Blending error

[tduell]

Using test images supplied by Hans Bull, I get a blending error using Enblend 4.2.0 (1116:fd5bc9fbf096).
The blending error does not occur with Multiblend.
This error appears to be particularly sensitive to the crop boundary. I have not been able to reproduce the error for any other settings than those in the .pto file.
Attached images, .pto and resulting stitch.
I am using Fedora 20 x86_64 hugin-2014.1.0 (current default)

[Christoph Spiel (cspiel)]

Brief answer: `-a'
Less brief answer: (0, 4, 3, 1, 2)
Readable answer:
    In the canonical order, the first pair of images already does
*not* overlap and Enblend issues a (deserved) warning. Re-order the
images e.g. as (0, 4, 3, 1, 2) or stick with the canonical order and
pass the pre-assemble option `-a'.

The behavior you experience is expected as Enblend's algorithm adds
one image after the other, blending each with the *result* of all
images before. This is described in the user manual.

I prepared a set of patches that
    (1) Give pre-assembling a more prominent position by adding long
        forms `--pre-assemble' and `--no-pre-assemble'.
    (2) Exploit more parallelism in the pre-assembly code path.
    (3) Give a more descriptive warning when encountering
        non-overlaps.
Please contact me by email if you are interested in alpha-testing
these patches.

If we let us guide by the principle-of-least-surprise, even a program
abort is conceivable in case (3). What do you think?

As you are an extraordinarily experienced user of Enblend and a native
speaker of English (one excuse less, he he!) you are cordially invited
to improve on the Enblend user manual to further clarify the default
`one-by-one' and `pre-assemble' variants.

[tduell (tduell-iinet)]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:57:50 +1000, Christoph Spiel <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Brief answer: `-a'
> Less brief answer: (0, 4, 3, 1, 2)
> Readable answer:
> In the canonical order, the first pair of images already does
> *not* overlap and Enblend issues a (deserved) warning. Re-order the
> images e.g. as (0, 4, 3, 1, 2) or stick with the canonical order and
> pass the pre-assemble option `-a'.
>

Thanks for your help on this.
Apology for the delayed response.

Cheers,
--
Regards,
Terry Duell