On 2011-01-17 3:43 PM, Thomas Sharpless wrote:
Hi Dan

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:30 PM, dmg <dmg@uvic.ca> wrote:
I vote to define a new flag.

it would minimize potential bugs. The default (zero) would be use current

Do you think it should be a new optimizer ('v' line) flag?  That would seem logical, since this is really an optimization option. However there is no new optimizable variable to go along with it.
Yes it needs to allow optimization.  But an error if both old(current) and new method is used together.  A variable is used if it is either defined as non zero or set to be optimized.
Currently only variables in i lines can be optimized.
Parameters defining a lens:
  Old = projection format, Field of View, abc distortion  (f, v, a, b, & c)
  New = projection format, Focal length, sensor size, abc? distortion

What about we add a new line/class to define a lens, an l line.
and the i line/class that define an image can use a l=0 (lens = lens #0)
This should help to get the lens data into a database.
Although, adding a new type of line would likely cause most optimizers and stitchers to through an error and quit.

Adding another var to the 'p' line might be nice, just because that line is not already overloaded with vars.  That would disallow mixing polynomial modes in projects using multiple lenses, but I wonder if anyone would care?  Indeed, I think that might be the best policy...
Input image information does not belong in the p line.  I don't think we need to change the way we define the Field of View of the result.  I would also like an easy way of using the output results and putting them back in as input.

I'd really like to enable this option only for projects involving lens-based images.  But I don't know if libpano has a sufficiently high-level view to determine that.
An image could be defined using the old(current) method or the new lens based method.  If the image was generated to a specific FoV then the old method would be used.  If the input image is from a camera then the new lens based method would be used.

Regards, Tom

Jim Watters