24213Re: Some more tests on Optimal Cubefaces.
- Nov 1, 2008--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "philipp_koch_als_name_gibts_oft" <pk@...>
>Yes and No. You may also do that
> thanks for your efforts to share your findings with us! Hhm, but I
> must admit I'm not sure if I do understand this correctly. Do you mean
> it's possible to shrink the equirectangular image to 70% of its
> original size and divide the corresponding image width by pi without
> visible image detail loss? Sorry, maybe this is a dumb question, but I
> simply could not get the same values when looking at the example on
> your website.
> To make it simple: Say, there is an equirectangular image with 1000 x
> 500 px.
> 1000 x 0.7 = 700
> 700 / pi = 222.8169203
> So, one could shrink the equirectangular image to 700 x 350 px in
> Photoshop and convert this image to six 222 x 222 px cube faces?
> Or am I getting something totally wrong here?
But If you read my page again you will see that I use the full resolution equirectangular as
the source image to convert directly to the cubefaces. Just ignore any default cubefaces by
In that way you are using all your information for the conversion so that you get full
quality in all areas of the cubeface.
Of course the 70% rule is only applicable if you are using the max resolution from your
camera as it is the interpolation in the camera which gives you a false resolution.
In reality you could probably also already in the Raw converter downsize the original
images without loosing any details.
For example all these Gigapixel images which are so popular are in most cases using
panoramas with a resolution which they could easy schrink to 70%
Just zoom in on them to the so called full resolution and you see that the quality is often
really bad. But of course 10 gigapixels sounds more impressive than 7.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>