# Problem creating panoramic using photo merge



## jerry12953 (Oct 5, 2015)

I have a set of four images I want to merge into a panorama. 

If I select all four, the left-hand image is not included (or possibly a large section of it).

If I select the left-hand three they merge perfectly, so it isn't a problem with that particular image.

Any suggestions, please?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 5, 2015)

Hi Jerry,

Any chance you could upload the 4 images (e.g. using Dropbox or similar) so that I could have a look at the problem? The Photo Merge engine is a bit of a "work in progress" so hopefully we can expect to see improvements in future dot releases, but in the meantime it would be useful to check it out.


----------



## jerry12953 (Oct 5, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> Hi Jerry,
> 
> Any chance you could upload the 4 images (e.g. using Dropbox or similar) so that I could have a look at the problem? The Photo Merge engine is a bit of a "work in progress" so hopefully we can expect to see improvements in future dot releases, but in the meantime it would be useful to check it out.




Yes, I'd be happy to do that, but where do I upload to, please? Would you need the raw files?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 5, 2015)

Do you have a Dropbox account or something similar such as One Drive or Google Drive?

If not you can upload to a site such as www.yousendit.com, and then share the link (i.e. you upload the files, it asks you where to send the link to, enter your own email address so that you get the link, then you can post that link here).

Yes I would need the raw files.


----------



## Ian.B (Oct 5, 2015)

hand held or tripod used Jerry?

I don't have LR6 so I use the free Microsoft ICE for stitching files and I will not be getting LR _because_ it does panos. Yeah yeah LR uses raw files but as Jim said LR pano is a work in progress.


----------



## jerry12953 (Oct 5, 2015)

Jim,

I hope this works. 



*Recipients* 

[email protected]

*Files (80.9 MB total) *
_MG_1677.CR2 
_MG_1680.CR2 
_MG_1683.CR2 
_MG_1686.CR2 
*Will be deleted on *
12 October, 2015
*Download link* 
http://we.tl/9OJz8NaW5M


----------



## Ian.B (Oct 5, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> Do you have a Dropbox account or something similar such as One Drive or Google Drive?
> 
> If not you can upload to a site such as www.yousendit.com, and then share the link (i.e. you upload the files, it asks you where to send the link to, enter your own email address so that you get the link, then you can post that link here).
> 
> *Yes I would need the raw files.*


 Why? I thought a set of jpeg copies would do. Add the answer when replying to jerry's images Jim. Just curious mate and not picking fights. After all you poor buggas up there are still getting over the lesson from the Wallabies


----------



## Ian.B (Oct 5, 2015)

80 mb!!
 I pay too much for  internet mb


----------



## jerry12953 (Oct 5, 2015)

Ian.B said:


> hand held or tripod used Jerry?
> 
> I don't have LR6 so I use the free Microsoft ICE for stitching files and I will not be getting LR _because_ it does panos. Yeah yeah LR uses raw files but as Jim said LR pano is a work in progress.



Tripod. LR is on the whole such an excellent piece of software, and I did upgrade to take advantage of photomerging . If, as Jim suggests, LR6 is improved in future dot releases, only those with CC accounts will see the improvements. 

Best not to mention the rugby to Jim. I'm from Wales but keeping quiet.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 5, 2015)

The question about raw files is an interesting one. We know that Lightroom can stitch raw images to a new 'raw' panorama dng file, so that would be the answer. However, it's not that simple. Despite what Adobe says, the panorama dng is not a real raw file. It's a kind of intermediate, that isn't really raw anymore, but handles the same as raw in practise. The reason for this is better understood if we look at what a raw file is. A raw file is a 'mosaiced' file. That means that each pixel only contains one brightness value (so it's technically a greyscale image), and the Bayer filter on your sensor determines what color that brightness value refers to; Red, Green or Blue. The other two colors are calculated ('interpolated') from the adjacent pixels when the raw data are 'demosaiced' by the raw conversion software.

So couldn't Lightroom just stitch the raw, mosaiced files? The answer is no. Just imagine what happens if you make a series of images meant to be stitched. On the first image (that will be on the far left of our panorama), we may have some nice and clear detail at the right side of the image, that can be used as 'anchor point' for stitching. It means that Lightroom will have to find the same detail at the left side of the second image. However, here comes the catch: if the files are still mosaiced, there is no guarantee that the Bayer filter was positioned the same way over that detail in the second image! In other words, what may be a very bright pixel in the first image, could well have a very low brightness value in the second image. The same detail will look very different in two adjacent images as long as you haven't demosaiced the data. The second problem is: what would be the brightness value of the stitched result, and with what color would that relate? The stitched result would very likely not have an uninterrupted Bayer pattern at the stitch lines...

That is why Lightroom will stitch demosaiced images, not true raw images, and it is why the resulting panorama dng is also a demosaiced linear RGB file, not a true raw file. But that also makes you wonder whether the stitching (and any possible errors) would be any different if you used jpegs made from the raw files rather than the raw files themselves. I haven't tested it, but I doubt there will be a difference as long as you use full size jpegs (resizing might make it different).


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 5, 2015)

Studiously ignoring the rugby barbs wtf, and not mentioning the Ashes, I've downloaded the files OK, thanks Jerry. But I'm a bit puzzled as the last file is more or less the same as the first file, it looks as though you were shooting right to left, so starting with file 1677, then 1680, then 1683....but the next (last) file in sequence is 1686 which seems to have framed parts of 1677 and 1680 again. Have you uploaded the correct files?

Ian, yes I guess we could have tried jpegs, but in order to try to replicate the problem that Jerry is seeing it surely makes more sense to use the same files as he's using, yes?


----------



## clee01l (Oct 5, 2015)

JohanElzenga said:


> ...Despite what Adobe says, the panorama dng is not a real raw file. It's a kind of intermediate, that isn't really raw anymore, but handles the same as raw in practise. The reason for this is better understood if we look at what a raw file is. A raw file is a 'mosaiced' file. That means that each pixel only contains one brightness value (so it's technically a greyscale image), and the Bayer filter on your sensor determines what color that brightness value refers to; Red, Green or Blue. The other two colors are calculated ('interpolated') from the adjacent pixels when the raw data are 'demosaiced' by the raw conversion software.
> ...


There is nothing in the DNG spec that says that file format must be RAW.  DNGs can come in one of two types: lnear and non linear. Demosaic'd RGB data can still be packaged in a DNG envelope  The DNG spec is a variant of the TIFF/EP6 specification. Adobes has not indicated that the Pano DNG is supposed to be RAW.  In fact  I think if you dig deep enough, the Pano DNG is the same file format as the Smart Preview. It may even be a Lossy DNG (I haven't looks that deeply into the format specifications).


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 5, 2015)

clee01l said:


> There is nothing in the DNG spec that says that file format must be RAW.  DNGs can come in one of two types: lnear and non linear. Demosaic'd RGB data can still be packaged in a DNG envelope  The DNG spec is a variant of the TIFF/EP6 specification. Adobes has not indicated that the Pano DNG is supposed to be RAW.  In fact  I think if you dig deep enough, the Pano DNG is the same file format as the Smart Preview. It may even be a Lossy DNG (I haven't looks that deeply into the format specifications).



I know that DNG doesn't have to be raw, but I do believe Adobe suggests that the panorama dng is 'raw'. And if they did not suggest it, many websites and commentators believe it.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 5, 2015)

I think you missed my point however. My point was/is that because the panorama stitching in Lightroom is done with demosaiced images (even if you select raw originals), I don't think there will be a noticeable difference (also not when it comes to stitching errors!) between stitching raw images or stitching JPEGs that are generated from these raw images.


----------



## jerry12953 (Oct 5, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> Studiously ignoring the rugby barbs wtf, and not mentioning the Ashes, I've downloaded the files OK, thanks Jerry. But I'm a bit puzzled as the last file is more or less the same as the first file, it looks as though you were shooting right to left, so starting with file 1677, then 1680, then 1683....but the next (last) file in sequence is 1686 which seems to have framed parts of 1677 and 1680 again. Have you uploaded the correct files?
> 
> Ian, yes I guess we could have tried jpegs, but in order to try to replicate the problem that Jerry is seeing it surely makes more sense to use the same files as he's using, yes?



Jim,

Best not to mention the cricket, I think......

You're right that I didn't take them in a chronological order. I must have decided to do a panorama as an afterthought. But as the left 3 will merge, and the right three will merge, would that cause a problem? The correct order from L>R is -

1683>1680>1686>1677.

There's a lot of overlap between the last three. Could that be a problem? All at 200 mm.

incidentally if I try and post a quick reply, the forum freezes. But advanced seems to work.

jerry


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 5, 2015)

I don't know if that would cause a problem, i.e. in a typical pano you'd move l-to-r or r-to-l, but in this case you've not actually done that as you've shot 1677>1680>1683>1686. As it happens I don't think it matters, because in point of fact all the image data in 1686 is encapsulated in 1677 and 1680, so 1686 is superfluous to the pano. You can safely exclude it and you should still get the desired result (or was there something else in that image that I'm missing).

But this is the result I get when I select all 4 using the new 6.2 release which has an improved Photo Merge engine:


----------



## jerry12953 (Oct 5, 2015)

Jim,<br>
<br>
I really hadn't noticed that 1686 was superfluous. Many thanks for pointing that out.<br>
<br>
I tried the merge using the other three but it still wouldn't work! it just didn't like the l.h. image.<br>
<br>
I assumed that as an outright purchaser of v6 I wouldn't get the 6.2 update but others have suggested that it's a bug-fix not an update and that I could get it. Would that be the case, do you think?<br>
<br>
jerry


----------



## jerry12953 (Oct 5, 2015)

To save you the trouble of replying, I have now installed v6.2, and the merge has worked successfully.

Many thanks.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 5, 2015)

Good to hear, Jerry. I've found that the new Photo Merge engine in 6.2 has fixed quite a few panos that were problematic in 6.0/1.


----------



## Ian.B (Oct 6, 2015)

I _like the photo_ jerry; bit of this and that, plus some dodge and burn and you will have a ripper imo

The ashes have forgotten down here  but for _my sake_ wallabies better beat Wales


----------



## Tony Jay (Oct 6, 2015)

I will wait to update 6.1 for the moment however I will be interested to see whether the new panorama algorithm can sort a particularly challenging stitch that 6.1 failed miserably to do.
I successfully stitched it in Photoshop though.

Tony Jay


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 6, 2015)

If it doesn't Tony, put in a bug report....it's seeing the failures that will help the team iron out all the wrinkles.


----------



## Tony Jay (Oct 6, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> If it doesn't Tony, put in a bug report....it's seeing the failures that will help the team iron out all the wrinkles.


I could, but I have to admit that it is a tough image to stitch.
Image a bridge that looks like several multimasted sailing ships have collided and got entangled together.
The algorithm just gets confused as to what goes where - not too surprising since this bridge when first constructed in Brisbane elicited a similar confusion as to its weird design.

I can send you a small JPEG of the complete panorama if you want just to satisfy your curiosity. 

Tony Jay


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 6, 2015)

Yes, that would be good to see. If you want to send me jpegs of the original files, I'll be happy to try the merge in 6.2 (and bug it for you if the merge still fails).


----------



## Tony Jay (Oct 6, 2015)

OK I'll send em up!

Tony Jay


----------



## jerry12953 (Oct 5, 2015)

I have a set of four images I want to merge into a panorama. 

If I select all four, the left-hand image is not included (or possibly a large section of it).

If I select the left-hand three they merge perfectly, so it isn't a problem with that particular image.

Any suggestions, please?


----------



## dsm (Oct 7, 2015)

jerry12953 said:


> To save you the trouble of replying, I have now installed v6.2, and the merge has worked successfully.
> 
> Many thanks.



6.2 photo merge is much improved over 6.0 or 6.1 - many 8-shot panoramic merges (shot using Medium format lens and Fotodiox Rhinocam jig) now come togther in lightroom where previous maybe 40% would work in LR and the rest had to go to Photoshop to complete


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 7, 2015)

Hi dsm, welcome to the forum.

Glad you like the improvements....I've seen the same as well.


----------

