Considering this software

[scrapscot]

I have been using Arc-Soft's Scan-n-Stitch but having trouble getting it from Arc-Soft after my computer had a virus and had to have it wiped clean. Their download won't work.

How does this software compare? I need to use it to scan scrapbook layouts.

[Geoff Blanthorn]

I've no experience of ArcSoft's program, but have successfully used Serif's SSS for many projects. Try it. Serif offer a 30 day money back guarantee if you find the program unsuitable.

Geoff

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

PanoramaPlus is cheaper and does the same task. I am not sure what the difference is, maybe sharing via DrawPlus.com is missing?

The free Microsoft Image Composite Editor may also do enough.

[scrapscot]

Originally Posted by Bhikkhu Pesala PanoramaPlus is cheaper and does the same task. I am not sure what the difference is, maybe sharing via DrawPlus.com is missing? The free Microsoft Image Composite Editor may also do enough.

You've used Panorama for scrapbook 12x12 pages?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Originally Posted by scrapscot You've used Panorama for scrapbook 12x12 pages?

I don't do scrap-booking or photography, though I have sometimes scanned a large map and tried stitching it together.

I tested PanoramaPlus X4 with six images of 3,000 x 4,000 pixels cropped from a previous project of 4664 x 7319 pixels. Screen shot attached. That's equivalent to stitching six 5" x 6.67" scans @ 600 dpi — a fairly demanding project. A4 scans at 300 dpi would be smaller.

Panorama Plus struggled on my hardware and failed to stitch such a large image (34.14 MegaPixels) when using the Optimum size setting, but it might work with more RAM than my 1 Gbyte. It succeeded when I reduced the size and produced an image of 1,925 x 3,000 Pixels (5.77 MegaPixels). It took about 20 minutes by the time I had got a working result, which is why I recommend MS ICE. There may be a difference in quality, but the results look fine to me.

MS ICE took less than 2 minutes overall, and saved the image at 4,654 x 7,306 Pixels (34.00 MegaPixels) after using Autocrop.

I did use SSS many moons ago, but it suffered from the same memory and speed problems.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

PanoramaPlus X4
Load six images = 5 seconds
Stitch images 3 mins 10 seconds
Resulting image = 1,925 x 3,000 Pixels

MS Image Composite Editor
Load six images and stitch 35 seconds
Export at full size 1 min 10 seconds
Resulting image = 4,663 x 7,330 Pixels

[Lon in California]

Originally Posted by Bhikkhu Pesala PanoramaPlus X4 Load six images = 5 seconds Stitch images 3 mins 10 seconds Resulting image = 1,925 x 3,000 Pixels MS Image Composite Editor Load six images and stitch 35 seconds Export at full size 1 min 10 seconds Resulting image = 4,663 x 7,330 Pixels

I also performed a small experiment this morning, with 6 images. The speed was nominally different, with ICE a few seconds faster.

These 6 images were in a grid 3-across and 2-high.

Both results were exported at 960 px wide, as if I was doing a banner shot, and at 80 percent quality. The ICE pano was a bit larger at 67kb, than the PanPlus at 56kb.

The two big differences I did note were in color and stitch quality.

ICE colors seemed better, richer, and closer to what my eye saw this morning, although PanPlus handled shadows better. Contrast in ICE was more noticeable. The biggest difference was that PanPlus had trouble with the light pole to the right of the picture. ICE handled that stitching pretty well, except for a small glitch at the base of the pole.



Lon "tall and wide" in California