#Ptgui pro vs photoshop software#
#Ptgui pro vs photoshop professional#
#Ptgui pro vs photoshop series#

However, stupid me had used an ND-grad on some critical Grand Canyon and Lake Powell shots and forgot to turn the grad from horizontal to vertical. The problem with the 'color-correction' from red to brown didnВґt quite occur in PTAssembler with smartblend, so I returned to PTAssembler. The 'red' rocks were rendered brownish (more so than in camera) and when I returned from a dayВґs shooting I had 455 pictures or so in the camera, which became more than tedious to sort apart. So I moved along to Hugin which I used for a while and had relatively good results.Дuring my recent one month trip to the Four Corners area I ran into the following problems. I started out with PTAssembler and got stuck because of the non-graphical interface, that I cannot see the pictures in step one. Regrettably I own/have installed PTAssembler, Hugin, PTGUI and Autopano Giga 2.

#Ptgui pro vs photoshop software#

But I have the impression that PT-based software is the best there is, because Helmut Dersch really 'did it right'. I have no experience with Photoshop as a stitcher, though of course I use it all the time for other things. Hugin is not for beginners, and not really necessary for pros either - it is more of an R and D lab than a tool set (being a Hugin developer, perhaps I shouldn't say that, but it is true.).

#Ptgui pro vs photoshop professional#

So a skilled user can do wonders with any of them.ДЇor someone who wants to get started easily, with a professional quality tool set, I recommend PTGui first, then PTA. Now that PTA offers a big repertoire of adjustable projections, and an excellent preview window in which to adjust them, I might almost vote it the one I would take to the proverbial desert island.ДЄll 3 GUI stitchers have common roots in PanoTools and can interoperate with various PT-family programs like enblend/enfuse and smartblend and indeed the original PTStitcher (or its clone, PTMender) all of which can do a few things the GUI stitchers cannot. And it handles routine work as well as one could wish (save maybe photometric alignment).

I have always liked the clear way Max lays out the workflow - it is easier to plan and execute an unusual job with PTA than either of the others. And it is a rich toolkit, capable of many special operations - if you can figure out how. Hugin also seems to do exposure and camera response correction better than the others, which can make a visible difference on difficult scenes. So why don't I use PTGui exclusively? It does have some weaknesses, one being extremely slow stitching to the Vedutismo (Pannini) projection, which I like to use - so I do Panninis with Hugin. Add QTVR previews, and many other conveniences, it makes an irresistible package. And it handles large stitching jobs in batch without problems. The pano editor is easy to use and hard to mess up with - it even has Undo - and the control point editor is more convenient too. PTGui's built in control point finder is way faster than the ones we usually use with PTA and Hugin, and does as good a job in most cases.

#Ptgui pro vs photoshop series#

It handles exposure series right, something I find confusing with PTA and downright baffling with Hugin. It is a well integrated automatic solution that usually works nicely, and quite fast. I have PTA 5.1, PTGui 8.1, and and Hugin 0.8, and use them all.Д«ut I use PTGui about 90% of the time. I mainly make spherical panos using fisheye lenses, often with multiple exposures. I'm in a position to recommend a stitcher to several people in October, and my first inclination is PTA, simply because that's what I'm used to, but I want to have a more informed opinion, and don't really have time to survey the market. I'be been using PTA for a while now, and was just wondering what the relative advatnages / disadvantages were between PTA, PTGui, Photoshop, PhotoVista, and any other mainstream stitching apps anyone knows of. ThomasLG wrote:I was wondering if anyone who has tried several of the software solutions (at least in semi-recent versions) would mind sharing a brief listing of their findings.