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

HDMI, or 1920 by 1080 or even now 2560 by 1600 - wow

Expand Messages
  • robert_harshman
    I asked a question on this a while back, got zero response. perhaps this will be the same. My question is, given the advent of digital HD TV and the world of
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 24, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I asked a question on this a while back, got zero response. perhaps
      this will be the same.

      My question is, given the advent of digital HD TV and the world of
      VR's, does any one have a recommendation for optimum cubic tile size,
      etc. for viewing on these monster screens? Note, I've given up caring
      about file sizes quite a while ago, my girlfriend refers to this
      as "dial up losers." And it's true, if you're on anything short of DSL
      your losing out on a very large part of the modern world.

      We are quicky moving to screen sizes as big as you want it and can
      afford it. Along with that is the rapid blurring of content sizing for
      TV or computers. 4:3 format is history, 16:9 is the future and who
      knows what is coming next, perhaps a 360:180 :)

      So, any one worked on optimizing VR's for HD viewing? Or even have any
      ideas on this?

      Regards,

      Robert
    • dorindxn
      Hi Robert, my pano with 4000x4000 cubic faces looks OK on my 1920 x 1080 and 2048 x 1536 CRT, maybe other are kind to give a feedback of this pano viewed on
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Robert,
        my pano with 4000x4000 cubic faces looks OK on my 1920 x 1080 and
        2048 x 1536 CRT, maybe other are kind to give a feedback of this pano
        viewed on exactly you ask, then we have a refference on 4k cubic
        faces.

        http://dorin.devalvr.com/Leaf_vs_iron.html

        As somebody said, on a mosnter TV a VR will look like a moving window,
        http://www.devalvr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=408

        So now I'm working on buying a moving window of my own :)

        Dorin

        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "robert_harshman" <image360@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > I asked a question on this a while back, got zero response. perhaps
        > this will be the same.
        >
        > My question is, given the advent of digital HD TV and the world of
        > VR's, does any one have a recommendation for optimum cubic tile
        size,
        > etc. for viewing on these monster screens? Note, I've given up
        caring
        > about file sizes quite a while ago, my girlfriend refers to this
        > as "dial up losers." And it's true, if you're on anything short of
        DSL
        > your losing out on a very large part of the modern world.
        >
        > We are quicky moving to screen sizes as big as you want it and can
        > afford it. Along with that is the rapid blurring of content sizing
        for
        > TV or computers. 4:3 format is history, 16:9 is the future and who
        > knows what is coming next, perhaps a 360:180 :)
        >
        > So, any one worked on optimizing VR's for HD viewing? Or even have
        any
        > ideas on this?
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Robert
        >
      • dorindxn
        Robert, sorry I forgot, compliments to your girlfriend and a warning about the pano, is about 15MB download! Dorin ... size, ... caring ... DSL ... for ... any
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Robert, sorry I forgot, compliments to your girlfriend and a warning
          about the pano, is about 15MB download!

          Dorin


          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "robert_harshman" <image360@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > I asked a question on this a while back, got zero response. perhaps
          > this will be the same.
          >
          > My question is, given the advent of digital HD TV and the world of
          > VR's, does any one have a recommendation for optimum cubic tile
          size,
          > etc. for viewing on these monster screens? Note, I've given up
          caring
          > about file sizes quite a while ago, my girlfriend refers to this
          > as "dial up losers." And it's true, if you're on anything short of
          DSL
          > your losing out on a very large part of the modern world.
          >
          > We are quicky moving to screen sizes as big as you want it and can
          > afford it. Along with that is the rapid blurring of content sizing
          for
          > TV or computers. 4:3 format is history, 16:9 is the future and who
          > knows what is coming next, perhaps a 360:180 :)
          >
          > So, any one worked on optimizing VR's for HD viewing? Or even have
          any
          > ideas on this?
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Robert
          >
        • erik leeman
          Hi Robert, December last year my wife and I bought one of those BIG Sony Bravia LCD tv s, supposedly for watching DVD movies ; ) I am happy to tell you those 3
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Robert,

            December last year my wife and I bought one of those BIG Sony Bravia
            LCD tv's, supposedly for watching DVD movies ; )
            I am happy to tell you those 3 to 5MB QuickTimes of mine look
            absolutely FANTASTIC on it (using DevalVR full-screen)! After that
            seeing them on a 'tiny' 21" computer monitor is truely disappointing.
            So for me the BIG screen is what I aim for with my VR images.
            The QTVR full-size tiles I get with my 5D+15mm fisheye
            equirectangulars from Pano2QTVR are about 3550x3550, but I always
            reduce them to 2100x2100 in Photoshop (with some careful sharpening).
            I stepwise increase compression in Pano2QTVR until banding and other
            artefacts become a bit too visible to my taste, and then reduce it a
            notch for the final 'web' version. Uncompressed the .mov's are about
            60 to 70MB, the webversions are somewhere between 2.5 and 5MB. This
            works as stated above and is reasonably practical with ADSL-like
            internet connections, but I'd much rather publish files of around
            10MB!
            Within a year or two that might not be a problem at all.

            Regards,

            erik leeman

            (www.erikleeman.com/QT/fullscreen-english-DEVAL.htm)
          • Hans Nyberg
            ... Remember that using fast broadband/DSL does not always mean fast connection every where in the world. First of all you server has to be fast, second the
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "robert_harshman" <image360@...> wrote:
              >
              > I asked a question on this a while back, got zero response. perhaps
              > this will be the same.
              >
              > My question is, given the advent of digital HD TV and the world of
              > VR's, does any one have a recommendation for optimum cubic tile size,
              > etc. for viewing on these monster screens? Note, I've given up caring
              > about file sizes quite a while ago, my girlfriend refers to this
              > as "dial up losers." And it's true, if you're on anything short of DSL
              > your losing out on a very large part of the modern world.
              > We are quicky moving to screen sizes as big as you want it and can
              > afford it. Along with that is the rapid blurring of content sizing for
              > TV or computers. 4:3 format is history, 16:9 is the future and who
              > knows what is coming next, perhaps a 360:180 :)

              Remember that using fast broadband/DSL does not always mean fast connection every
              where in the world.

              First of all you server has to be fast,
              second the connections to the viewer passes through a lot of downgrading cables on the
              way.

              I have a 6 megabit connection and I usually get full 5200 kbps from most Europe,
              However from Turkey I often get less than 1000.
              Most overseas connections to Australia and Asia also usually give me from 500-2000.

              US is usually 1500-3000

              And if you as most people do are using a wireless router in your home you have to be very
              careful.
              Even if they claim 30 m is the range it does not mean the speed is the same.
              If I go 5 m into my living room and get a wall between me and the router speed falls from
              5000 to 500.
              Everything between you and the router lowers speed.

              Regarding HDMI the resolution is not larger than most monitors today.
              Viewing a pano on a 40" screen with 1920 by 1080 is not different than the same
              resolution on my MacBook 17" which I currently use.

              And 1600x1600 cubefaces is fine for that resolution. Most people never use the zoom
              function anyway so unless you have some very interesting subjects that benefit from
              zooming in there is no reason to use higher resolution than the one that gives you optimal
              at your default FOV.
              If you make the resolution larger than you are going to see it you get worse quality
              actually. The flimmering effect we all know from QTVR is the same for the new Flash
              viewers. And it increases when you see the pano in a resolution which is smaller than the
              image is.

              Hans
            • Erik Krause
              ... It all depends on how far you allow to zoom in. If you f.e. want to allow for a minimum of 40° view (approximately 50mm focal length on 35mm film - the so
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On Saturday, August 25, 2007 at 6:11, robert_harshman wrote:

                > We are quicky moving to screen sizes as big as you want it and can
                > afford it. Along with that is the rapid blurring of content sizing for
                > TV or computers. 4:3 format is history, 16:9 is the future and who
                > knows what is coming next, perhaps a 360:180 :)
                >
                > So, any one worked on optimizing VR's for HD viewing? Or even have any
                > ideas on this?

                It all depends on how far you allow to zoom in. If you f.e. want to
                allow for a minimum of 40° view (approximately 50mm focal length on
                35mm film - the so called standard lens) you can as a first
                approximation multiply the horizontal viewer size by 360/40 to get
                the width of the source equirectangular. For a 1920 wide screen this
                would be 17200x8600 pixels equirect or 5500 pixels cube face size.

                If you don't want to provide such a large pano, you f.e. can limit
                zoom in to 80° which would need a 8600x4300 pixel equirect or 2700
                pixel cube face, which is still fairly large but reasonable.

                Unfortunately Quicktime doesn't allow to set the maximum zoom in
                dynamically, but with other viewers it should be no problem to set
                the zoom in depending on the viewer width.

                best regards

                --
                http://www.erik-krause.de
              • erik leeman
                In Pano2QTVR (Pano2VR) I use settings of max 90, default 60 and min 45 degrees. According to the camera info of DevalVR that corresponds with 0.5x, 0.75x and
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  In Pano2QTVR (Pano2VR) I use settings of max 90, default 60 and min 45
                  degrees. According to the 'camera info' of DevalVR that corresponds
                  with 0.5x, 0.75x and 1.0x resp. On wide screens 60 degrees distorts
                  noticably, but not too much.

                  Regards,

                  erik leeman
                • Hans Nyberg
                  ... Dorin Larger size does not mean better viewing quality. Your 4000x4000 sucks in viewing quality because you do not see it in the correct resolution even on
                  Message 8 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "dorindxn" <Dorin@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Robert,
                    > my pano with 4000x4000 cubic faces looks OK on my 1920 x 1080 and
                    > 2048 x 1536 CRT, maybe other are kind to give a feedback of this pano
                    > viewed on exactly you ask, then we have a refference on 4k cubic
                    > faces.
                    >
                    > http://dorin.devalvr.com/Leaf_vs_iron.html

                    Dorin
                    Larger size does not mean better viewing quality.

                    Your 4000x4000 sucks in viewing quality because you do not see it in the correct
                    resolution even on a 1920x1200.
                    The shimmering effect is increased by having to much difference between viewing size and
                    real resolution. On a 1024x768 your pano is very ugly and this is not just in QTVR but it is
                    the same in DevalVR and it will also be in Flashpanoramas.

                    You will get a much better viewing quality by choosing a 1600x1600 cubeface (which
                    gives you perfect resolution for a 1920x1200) and choosing Motion High quality. You can
                    do the same in Flash, not sure if DevalVR has that option.

                    You can not use high quality with large cubefaces as it will affect the panning too much.

                    Hans
                  • dorindxn
                    Hi Hans, that s a valuable feedback! I understand that you ve tested at 1920x1200 and 1024x768 at those resolutions at which zoom the pano stops to look ugly?
                    Message 9 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Hans, that's a valuable feedback!

                      I understand that you've tested at 1920x1200 and 1024x768 at those
                      resolutions at which zoom the pano stops to look ugly?
                      If you can't manage to get the zoom factor, two simply screen
                      captures will be ok for me to determine the zoom factor, then
                      considerring your feedback and others kind to provide, I will limit
                      the min zoom trough javascript according to viewer screen resolution.

                      many thanks,
                      Dorin

                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans Nyberg" <hans@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "dorindxn" <Dorin@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi Robert,
                      > > my pano with 4000x4000 cubic faces looks OK on my 1920 x 1080 and
                      > > 2048 x 1536 CRT, maybe other are kind to give a feedback of this
                      pano
                      > > viewed on exactly you ask, then we have a refference on 4k cubic
                      > > faces.
                      > >
                      > > http://dorin.devalvr.com/Leaf_vs_iron.html
                      >
                      > Dorin
                      > Larger size does not mean better viewing quality.
                      >
                      > Your 4000x4000 sucks in viewing quality because you do not see it
                      in the correct
                      > resolution even on a 1920x1200.
                      > The shimmering effect is increased by having to much difference
                      between viewing size and
                      > real resolution. On a 1024x768 your pano is very ugly and this is
                      not just in QTVR but it is
                      > the same in DevalVR and it will also be in Flashpanoramas.
                      >
                      > You will get a much better viewing quality by choosing a 1600x1600
                      cubeface (which
                      > gives you perfect resolution for a 1920x1200) and choosing Motion
                      High quality. You can
                      > do the same in Flash, not sure if DevalVR has that option.
                      >
                      > You can not use high quality with large cubefaces as it will
                      affect the panning too much.
                      >
                      > Hans
                      >
                    • Scott Witte
                      ... Interesting. I was about to say it looked pretty good on my 1600x1200 monitor in full screen mode :- At default zoom I started seeing the downside
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hans Nyberg wrote:
                        > Your 4000x4000 sucks in viewing quality because you do not see it in
                        > the correct resolution even on a 1920x1200.
                        Interesting. I was about to say it looked pretty good on my 1600x1200
                        monitor in full screen mode :-\ At default zoom I started seeing
                        the downside you mentioned. There was a slight flicker or hesitation to
                        parts of the image depending on how fast you panned. The redraw couldn't
                        quite keep up and it got a bit worse as you zoomed all the way out. Drop
                        out of full screen and view only in the browser (occupying 2/3 of the
                        screen) and it was smooth panning again unless I zoom all the way out.
                        Resize the window to approximately 1024/760 and panning is smooth
                        regardless of zoom. Wouldn't that be equivalent to displaying on
                        1024/768 CRT attached to my same system?

                        Drag that browser from my CRT to my LCD and there is lots of "high
                        frequency" (fast) hesitation over the entire image, possibly because the
                        LCD has a lower refresh rate. On the other hand, extend the browser
                        window across both monitors, even a just slightly onto the LCD and the
                        whole thing takes on the same jerky motion as when displayed on just the
                        LCD.

                        So how much of this is hardware dependent (video card, CPU & monitor
                        speed) vs. monitor size or resolution vs. cube face size? And more
                        importantly, what you seem to be getting at, while a pano may look great
                        on our systems they are probably higher level than the "average" viewer.
                        So what criteria should we design for?

                        BTW, my system is Core2 Duo 6600 (2.40 GHz) 4GB RAM, ATI X1600 Pro (dual
                        head, dual GPU). So it is better quality but not bleeding edge.


                        --
                        Scott Witte
                        ---------------------------------
                        *WITTE *ON* LOCATION*
                        414.345.9660
                        www.scottwitte.com <http://www.scottwitte.com>

                        Member, APA | Midwest





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Hans Nyberg
                        ... Actually what I am talking about is the shimmering effect in high detail areas like the grass. This effect grows in intensity the smaller you display the
                        Message 11 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Scott Witte <scottwitte@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hans Nyberg wrote:
                          > > Your 4000x4000 sucks in viewing quality because you do not see it in
                          > > the correct resolution even on a 1920x1200.
                          > Interesting. I was about to say it looked pretty good on my 1600x1200
                          > monitor in full screen mode :-\ At default zoom I started seeing
                          > the downside you mentioned. There was a slight flicker or hesitation to
                          > parts of the image depending on how fast you panned. The redraw couldn't
                          > quite keep up and it got a bit worse as you zoomed all the way out. Drop
                          > out of full screen and view only in the browser (occupying 2/3 of the
                          > screen) and it was smooth panning again unless I zoom all the way out.
                          > Resize the window to approximately 1024/760 and panning is smooth
                          > regardless of zoom. Wouldn't that be equivalent to displaying on
                          > 1024/768 CRT attached to my same system?

                          Actually what I am talking about is the shimmering effect in high detail areas like the
                          grass.
                          This effect grows in intensity the smaller you display the panorama compared to the
                          resolution.
                          You can avoid some of it by making very soft not sharpened panoramas and of course by
                          using Quality High for motion but that will give you jerky panning especially on a large
                          panorama.

                          The closer you are to the actual resolution of the image the less visible it becomes.

                          Hans
                        • Scott Witte
                          ... Oh, wow. Now I see. And if you view in the browser and reduce the window enough the grain never disappears even when still. It just doesn t shimmer . --
                          Message 12 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hans Nyberg wrote:
                            > Actually what I am talking about is the shimmering effect in high
                            > detail areas like the grass. This effect grows in intensity the
                            > smaller you display the panorama compared to the resolution.
                            Oh, wow. Now I see. And if you view in the browser and reduce the window
                            enough the "grain" never disappears even when still. It just doesn't
                            "shimmer".


                            --
                            Scott Witte
                            ---------------------------------
                            *WITTE *ON* LOCATION*
                            414.345.9660
                            www.scottwitte.com <http://www.scottwitte.com>

                            Member, APA | Midwest





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • robert_harshman
                            ... cubeface (which ... High quality. You can ... Thanks Han and others for the input. I guess I should have known that pixel resolution is the same regardless
                            Message 13 of 17 , Aug 25, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > You will get a much better viewing quality by choosing a 1600x1600
                              cubeface (which
                              > gives you perfect resolution for a 1920x1200) and choosing Motion
                              High quality. You can
                              > do the same in Flash, not sure if DevalVR has that option.
                              >
                              > Hans
                              >
                              Thanks Han and others for the input.

                              I guess I should have known that pixel resolution is the same
                              regardless of HD or PC. And for 1920 by 1080 (the kind of short term
                              HD "standard" I guess, Pano2QTVR suggests a cube size of about 1541.

                              So thanks for al the responses. Now anyone care to put their views in
                              on blu-ray verses HDDVD?

                              Regards,

                              Robert
                            • dorindxn
                              Thank you Scott, Brilliant sugestion Hans! I ll test to use a very soft image to see if I can tame the shimmer to use it like a collateral sharpness thanks!
                              Message 14 of 17 , Aug 26, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Thank you Scott, Brilliant sugestion Hans! I'll test to use a very
                                soft image to see if I can tame the shimmer to use it like a
                                collateral sharpness

                                thanks!

                                Dorin

                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Scott Witte <scottwitte@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > Hans Nyberg wrote:
                                > > Actually what I am talking about is the shimmering effect in high
                                > > detail areas like the grass. This effect grows in intensity the
                                > > smaller you display the panorama compared to the resolution.
                                > Oh, wow. Now I see. And if you view in the browser and reduce the
                                window
                                > enough the "grain" never disappears even when still. It just
                                doesn't
                                > "shimmer".
                                >
                                >
                                > --
                                > Scott Witte
                                > ---------------------------------
                                > *WITTE *ON* LOCATION*
                                > 414.345.9660
                                > www.scottwitte.com <http://www.scottwitte.com>
                                >
                                > Member, APA | Midwest
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • Roger Berry
                                I did a little test in PhotoShop CS3 saving the cubes at high quality vs pixel size, made the panos in Flash and did a screen capture of a pano section from
                                Message 15 of 17 , Aug 26, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I did a little test in PhotoShop CS3 saving the cubes at high quality
                                  vs pixel size, made the panos in Flash and did a screen capture of a
                                  pano section from each one at full zoom.
                                  This is what I got:
                                  http://www.indiavrtours.com/pic/test-3.jpg

                                  My screen is 24" resolution set at 1920 by 1200.
                                  Roger Berry
                                • erik leeman
                                  Hi Roger, Maybe it s me being dim, but I m not sure I fully understand what you did exactly. However, in my eyes the difference in quality between the Cube
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Aug 26, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Roger,
                                    Maybe it's me being dim, but I'm not sure I fully understand what you
                                    did exactly. However, in my eyes the difference in quality between the
                                    Cube 1600 and Cube 2348 versions is quite dramatic!

                                    Regards,

                                    erik leeman
                                  • Roger Berry
                                    I did some more testing and to me it looks like the larger cube size is a little better, even when saving it on a much lower quality setting in CS3. Here is
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Aug 26, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I did some more testing and to me it looks like the larger cube size
                                      is a little better, even when saving it on a much lower quality
                                      setting in CS3.
                                      Here is the test, file size about 1 MB.
                                      http://www.indiavrtours.com/pic/test-4.jpg

                                      Roger Berry


                                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...>
                                      wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Hi Roger,
                                      > Maybe it's me being dim, but I'm not sure I fully understand what
                                      you
                                      > did exactly. However, in my eyes the difference in quality between
                                      the
                                      > Cube 1600 and Cube 2348 versions is quite dramatic!
                                      >
                                      > Regards,
                                      >
                                      > erik leeman
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.