I don’t have a rotator, so obviously can’t use one when using the framing and mosaic wizard. What I will typically do is perform a plate solve, get the camera angle, and adjust the canvas rotation to match. I then ignore the warnings about rotation and proceed. This works fine, but I think it would be nice if FMW had an option to match the canvas rotation to the camera angle. SGP could do a quick plate solve and then rotate the canvas to match. Then it would know the camera angle matches the canvas orientation and the warnings would be unnecessary. This seems pretty elegant to me, but I also recognize that it may be more trouble than it’s worth. Nonetheless, I submit it for your consideration.
While I understand what you are after, this is why we provide the manual rotator (for folks that need specific rotation, but don’t own rotators). See here:
Sure, I’m aware of the manual rotator and have used a few times. But that approach matches the camera angle to the canvas angle. What I typically do is just the opposite. I will generally keep my camera close to 0 degrees rotation (as close as I can get it by eye) and rarely adjust the camera angle to frame an object. As I mentioned earlier, when I use FMW, I will usually have the precise camera angle already from a previous plate solve and adjust the canvas angle to match. If I’m remembering correctly, even with the “Rotate camera to:” unchecked, SGP still gives a warning that it has no way to validate the camera angle. I understand the purpose of the warning and agree that it is a good thing to have. What I’m suggesting is that if there was a routine that runs a quick plate solve, gets the camera angle and adjusts the canvas accordingly when the sequence is created in FMW, SGP would have a valid camera angle reference and the warning would not be needed. A feature like that would eliminate the step of manually setting the canvas angle and the need for the warning when the camera will not be rotated. I have (only once) forgotten to set the canvas angle and then dismissed the warning, which resulted in at least the start of a bad mosaic (I caught it in time).
Like I said, it not a biggie, just something that would be nice if it were relatively easy to do.
Ya… I see what you are saying. I guess I just don’t see the benefit as able to match the cost:
I see this feature as giving very little useful information. If you are not going to rotate your camera, why does the MFW even matter? The only useful bit of information I see here that you would be able to make a binary decision about whether or not your target fits and then decide whether or not to image it at all.
The MFW is designed to be used indoors. It would take some finagling to get it hooked up to active gear and plate solvers and, as stated above, I’m not sure of the real benefit.
The warning you are referring to was removed due to massive backlash…