From 423af06c771b94cf8e34664c527bbb76b8c122e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Hilvert Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:43:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] d2::align: Revise comment about exposure registration. darcs-hash:20070910174334-d1b56-ca0b0f2fc025c7da1337ab1e8af22ce42a840662.gz --- d2/align.h | 16 +++++++++------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/d2/align.h b/d2/align.h index 660b546..f6dfdb8 100644 --- a/d2/align.h +++ b/d2/align.h @@ -1331,13 +1331,15 @@ public: * * Expects full-LOD images. * - * This function is a bit of a mess, as it reflects rather ad-hoc rules - * regarding what seems to work w.r.t. certainty. Using certainty in the - * first pass seems to result in worse alignment, while not using certainty - * in the second pass results in incorrect determination of exposure. - * - * [Note that this may have been due to a bug in certainty determination - * within this function.] + * Note: This method does not use any weighting, by certainty or + * otherwise, in the first exposure registration pass, as any bias of + * weighting according to color may also bias the exposure registration + * result; it does use weighting, including weighting by certainty + * (even if certainty weighting is not specified), in the second pass, + * under the assumption that weighting by certainty improves handling + * of out-of-range highlights, and that bias of exposure measurements + * according to color may generally be less harmful after spatial + * registration has been performed. */ static void set_exposure_ratio(unsigned int m, struct scale_cluster c, transformation t, int ax_count, int pass_number) { -- 2.11.4.GIT