Comparing panorama stitching software

[PanoVolo]

Downloaded the trial version of Panovolo for Mac and tried it out. I like that the interface is simple and uncluttered and it can render a large pano from DNGs quite quickly. I have been a PTGui Pro user for quite some time so I am impressed at how well it can stitch panos especially difficult to stitch panos (over water). Adjusting the centre point of the pano is much easier and quicker in PTGui and the Pro version has the option to 'Fill Holes' which saves a trip to Photoshop. While PTGui Pro has many more features, it costs much more.

I found Panovolo better at blending seams where the exposure varies between frames - Why is this? In PTGui Pro, I will often get dark bands between frames where there are exposure variances especially when shooting on auto which I often do when shooting in sub zero temperatures.

Chris

thanks, Chris

The basic algorithm in all panorama stitchers is basically the same (the Brown and Lowe algorithm). It all boils down to optimizations, raw image processing choices, optimization of exposure matching and rendering settings. Panovolo has a benefit that we mostly optimize around DNGs and not a whole enchilada of camera raw formats.

 

[PanoVolo]

So, difference between LR, PS, and Luminar Neo ( my preference ) worth the money?

I leave conclusions as an exercise for the reader)

Luminar I do want to add to my comparisons though if they offer a trial version.

 

[jephoto]

I have attached a panorama recently completed in Panovolvo. I pointed the program to the panorama folder copied directly from the Mavic 3 USB card. There were 21 separate DNG images each 43.3 MB and each 3948 by 5372 pixels. The program took 31 seconds on a MacBook Pro M-2 to create a DNG panorama (JPEG format attached) measuring 16,154 by 6641 pixels. No preprocessing was done. Post processing was in LR only . This is the entire image and no cropping was done in LR. Panovolvo delivered a rectangular cropped image at the dimensions above.
I cannot see any stitching artifacts and the complex building horizon looks unaffected. Distant detail was preserved. Here is a dropbox link - if it works. The file is about 20 MB jpeg.

Panofolo Test Image Long Beach.jpg

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Looks Excellent Doug. Does Panovolo output a DNG after stitching? As I've been doing panos since 2008, I've long been in the habit of at least SOME preprocessing of the raw files first- lens correction/profile at least to lessen vignette and maybe some basic color. Always found my stitches in the end better and more even skies.
But- stitching software has gotten way better since then and maybe- if we still end up with a RAW file- it's not necessary to do that first.

 

[PanoVolo]

Hi @jetphoto - if you use JPEGs as an input in PanoVolo, you will get JPEG as an output. If you use DNGs as an input, you will get 16 bit TIFF as an output. In most cases you do need to post-process that TIFF (and probably convert to JPEG for sharing). We do apply lens profile that is stored into DNG, so vignette and lens distortion correction is applied automatically in PanoVolo when DNGs are used and typically pre-processing of images is not required.

We have a little guide on file formats: Choosing Between DNG and JPEG Formats for Drone Panorama Stitching : Panorama Stitching Tool for Drone Photography

 

[DougMcC]

Looks Excellent Doug. Does Panovolo output a DNG after stitching? As I've been doing panos since 2008, I've long been in the habit of at least SOME preprocessing of the raw files first- lens correction/profile at least to lessen vignette and maybe some basic color. Always found my stitches in the end better and more even skies.
But- stitching software has gotten way better since then and maybe- if we still end up with a RAW file- it's not necessary to do that first.

Yes if DNG files are created when shooting the panorama the resulting output choice can include DNG. I continue to get excellent results.

 

[basyok]

thanks Steve

yes some patching is definitely possible, gradient fill is probably the simplest as a start point followed by more advanced methods.

I've been playing with the free trial version of PanoVolo, and so far I'm impressed. In Batch Process, it often crashes, but I can just start it up again, and more often than not it'll get past whatever pano was making it crash and continue a little further.

I have one question - I am also using Microsoft ICE, which is also great, but unfortunately no longer supported. My question for you is; how come for the exact same pano, with ICE I end up with a 19968 wide equirectangular image, and with PanoVolo I "only" get 17924? While I have little understanding of what's going on under the hood, conceptually, I would expect the resulting image widths to be the same.

 

[PanoVolo]

Hi @basyok, crashing is not cool, if it happens on a specific panorama and you can share the files, we can take a look,

About the width of the pano - it's determined (amongst other things) by the estimated focal length of the camera lens. This is a tricky subject, ICE tries to calculate the focal length from the image correspondences. Panovolo takes this information from the metadata of the image, and then tries to optimize further. In fact, upcoming PanoVolo - 1.6 - adds many optimizations in this area. So - not an exact science, the focal length is estimated (the information in image exif is approximate and cannot be trusted) and can even "drift" from panorama to panorama.

 

[basyok]

Hi @basyok, crashing is not cool, if it happens on a specific panorama and you can share the files, we can take a look,

About the width of the pano - it's determined (amongst other things) by the estimated focal length of the camera lens. This is a tricky subject, ICE tries to calculate the focal length from the image correspondences. Panovolo takes this information from the metadata of the image, and then tries to optimize further. In fact, upcoming PanoVolo - 1.6 - adds many optimizations in this area. So - not an exact science, the focal length is estimated (the information in image exif is approximate and cannot be trusted) and can even "drift" from panorama to panorama.

Ah, that makes sense now.

Yes, I'll share any app crash offenders going forward, sorry, I should have done that before. Thanks.