Great, so I’ll take it for now that having photo filenames in strict sequence e.g. along a wall may help a bit with ‘matching’ speed but isn’t significant for end-result.
About avoiding photos which are too close (less than 5o or 10o?) to each other in vector. Been trying looking in 3D for those and it’s not straightforward.
What about 2 photos like that but one of them taken at greater distance from the subject? That significantly alters the geometry, one to the other. Enough?
Because when photographing at an internal angle between say end wall and side wall of a room, I step along one wall nearly to the corner. Then I need to start the other wall also from the corner but turned 90o. But in between, I have to make shots in to the corner at 30o and 60o to link the two runs - yes? In doing this it’s hard to avoid creating effective panorama shots paired with the penultimate photos (almost from same viewpoint but turned 30o) of the two straight runs. Backing out or closing in is a way to ‘scatter’ the cameras. Any good?
In fact if the last shot along each wall is turned 15o towards the corner, those shots are only 60o not 90o apart, so only need one linking shot at 45o, not two at 30o and 60o.
With such systematic coverage, am actually getting half-good results along smooth-plaster walls that previously defeated me. Seems that fantastic pixel-density (to pick out paint brush-strokes on the plaster) isn’t going to be necessary - good overlap and tripod-mounted sharpness may be enough. Next to try increasing ISO above 100 - at ISO1600 hand-held may be OK.