Two "Photo Stitching" Programs

[Bigaldoc]

In my recent thread about Serif software (Serif PhotoPlus X4) I mentioned that Serif also has a photo stitching program that I received as a free bonus with my purchase. The program lists on their site for $30.

I also have a program (free) from Microsoft that I installed when it first came out and updated recently upon learning that fellow Lounger Ian Wilson uses it quite nicely for panorama photos. Here's links to both programs:

        Photo Stitching Software – PanoramaPlus X4 from Serif

        Microsoft Research Image Composite Editor (ICE)

I just today did a quick test drive of both programs as shown in the two attachments. I have to say that they are both VERY EASY to use, automatically stitch your photos and crop them to a viewable image and all you have to do is SAVE the result. These two images are nothing to look at, but just to show you the minute difference in the two. I realize that photo stitching isn't something that gets a lot of attention here, so all of this is just fodder for your thinking in case you ever need it. FREE is nice!

BUT, and this may be a big one, the ICE program, without any modifications, saved the attached file as a 1,352K file compared to the Serif product's file (both JPGs) of 79K. I had to jump through all kinds of customizations to get the ICE file down to a small enough version that The Lounge software would accept, i.e. 172K. In doing so, the pix lost a lot. So, if you're concerned about SIZE, the Serif product might be worth the money. Have fun...

ice panorama sm.jpg

Panorama Serif.jpg

Edited: Corrected my BAD editing job on the ICE photo, or at least I tried! PS Those ARE stains on the table where I feed my cat and "stuff" has spilled on it over the years.

[BobArch2]

Hi Al,

Have you tried IrfanView's Panorama stitching? Would be interested to see what your photos would look like using IrfanView's feature with respect to size and presentation.

[Bigaldoc]

Have you tried IrfanView's Panorama stitching? Would be interested to see what your photos would look like using IrfanView's feature with respect to size and presentation.

No, I hadn't. To be honest, I had no idea Irfanview would do stitching, I use it so seldom. I have yet another called AutoStitch that I've had since 2004 but it's a "demo" version of something VERY expensive.

I'll give Irfanview a try and see what happens.

Edited later: No thanks!

ifv panorama.jpg

[Bigaldoc]

Have you tried IrfanView's Panorama stitching? ...

Sorry for the brevity of last night's answer, Bob. It was time for my sack-hitting for the night and I didn't feel like writing. To start I must say that stitching is something I've only done a few times with that demo I mentioned. So, I'm very inexperienced. Secondly, I realize that three shots in a KITCHEN is not good subject for a panorama, but I was just doing it to really test the ease of use of the software.

Unless I missed something, Irfanview is not a choice for me as you can see in the result. In addition, the MS and Serif products are just about automatic, where with Irfanview YOU have to arrange the photo names in the correct sequence.

In my earlier post, I mentioned file sizes of the resulting panorama. That's probably a legit thing because of the dimensions of the resulting JPGs. Irfanview makes the largest, albeit in my case wrong, image, Ice is next, with Serif producing an image that's about 20% the size of the other two. I suppose if one were choosing on that basis, the MS ICE product would be the one to go with, giving you more latitude for "down sizing" the image.

[Leif]

....the MS ICE product would be the one to go with, giving you more latitude for "down sizing" the image.

It also seems to give you a lot more mould on the worktop too!

x.jpg

I can't say I'm very impressed with the colour rendering in the ICE sample you posted - unless you got the cabinet doors second-hand from the Bates Motel...

[Bigaldoc]

It also seems to give you a lot more mould on the worktop too! ... I can't say I'm very impressed with the colour rendering in the ICE sample you posted - unless you got the cabinet doors second-hand from the Bates Motel...

That was MY fault, Leif, not the software! The Ice image was too big for the Lounge, so instead of resizing, I changed the "compression" level in the photo and there's a LOT of garbage there that's not in the original (lamp, butcher block, cabinets, etc). The original image is 4,725K and I should have resized it.

Edited: Attempted to clean up the ICE image in the first post.

[IanWilson]

BUT, and this may be a big one, the ICE program, without any modifications, saved the attached file as a 1,352K file compared to the Serif product's file (both JPGs) of 79K. I had to jump through all kinds of customizations to get the ICE file down to a small enough version that The Lounge software would accept, i.e. 172K. In doing so, the pix lost a lot. So, if you're concerned about SIZE, the Serif product might be worth the money.

I think that the settings in ICE to control the size and JPG quality are quite easy to find and use. In the attached example I have left the size setting for the exported file at 100% but in practice I might well have cut it down to 50%, and there is a simple control for the JPG quality.

ICE settings.jpg

And how do you like this one taken on last week's holiday?

Ian

[HansV]

Looks beautiful! You were in Pembrokeshire?

[Bigaldoc]

I think that the settings in ICE to control the size and JPG quality are quite easy to find and use. In the attached example I have left the size setting for the exported file at 100% but in practice I might well have cut it down to 50%, and there is a simple control for the JPG quality.

Oh you're absolutely right, Ian. I didn't express myself clearly at all. The ICE software is clearly the better choice because of that control screen which the Serif product doesn't give you.

In my example (since edited) I used another graphics program to "compress" the large ICE example to a size acceptable to The Lounge and that caused much distortion in the shot. I should have simply reduced its size.

In my three photo example the ICE software produced a result approximately the cumulative width of the three photos, whereas Serif reduced the panorama to approximately the size of ONE of the images with NO settings screen to allow changing the panorama size. ICE is clearly the better choice.

ICE:        6,868 x 1,767
Ser:        1,419 x 0,338    

[IanWilson]

Looks beautiful! You were in Pembrokeshire?

Yes we were. A favourite holiday area for us.

Ian

[HansV]

It's a wonderful mixture of nature and culture. I walked parts of the Pembrokeshire Coast Path in 1992.

[Bigaldoc]

Wow, there's a LOT to be learned about this photog stuff and stitching is right up at the top of the heap! With my "occasional" efforts I don't know if I'll ever be there!

I took a series of six photos of the nursing home where I continue to serve as a volunteer. In the resulting panorama there is an "induced" curve in the center of the picture that isn't real. The driveway goes straight from left to right. I think it was probably induced because of where I was standing and I was too close to the scene I was trying to shoot.

In the panorama, I was standing in a position approximately in the lower left and lower right of the result although I didn't move. Does that make any sense? The lower left and lower right corners of the panorama are the SAME spot (approximately). Next time, I'm gonna get a longer distance away to see if that helps. (Image reduced SIGNIFICANTLY for this posting.)

[IanWilson]

Next time, I'm gonna get a longer distance away to see if that helps. (Image reduced SIGNIFICANTLY for this posting.)

I think the only alternative to that is to move along sideways when you take the shots rather than to rotate your point of view. I haven't tried that though, and I wonder how you would ensure that you kept a constant distance away.
Ian

[IanWilson]

Next time, I'm gonna get a longer distance away to see if that helps. (Image reduced SIGNIFICANTLY for this posting.)

I think the only alternative to that is to move along sideways when you take the shots rather than to rotate your point of view. I haven't tried that though, and I wonder how you would ensure that you kept a constant distance away.
Ian

OK - I have tried it now. As you can see from the two top images, I didn't manage to keep quite the same distance from the bookshelf, but ICE has still managed to stitch them together convincingly (bottom image). I'm impressed! And now lunch hour is over and I must get working again!

Bookshelf.jpg

Ian

[DaveA]

I have used the "stitching program " that are included in some of the Photoshop Elements and the old MS Digital Image programs. I scanned the pages of mom and dad's photo albums, but I had to do it in two scans. I later stitched the two scans, and they can out great. I was then able to capture each photo as a separate image, even when I know where the stitch line is, it is very hard to see.

This reminds me, my new Windows 7 laptop (Sony VAIO VCPEA) came with Photoshop Elements 8 and Premier Elements 8, and I need to check it to see if it has a stitching program and if it works as well as the earlier versions do.

[sherinmary4]

thanks for sharing :)

[stuck]

I know this is an ancient thread but I've just tried out Canon's photo stitching tool. It's easy to use but it seems to need a minimum overlap and my left hand image of the three didn't have enough so the join there is a bit iffy. The right hand join is untouched. Even so, this shot isn't too bad.

Ken

[HansV]

Nice! Flamborough Head, perhaps?

[stuck]

Perhaps!

[stuck]

Version 2 using MS ICE, even easier to use as it made the joins without complaining. looks like it's made a better job of the joins too.

Ken