seamless view of images

Message-ID:<3f95a21b-891d-4222-9796-c052b294ce84@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
Subject:

seamless view of images

Date:Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:56:38 +0100


dear all,
  I  want to have a seamless view of 10 by 10 ,ETM+,  PAN images. but
because of the radiometric difference, i am not getting seamless
view , what is the best way for processing(automatically) each image
so that we can get a seamless view.

Message-ID:<9314cd4f-8589-49dc-8979-bdfc1e544344@j40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
Subject:

Re: seamless view of images

Date:Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:12:43 +0100


On Nov 3, 2:56=A0am, ravi nooka  wrote:
> dear all,
> =A0 I =A0want to have a seamless view of 10 by 10 ,ETM+, =A0PAN images. b=
ut
> because of the radiometric difference, i am not getting seamless
> view , what is the best way for processing(automatically) each image
> so that we can get a seamless view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------
ravi:
You can do a global leveling of the average intensity in the image.
Or, if there is some overlap, you might try doing a graduated,
weighted average as you go from one side of the overlap to the other.
Regards,
ImageAnalyst

Message-ID:
Subject:

Re: seamless view of images

Date:Mon, 3 Nov 2008 19:01:02 +0100

ravi nooka wrote:
> dear all,
>   I  want to have a seamless view of 10 by 10 ,ETM+,  PAN images. but
> because of the radiometric difference, i am not getting seamless
> view , what is the best way for processing(automatically) each image
> so that we can get a seamless view.

If I have understood your problem, you want
to match the images for graytone.  You need
to use "histogram matching".

Note the warning in this post:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.image.processing/browse_thread/thread/eb7b1a3a0c614292/df6fba9c926b2913?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#df6fba9c926b2913

then look at this thread for code:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.image.processing/browse_frm/thread/e4d95a591536d9a6/5bafd57e29e20ece?q=insubject:%22histogram+insubject:match+insubject:code+insubject:required%22&rnum=8&hl=en#5bafd57e29e20ece

I am not sure making the process completely
automatic is a good idea.  But you can
certainly make it semi-automatic without
too much danger of it going wrong.

The other approach is the one used in making
black & white photo mosacis.  You first use
a dodging printer.  This performs a gentle
high-pass filter, and so makes all the
photo prints uniformly gray.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail: please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/

Message-ID:<224617a8-d8dc-4094-b32c-183d022ded3a@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
Subject:

Re: seamless view of images

Date:Mon, 3 Nov 2008 19:32:47 +0100


On Nov 3, 2:56=A0am, ravi nooka  wrote:
> dear all,
> =A0 I =A0want to have a seamless view of 10 by 10 ,ETM+, =A0PAN images. b=
ut
> because of the radiometric difference, i am not getting seamless
> view , what is the best way for processing(automatically) each image
> so that we can get a seamless view.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Related interesting video of using motors to scan a regular camera to
make gigapixel images.  Then they need to get stitched together.
They'll undoubtedly have the same problems as you.
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/11/take_a_gigapixel_photo_wi.html?CMP=
=3DOTC-0D6B48984890

Message-ID:<49792dd7-e816-41da-9c8a-0662a2309a37@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
Subject:

Re: seamless view of images

Date:Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:38:26 +0100

On Nov 3, 1:56=A0am, ravi nooka  wrote:
> dear all,
> =A0 I =A0want to have a seamless view of 10 by 10 ,ETM+, =A0PAN images. b=
ut
> because of the radiometric difference, i am not getting seamless
> view , what is the best way for processing(automatically) each image
> so that we can get a seamless view.

I am not sure what "ETM+,  PAN images" are but seamless stitching of
regular images is usually implemented by seamful stitching of wavelet
or Laplace pyramids and then taking the inverse.  I recommend Laplace
pyramid because wavelets are relatively useless for anything but
compression.