wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Which stitching software to choose ? ????
John Riley 2009-Nov-05 18:43:00
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:29 AM, yuval_levy wrote:
> > In any case, the purpose of my post was to praise Hugin.
>
> sorry, it is difficult for me to see praise. To me it looks more
> like flattery.
>
>
Wow, Yuval, that seems like an awfully harsh description for my saying:
>> All I can say is WOW!
>> Hugin has made an enormous leap forward in many ways. The detection I
>> got with the the Panomatic plugin was great; the control point
>> cleaner
>> was very helpful and accurate; optimization proceeded smoothly; and
>> the rendering was good, if a bit slow. Hats off to all who
>> contributed to the improvements.
I was sincere in what I said and I am hurt that you feel I was not.
> > I suggested making a concerted effort to create binaries
>
> what I read is a sugar coated request to make the "concerted
> effort". Over the past three months I had such "concerted efforts",
> supporting users in building binaries for distribution.
Hey, I was only making a suggestion of what would increase the
audience of Hugin. I think it deserves wider exposure. I am able to
build it myself if I need to, but there are lots of folks who would
never consider building software themselves. I was making the
assumption that there were project leaders of some sort who might be
interested in Hugin achieving wider recognition. Sometimes it is hard
to realize that most people aren't as capable of doing something you
might be. It is something that I run into all the time teaching
physics. It seems simple and straightforward to me, but can be greek
to a lot of my students. Hmmm, I do wish I could build a binary
installer for freshman physics!!! That would be great, but will have
to remain in the realm of sci-fi for now 8-)
Cheers,
John
John Riley
#removed#
(h)864-461-3504
(c)864-431-7075
(w)864-503-5775
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]