Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

24213Re: Some more tests on Optimal Cubefaces.

Expand Messages
  • Hans Nyberg
    Nov 1 5:38 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "philipp_koch_als_name_gibts_oft" <pk@...>
      > Hans,
      > 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?

      Yes and No. You may also do that
      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
      the converter.
      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.

    • Show all 24 messages in this topic