean file without any artifacts. I like the program needless to say.
Mark
All of my work was done using AutoPano Pro. I have had great results with it. I usually do minor tweaking on the photos in C1 including applying any LCC. I then stitch the TIFF files using autopano pro and then import them back into C1 or LR depending on the situation. Not sure if this is the best thing to do but I have had good results using Autopano Pro. One time I was utterly blown away by the program and I will tell you what I did. The photo I took called "RUSH" on my website of Snoqualmie Falls in WA was all done using AutoPano Pro. Now here is the strange part. I took a photo of the waterfall closer to it, and then went to an entirely new location further away and took some more photos of it. For whatever reason, I don't remember, I put both the close up photos and the further away photos both into AutoPano pro and voila, it stitched them together and gave me the RUSH picture. I have no clue how the stretching/blending/magic worked but somehow it gave me a clean file without any artifacts. I like the program needless to say.
Mark