[ptx] autopano1.03 comparison to autopano-sift1.4

[Claudio Soprano]

Hi

I dont like to install lot of graphics stuffs (like GTK) or dot.net, to 
run a simple .exe file, so i didnt install autopano-sift

so i cant compare, but i would like a day to try it without install 30 
mb of stuffs if possible include that it needs on the exe or in .dll,

i prefer this way.

So that i can tell u is only autopano 1.02 and 1.03 difference, less 
errors in control points, but still some errors are present, but removing
2-4 control points make the image perfect, and it is very fast.

Claudio Soprano

Ian Sydenham wrote:

> I've run a small comparison of control point creation for 2 images 
> 2048x1536 taken from a moving cable-car and asking for 100 control 
> points. A difficult task anyway, but the comparison was very clear.
>
> Autopano-sift ran *much* slower than autopano1.03 (or 1.02)- I did not 
> use a stop watch, but about 3 times as long as autopano.
>
> Autopano-sift at size:2000 found me 100 control points and when 
> optimised in Hugin the average control point distance was 0.74 pixels, 
> maximum 1.67.
>
> Autopano1.03 at size:2000 found 44 control points and when optimised 
> in Hugin the average control point distance was 33 pixels, maximum 53 
> pixels.
>
> Autopano-sift at size:800 found 64 control points and when optimised 
> in Hugin the average control point distance was 0.75 pixels, maximum 
> 2.14.
>
> Autopano1.03 at size:800 found 29 control points and when optimised in 
> Hugin the average control point distance was 14 pixels, maximum 25 
> pixels. The optimisation gave a warped image and on closer inspection 
> I found 5 incorrect control point matches. Removing them gave a better 
> image, but did not significantly improve the control point error.
>
> Summary:
> For this test the autopano-sift algorithm generated more control point 
> matches, and only found "proper" match points.
> Autopano1.03 was much much faster, but the output file still required 
> lots of manual changes to get a good image.
>
> Is this comparison similar to anyone else's findings?
>
>
> regards,
>
> Ian Sydenham