ICE 2 and Resolution RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,

    While assembling panoramas I previously did with ICE 1.4, I noticed that the resulting image resolution is far below what it used to be. This is very unfortunate since it makes me lose details.

    In a particular case, ICE 1.4 would yield a 2465 pixels vertical resolution. With ICE 2 and the same source files, I end up with a 1462 pixels vertical resolution.

    Is there something I'm missing here? I have plenty of available RAM (>10GB) and disk space.

    Friday, February 6, 2015 2:24 AM


All replies

  • This sounds like it might be a bug on our part. If you have an example image set that you can share with us (via either dropbox or onedrive) and mail we'd be happy to take a look
    Friday, February 6, 2015 7:00 PM
  • Hi Matt,

    Great. Let me assemble this and I get back to you very soon.

    Saturday, February 7, 2015 5:06 AM
  • A 1,003 pixel difference is significant to be sure, but I don't suppose that there's any way that it might be explained by the panorama being stitched at varying angles, could it?

    What I mean is that if the camera didn't stay perfectly level and drifts from high on the left to low on the right and ICE 1's default solution kept the horizon more level (meaning that the highest edges of the pano were higher and the lower edges lower) and ICE 2's default solution tried to rotate the pano so as to crop off the fewest pixels when using auto crop then there would certainly be a discrepancy in the height of the image.

    Can you confirm that both ICE 1 and ICE 2 have solved for the same camera motion and are using the same projection method (Perspective, Cylindrical, Spherical, etc.)?

    I'm not trying to dismiss your results... just seeking to rule out any differences due to using different settings in each version.

    I'd be curious to know what conclusions you guys come to.

    There is no effect without a cause.

    Saturday, February 7, 2015 11:58 AM
  • Matt,

    I have some temporary good news for you.
    While I was packaging the source pictures, I decided to repro the full steps and, surprise, the resulting image had the proper resolution. I double checked the one I did yesterday and I can positively affirm the resolution was what I documented in the initial post - I do have the generated file.

    Also, since Nathanael raised a good point with the projection, I also checked the one that was used and although it was not the exact same, it was very close. Meanwhile, I agree with him that a vertical difference of more than 1K pixels is a lot and I don't believe it explains the issue.

    Anyhow, I'll take some time to properly reproduce the issue and I'll get back to you as soon as I have something relevant.

    Thanks again for your time.

    Sunday, February 8, 2015 12:11 AM
  • I also experienced this issue. My first panorama is noticeably pixelated by comparison with the source images despite exporting at 100%, as I had done many times before with the old version

    [Edit:] His only seems to happen with the 'Stereoscopic' projection, which was not available in the old version. Using Cylindrical projection, as I usually used in the past, does not hobble the resolution.

    • Edited by AARP Sunday, February 8, 2015 1:44 PM Did further testing
    Sunday, February 8, 2015 11:05 AM
  • Hi Matt,

    After reading the post from AARP, I checked to see if I could repro his finding and he's actually right.

    The "Stereographic" projection is also the culprit in my case. Considering my camera resolution and the amount of pictures taken, my panorama is expected to have a vertical resolution of about 4500 pixels - which is what I get from several of the available projections.

    Meanwhile, with the "Stereographic" projection, it yields a stitched picture of about 1500 vertical pixels. I also found out that the "Orthographic" projection yields strange results with a 13400 vertical pixels resolution - all of this with the exact same source pictures.

    Let me know if you need my sample files or if this information is enough for you to reproduce the issue.
    Thanks Matt. Have a nice day.

    Also, thanks AARP for helping out.

    Monday, February 9, 2015 3:56 AM
  • Hi Matt,

    Could you or the team reproduce the issue? Do you still need the source pictures?
    Thanks in advance.

    Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:13 PM
  • Thanks TheCyberKnight.  We have been able to reproduce this, so no need to send pictures.
    Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:54 AM
  • We've fixed this problem in the latest update to ICE (version 2.0.3). Stereographic and Orthographic projections now produce panoramas with much more reasonable resolution.

    Please download the latest version from the ICE home page (, or accept the automatic update when you next start ICE.

    Eric Stollnitz, Computational Photography Group, Microsoft Research

    Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:56 PM
  • Dear Eric.  I have posted a related question in the post "ICE 2.03 - Can export resolution be increased?" : 

    Would you have an aswer to this?

    Any reply would be appreachiated.



    Tuesday, December 26, 2017 12:18 PM