Richard, if you're using ICE to stitch images like that (regular, geometric surfaces), it's really common to get weird distortions, even with a 'perfect' shot. Here's one taken with a rectilinear lens, 50% overlap (not an E90). Note that the barn roofs have weird swirls on them - optically, stitching software has real problems with this kind of pattern and the smallest changes in lighting and contrast can produce very weird results. Note it's the 'grid like' roof that has problems - the grass and field nearby is largely distortion free. With buildings, the direction of the grid that you fly can also have quite an influence.

I would never use ICE, PTGUI or any purely optical image stitching software to produce map like images. They introduce completely unpredictable distortions - even when it looks 'right', the image can be completely misleading and dimensionally inaccurate.
I'd also add that in the stitch you posted, you seem to have far too few images - ICE needs more reference edges, so plenty of overlap and going beyond the boundaries of the thing you want an image of improves the reference for stitching.
You specifically mention 3 x 2 ratio images - do those produce worse results than the other options? Is this why other pilots are happier with their shots?

I would never use ICE, PTGUI or any purely optical image stitching software to produce map like images. They introduce completely unpredictable distortions - even when it looks 'right', the image can be completely misleading and dimensionally inaccurate.
I'd also add that in the stitch you posted, you seem to have far too few images - ICE needs more reference edges, so plenty of overlap and going beyond the boundaries of the thing you want an image of improves the reference for stitching.
You specifically mention 3 x 2 ratio images - do those produce worse results than the other options? Is this why other pilots are happier with their shots?
Last edited: