Hello to All!
 
There is an app called "Enfuse" that has been floating around for a couple of months, and appears to be a solution to the dynamic range (DR) conundrum pano content creators have always faced.
 
Enfuse takes a different approach to DR than HDR - and from the examples I've seen yields better results.
 
Google "Enfuse" to get a good look at this new approach to DR in panos.
 
Here is the Wiki URL for an overview:
-------------------------------------------
http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse
 
There are also some GUI front ends for Enfuse that have recently appeared:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://pangeasoft.net/pano/bracketeer/index.html
http://www.kekus.com/for_reg_users/
 
Haven't used either of these GUI's for Enfuse. I attempted to use "Bracketeer" but there was a problem with the disk image loading properly.
 
This program, & its GUIs, might prove valuable in your work.

Hi to All!
 
Have had a chance to work with the XFuse front end for Enfuse. This program looks like a realtime saver.
 
I've posted the results here.
 
I have just started to explore what it can do. As mentioned on the web page/link above I used the default settings. There are several parameters you can adjust.
 
Just two images were used. From my readings about Enfuse it does better with more images (greater EV range, more info to work with), but I was very pleased with what this initial experiment produced.

Well that just knocked me off my seat!

enfuse seems to work rather well, i used bracketeer to make this pano of chicago's cloud gate -  
 
http://viewat.org/?i=en&sec=pn&id_ [...] =1097&rc=1
 
seems easier to get more realistic results with enfuse than with traditional HDR, bracketeer is nice because you get a preview window, i used 5 exposures here, -3, -2, -1, 0, & +1, i tried a few other combinations but this seemed to work best
 
thanks for the tip !
 
sam

I've just tried Enfuse with the EnfuseGUI from Ingemar Bermark on a few tours in the past week and like the results.
 
Using a Coolpix 5400/FC-E9 produces a circular image with black around it. Photomax's HDR/Tone Mapping blends in the "black", screwing up up the image. Their Composite function works on the Circular images but not as vivid colors and sharp edges as the HDR/Tone Mapping does on my full-frame still photos.
 
What I'm getting by compositing the source images before stitching is somewhere in between Photomatix's HDR/Tone Mapping and Composite providing more vivid colors that I have to tone down a little in Photoshop and sharper edges than the Composite tool. The views out the windows add a lot of depth and I can see into what would be dark, outdoor shadows
 
I haven't been able to get the Enfuse Options to produce any difference that I can see in with various settings, and need to followup on that or look at another GUI.
 
As Enfuse moves from beta to mature product and the GUIs get more user friendly and effective, I think Photomatix may have some serious and affordable competition, compared to Photoshop CS3 with its HDR funtion.

jim, thanks so much for informing us of this developing technology. i have been playing with it this weekend, and it seems like a great complement to stitcher.
 
i tend to shot a lot of my panorama source shots with a bracketed -2, 0, +2 EV setting. the most reliable way i have previously found to get a usable image from them was to  
 
(a) convert RAWs to 16bit TIFFs
(b) stitch, stencil and render out each of the 3 exposures.
(c) use photomatix to combine the 3 outputs.
(d) downsample to 8bit
 
obviously working with 16bit files, and 3 different exposures, took its toll on my hard drive, processor, and also took a long time! enfuse is much much faster. i can also work in 8bit, which for interior shots is often adequate (i'll stick to a 16bit workflow when i'm working with clear blue skies etc). the dynamic range is effective and naturalistic, and the workflow is much easier for my laptop to cope with.
 
incidentally i have been using xfuse as a front end for now. i will try and post some comparative examples soon, but i wanted to add my initial feedback to the forum. this is shaping up to be another vital tool in the stitcher user's arsenal!

Actually, the guys from Photomatix did collaborate on some testing with the implementor of Enfuse. And it's the same algorithms they're implementing in the upcoming Photomatix V3, under their "Exposure Blending - Adjust" (so not under the HDR workflow). I tested it using the beta version, and at the moment it chokes on the fairly large files I use (about 35MP x 3 or 4).

 
cool, even better to see these algorithms being used in photomatix too as i think they'll be beneficial for most users ... i've also played with the beta briefly (and own v2), but have to confess i've never really used photomatix for a non-HDR workflow. sounds like i've been missing out on an extra trick! thanks for the tip.
 
incidentally i have shot 6 panos today, and have stitched 4 of them already, all with a wider exposure gamut due to multiple exposure bracketing. i would never've been able to do the same thing using HDR in the same timescale ... so i'm very pleased!    

Enfuse continues to astound and enrich me...
 
I can bid difficult ($$$$) jobs that fit in more clients' budgets.
 
An example of a QTVR from Hell...
http://web.mac.com/wdd3/iWeb/Wolk/Wolk_02.html
 
Multiple light sources (temperature & intensity). This Enfused VR was Photoshopped mainly to correct colors that the camera records (such as cyans and blues in the shadows, which the eye sees as unnatural).
 
But no unnatural flat HDR type output from this program.
 
-------------------------------------
I've attempted to write a primer for new users to Enfuse but found I cannot. There are far too many variables to reduce them to a few common denominators. You just need to practice and develop your eye.
 
That said I do find it valuable to shoot six exposures per image location for difficult (extreme) lighting variations at 1 EV per bracketed image. This gives you greater latitude in choosing which exposures to select for Enfusing. For VR work I have also found that less is more. Selecting two or three images from this grouping of six usually does the job (better than selecting all six). The URL site above was created from just two out of six possible exposures per image location - even with the huge variation in light.
 
*** Also you can add the same image into the mix again. Suppose images #1, 4, & 6 (1 darkest; 6 lightest) give good results, but you want more "light" - try adding image 6 again (i.e. there are now two image 6's added to a single Enfuse "recipe" ). I have not found the individual controls in Enfuse to be effective on an incremental level - using repeat images, as above, has been more effective for tweaking the desired output.
 
And this is the Art/experience part of the equation - which exposures to create/select.
 
This output is of more than just academic interest... it is far more efficient ($$$) of course to only need two or three bracketed image sets (stitched QTVRs) as compared to loading and rendering six. And even after the sets are Enfused into one equirectangular output you can use the individual equirectanglar images from the bracketed grouping as overlay/masks on the Enfused output to easily tweak exposure details.
 
 
------------------------------------
If you visit the above sited URL you will find another one listed (Wolk_01) which has also been Enfused; this time using a three (stitched) bracketed image set with 1.5 EV differential.

Jim
I've also found Enfuse a great value in my VR work flow.  
 
The Circular Fishheyes I get using a Coolpix 5400 with the FC-E9 have a black "background" around the circular image that the HDR/Ton Mapping function in Photomatix Pro "blends" into the circular image. The Combine function is pretty good but really slow.  
 
I usually shoot +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 and -7 for my 2 fisheye capture, but, like you, I get the best result from using just something like +2, +1, -2 and -5 saving as a .tif. Somethimes the images are a little dark, but have lots of saturation for lightening after I stitch them.
 
Enfuse is producing a much better composite with almost no "halos" than Photomatix's Combine and does it faster so that helps my bottom line by letting me process more images faster.
 
I just wish there was a little better GUI for Enfuse. I'm using the one from Igemar Begmark on my PC. I still have to drag & drop the images from Windows Explorerer instead of opening them in the GUI and I don't see the settings in the "Enfuse Options" doing anything to the resulting images. Could be me not knowing how to use the Options too

Thanks to Jim Scott and others for this useful post.  I will start to experiment with exposures and bracketing and will post back.  Has anyone tried "weighting"  Enfuse with the contrast, exposure, or saturation tweaks.  The output of the posted images look great and not "HDR".
 
Jeff

Hi Jeff!
 
I have not found the "weighting" to be significant unless the settings are pushed to the max or min. The Saturation weighting has the most visible effect... and this extreme shifting doesn't necessarily improve an image - it just alters it.
 
The good news is that these settings are almost irrelevant in my experience. The default settings work extremely well - and this is what I have wished for - a program that makes the best decisions automatically with a given data set, often promised rarely delivered. And now that I have one (or one close to automatic), ironically I want to twiddle with the dials!
 
The biggest impact you can make is in your selection of images as per my last post in this thread.
 
And yet I couldn't resist twiddling with the dials -  and I found something unexpected - involving the use of the "Hard Mask" option.
 
The "Hard Mask" option is supposed to keep the "fine details" at the trade-off of reduced exposure accuracy around the fine details... which I find to be a reasonable summary; but using the "Hard Mask" option will also more evenly blend dark quarter tones with mid tones.
 
Please see an example here.
 
The major significance of this discovery is now I can usually get away with just two bracketed sphericals instead of three (to be Enfused into one "Master" spherical). Basically I've reduced my CPU processing time and hard drive storage by 50% per pano.
 
Another way to look at this: how much would you have to pay to increase your hard disk space & CPU power by 50%. Judiciously whittling down your pano requirements is free in terms of $$$$ and output time (though you will need to spend time learning how to make this work for your needs - as with any skill set).
 
Of course this two spherical solution does not always work - and I typically take (6) bracketed images per shot location to allow the latitude of selecting a good set of exposures to work with.
 
Note from my 8th grade Grammar teacher Miss Crane: Do not end your sentences with a preposition.
 
The key is in deciding which (2) bracketed sets to stitch and Enfuse. And sometimes you may wish to use an image from a bracketed series that is not part of the two series you have selected.
 
Example:
=======
My D70/10.5 needs nine shot locations (1-9); six around, one up + two down for a spherical.
Say each image location has six bracketed images (a-f) per shot location ("a" darkest, "f" lightest).
So...
"Image 1a" is the first image location and first exposure (darkest exposure).
"Image 1e" is the first image location and fifth exposure (next to lightest exposure).
 
And let's say that looking at these images in Photoshop's Bridge program that in general I want to use the "b" exposure value for each image location in the "Dark Spherical" and the "e" exposure value for each image location in the "Light Spherical".
 
My line-up would be two stitched sphericals composed of image locations 1-9:
"Dark Spherical" - Exposure values of "b" (1b, 2b, 3b, etc.)
"Light Spherical" - Exposure values of "e" (1e, 2e, 3e, etc.)
 
But suppose "Image 3c" looks better in the scheme of things than the "official" selected exposure value of "Image 3b" (third image location, exposure "c" being a bit lighter than "b" ).
 
So our "stitch formula" for the "Dark Spherical" would now be:
1b, 2b, 3c, 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b
 
 
Bottom Line:
---------------
Do not be afraid to mix'n match things around.
 
Or add the same image twice - say you have just three bracketed images (a-c) per shot location. Instead of enfusing a,b,c  you may find a,c - or a,c,c - or b,b,c etc. works better.
 
 
=========
"Bracketeer" http://pangeasoft.net/pano/bracketeer/ (Mac only) is great for experimenting because of its preview function. v3 features a scalable preview window that essentially allows for a high res look at your Enfuse trial settings. Often (using the Nikkor 10.5mm at least) there is a "crux" shot - the difficult exposure. I use this shot to experiment to help determine if I need to stitch 3 sphericals - or hopefully just 2. Then based on this output create my stitching schedule.
 
Another benefit of "Bracketeer" when Enfusing sphericals - you can view the results as a VR directly in the "Brackteer" program itself. If you are a Mac user and want to utilize Enfuse your money will be well spent on this software.