I setup an “export to program” where I export 16bit tif files and then export my photos and they arrive in Panorama Studio where I stitch them and then save to the same folder and the panorama appears in DPL for further editing.
Steps for this are:
Apply minimum edits such as lens correction and possibly exposure
Copy edits to ALL photos in the panorama so all photos are the same
Export to Panorama Studio
Create your panorama from the files which open in Panorama Studio automatically.
Save generated panorama to same folder as original files.
Apply final edits to panorama in DPL
I get great results like this and it is simple do. The only missing thing is the ability to skew the image to fix wavy horizons and some sort of content-aware fill.
Actually I develop my pictures with DxO and stitch them with Autopano that is an excellent and easy to use software but it has beeb killed by GoPro…
If necessary, I repair missing parts of the panorama with DxO ; easy for heaven or grass but not much efficient in more complex cases.
I adjust each picture and if there are somme differences, they are very well managed by Autopano.
I shoot my panoramas with handheld camera and if careful, I have very few issues.
Stitching with DxO could be a nice integrated solution.
We need a repair mode for missing parts.
As it is impossible to stitch in RAW, DxO should use a temporary conversion to TIFF to get the better quality.
We need various methods of stitching rectilinear, cylindrical and specially Panini, very useful (more than Mercator !).
Somehow this thread became a duplicate of the one quoted below that deals with a HDR feature request. But this thread then became a request for all multi-shot editing possibilities, i.e. HDR / Focus stacking and panorama stitching. Today’s DPReview’s test of PL4 also points these missing features in PL4.
I have been using Hugin for my Panos. It’s not the most user friendly software and I must do an Export to Tiff in PL4 for each image in the Pano. With Multi Row this can be a lot of images and it’s a very cumbersome procedure! Please add the capability to do Panorama’s in PL.
As others have mentioned, Affinity Photo has made a huge effort recently with their Panorama tool. As panoramas are built with already developed images, I’d be keener for DxO to improve the Affinity Photo integration here making it easier to open up a panorama set in Affinity Photo than to build a mediocre panorama tool.
As I’m a huge fan of DxO software, I’d be happy to see a separate Panorama module like ViewPoint (or better yet, Panoramas added to a ViewPoint 4). I’ll happily pay for an integrated panorama tool if it’s good. Making the tool freestanding and not part of Photolab puts more pressure on DxO to assure the quality of a potential panorama tool.
I do not want a half-working panorama tool which is worse than what’s in Affinity or Photoshop or the existing open source panorama tools. This does not mean including every geometric method of panorama but making sure that the methods which are included are the very best.
PS. Same applies for an HDR add-on. Make HDR a full-fledged DxO citizen with a dedicated module. Potentially HDR could be included in a Film Pack 6 but separate module in this case makes more sense to me.
Using ICE + Affinity. The first have several projections but don’t import RAW + auto completion have a large problem in skies. The second import RAW but only spherical projection, auto completion is very good.
In 90% of my work, I merge panoramas. So, an add-on in PL would be a the first improvement I would wish. Working in only ONE software, this is a dream !
But dreams are not coming all alone. I have hundreds of RAW for panorama (thousands if I add my old D700 period). If Dxo staff need help to provide RAW to test a panorama programming, I use to make panoramas from 11mm, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 on D850.
Is that possible at all?
I imaging that any multi image sticking, blending, stacking is done from a tiff in AdobeRGB even if you open a few rawfiles.
Besides the WB floating around in a raw other things as denoising after stacking or lenscorrection can be a thing.
Silkypix v10 does some stacking multi image from rawfiles but i think it’s tiff file based in the end.
Once I also thought “should be possible in RAW” but since I only occasionally do Panos, I’m very happy with Affinity Photo.
That’s from 4 digitized MF Negatives, 30 years old, handheld* withy maybe only 10-15% overlap, with vignetting and negative to positive conversion. For the vignetting there’s no lens profile for the old Mamiya 55/2.8, and even if it was, it would have to be reversed. The middle part could not be auto stitched, AP needed some help, some masking and transforming. So, not something for auto-pano.
And if I have some images of a mountain chain which is in shadow on the left side – why would I like to make the pano unbelievable with too bright shadows? I want DxO to come up with a better DAM - for less than 10 panos per years I don’t need them to put a lot of resources into. But from t he DAM I would benefit each time I start the app.
*[EDIT] no, can’t be, the tripod was out of it’s container and although an underpowered Gitzo Series 1, the head did have a panorama scale.
I agree with you in general, but my feeling is that DXO have too many products for today’s market.
Selling an “extra” product seems like a good idea but DXO need to recognise that Photolab is their main product. The NIK collection may be a viable individual product but Viewpoint and Filmpack are unlikely to be viable products on their own. DXO does get sales from FilmPack and Viewpoint from Photolab customers as add-ons. These do add capability to Photolab but it also makes Photolab very expensive compared to the competition. Photolab Elite + Filmpack + Viewpoint costs £363. I think this is unsustainable going forward.
Without Photolab DXO couldn’t exist on Viewpoint, NIK, and Filmpack. If DXO don’t recognise this then they risk making a similar business mistake as when they thought a software company could compete in the hardware business.
DXO need to fold Filmpack and Viewpoint fully into Photolab, to improve the capability and competitiveness of Photolab in a changing market.
DXO have already folded Viewpoint into NIK and should do the same with Filmpack as NIK also needs improving to stay relevant.
Regarding pano and HDR in Photolab, I prefer to use dedicated software but DXO has to recognise where the market is and it needs to offer these capabilities. Even Capture One has now accepted this.
HDR capability could be added using the technology they already own from the NIK collection. Panos as people have already said should be possible using existing library code. For speed it would probably be best to use a “round trip” to external programs (included with Photolab) giving time for an “in program” solution to be developed but providing a “market need” quickly.
Ian, the idea here is that with core Photolab and five or six modules (FilmPack, ViewPoint, HDR, Panorama, SilverEfex built-into Photolab, DAM) users could choose their feature set and would not be so upset about the price (of course an all modules package would have to enjoy competitive pricing).
Or to simplify:
FilmPack/SilverEfex integrated into Photolab (the B&W is SilverEfex is another calibre than what can be done in Photolab)
The main reason I need FilmPack is Fine Contrast (that annoys me, DxO shouldn’t be burying core features like that in only vaguely related modules). It turns out I don’t need ViewPoint at all as whatever corrections I need are covered by distortion and rotation. I’d buy ViewPoint for the panorama tools though.
I’d buy HDR as I’d love to have good HDR tools in Photolab. SilverEfex is so good that if that level of B&W processing could be built directly into Photolab, I’d be thrilled and probably buy that too. I would almost certainly not buy the DAM package as I don’t want Photolab DAM features: I’m happy with my external tools.
I’m not crazy about the Basic and Elite distinction. All the Basic versions basically are terrible and a poor introduction to DxO. I could see core Photolab with Elite features kept at a reasonable price. Once photographers come for the core image processing and noise reduction, they will want to do everything in Photolab. DxO could then sell those modules to photographers who do want that additional functionality in Photolab.
I agree that DxO has to be careful with pricing. Their software is not inexpensive. Forcing users to pay for extra Photolab licenses in order to upgrade Nik was also fairly underhanded. DxO policy oscillates between trying to attract new users with customer-friendly policies and trying to squeeze additional revenue out of existing users with customer-hostile policies. As commercial behaviour it’s schizophrenic.
I think it’s possible. I don’t know why not using the used algorithmes but then based on 12 or 14 bit R,G or B pixels.
Color space or WB doesn’t play a role in this project.
Just playing with the idea, a new raw file should be created first so the routines that uses raw info can be used.