| 1 |
120510 Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Philip Webb wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I have a lot of images scanned from old negatives of non-standard sizes, |
| 4 |
>> which I had to split up into halves or quarters to process; |
| 5 |
>> I was careful to use the same settings for each of the sub-parts. |
| 6 |
>> Now I want to reassemble them into the original whole pictures. |
| 7 |
> I have used hugin but it has been a while. |
| 8 |
> As long as you have enough points tied together, it works fine. |
| 9 |
> I have taken as many as 30 pictures and stitched them together. |
| 10 |
> I had three rows of 10. It was of a park and it looked great when done. |
| 11 |
> It took a couple tries to get it just right but it did a good job |
| 12 |
> and that was a good size project. Doing 4 or 5 pictures is pretty easy. |
| 13 |
> Lots of overlap is the key tho. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
120510 Alex Shuster wrote : |
| 16 |
> I'd use ImageMagick's montage command. |
| 17 |
> You have to find out how exactly to do this, but once you know this, |
| 18 |
> you can automate this and process them all at once in a loop. |
| 19 |
> See http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/ |
| 20 |
> and esp http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/montage/ |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Thanks to both ! -- Imagemagick looks as if it's very technical |
| 23 |
& I'm not sure how it would handle matching overlapping photos. |
| 24 |
That is what Corbet described doing & Dale seems to have done, |
| 25 |
so I'll emerge Hugin & see what it can do. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As I now notice, the negatives I want to use right now are not split, |
| 28 |
but there are many others which are, so this wb useful eventually. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
========================,,============================================ |
| 32 |
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb |
| 33 |
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto |
| 34 |
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca |
Archives