The software was able to create a seamless panorama from the source images we used. The stitching process is fast, and the end results are also accurate. This essentially creates a panorama stitch without resizing the source images. However, we recommend selecting the Scale option and setting it to 100%. I hope they fix the linear photo stitching algorithm soon.By default, Autostitch sets the panorama size to 2048x1024px. I love Affinity but they need to step up their game against Adobe and start thinking outside the box instead of the within the box with a 10ft pole. They must fix a lot of bugs in this most current update as well as add more combative and challenging tools against Photoshop and Illustrator. If I were a better programmer, I would apply to work Serif to fix their most obvious programming issues, but I'm not a good programmer. The programmer developers completely forgot to add flat/linear axis panorama stitching algorithm to their software. I also criticized Affinity Photo for the same thing. Currently the tool seems to try to "correct" distortion that isn't there. It would be really handy if there was an option to tell the Panorama tool that the original images are flat ones that need to be stitched, rather than actual panoramic images. (For example, several A4 scans of a larger document.) Sometimes it works, but sometimes the result is distorted. Usually I find that the Panorama tool works well, but (and I do realise it's called a Panorama tool!) it doesn't do so well if you try to stich several flat images together. But, this effort would be the same with stitched scans. Such throughput was simply impossible with my scanner.Ĭurrently, still busy with post processing the bunch of pictures □. I could easily process +150 slides per hour (including blowing away some occasional dust). For larger documents (like A3/A2), a camera and a lens could be sufficient. For low volume work, this is of course not needed. Because of the repetitive, high volume work, I also made a temporary 'construction' to freeze the relative positions of camera, light box and slides. A while ago, I did some research on the topic, and discovered that it could also be done with a camera, a macro lens, a tripod and a light box. Originally, I started this project with a photo scanner, but the scanning process took way too long (also considering the required scan resolution). (*) I'm currently in the process to digitize my archive with +3000 old color slides. Even a moderate lens and 'normal' resolution camera will most likely provide sufficient detail in the final image. a high-res camera, you get tack sharp images of the documents in a fraction of the time spent on scanning and stitching. special resolution specs, but unknown to me) might still enforce the use of a scanner? Of course, some specific requirements (e.g. In the end, it might be much simpler to just take a picture with a digital camera of the A3 or A2 document. I believe that scanning an A3 document will require at least 3 A4 scans, for each A2 document it's even 9 scans. Not to downplay this feature request, but probably just a practical suggestion / option(*). Just something that came to my mind when considering the need to scan A3 or A2 sized documents with an A4 scanner.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |