DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Comparing panorama stitching software

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
All good information. Thanks for sharing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sarahb
Trying PanoVolo 1.7.x

I like it, however I can't see any way to reduce the size of the image.

It has outputted to 23286 x 11643 - this is far too large for the likes of Kuula, Facebook or Google Photos

Plus there is no way to save without a licence to check that part (no idea if this is within the save options)

It is therefore hard to compare the PTGui Pro and yours. Both of which can fill the zenith.

What I find odd is that both of these show different vehicles on the motorway!!! Some are maybe missing in PanoVolo - or are they duplicated in PTGui?

Edit: Upon closer inspection I am seeing some ghosting in PanoVolo and lines not joining. The same lines appear perfect in PTGui
 
Last edited:
once you save, you can resize to any size you want in any image processing software. If it's a 360 pano, make sure the ratio is 2:1 width: height

Ah okay - thanks.

However the stitching isn't as good, so it is a pass from me.

Shame as I thought it would be a suitable product for 360 images

Screenshot 2024-08-17 at 17.01.13.png
 
I have used PTGui and it predecessor for quite a few years and am generally happy with the results, but the stitching occasionally is less than ideal. Running some of those older images as tests through Panovolo, I find that often it does a better job of stitching, especially when an expanse of water is involved. Admittedly, sometimes the reverse is true.

Executive summary: It’s worth having both in my tool chest!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert Prior
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
You aren't the only one who has seen dark bands with PTGUI.
I still havent figured a way around them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chrislaf
You aren't the only one who has seen dark bands with PTGUI.
I still havent figured a way around them.
Yes, I don’t understand why a $200 plus piece of software can’t get rid of those dark bands especially since it has many other high end features and can often stitch those difficult to stitch panos and line up the horizon.

Regardless, I just purchased PanoVolo. The way I see it is, it’s another tool to use for panos.

Chris
 
(snip)

I just didn't expect to see ghosting.
isdoo, thanks for your observations. I just completed five-360 degree panoramas for a little project for our town museum and found far fewer ghosting problems with PanoVolo than PTGui.

I attach a couple of little screen captures. The first is PTGui, the second is PanoVolo.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2024-08-24 at 4.33.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2024-08-24 at 4.33.09 PM.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 10
  • Screen Shot 2024-08-24 at 4.33.39 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2024-08-24 at 4.33.39 PM.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 10


Write your reply...

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
135,280
Messages
1,604,402
Members
163,742
Latest member
Stang67
Want to Remove this Ad? Simply login or create a free account