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

Web hosting for Panoramas

Expand Messages
  • Justin Imhoff
    I m at a stage where i have a heap of panoramas I want to be able to share with you guys and anyone else who might be interested. So I m wanting to get a
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 25, 2007
      I'm at a stage where i have a heap of panoramas I want to be able to share with you guys and anyone else who might be interested. So I'm wanting to get a domain hosted where I can do that easily. I do have a couple of question hopefully some of you may be able to answer for me in regards to this.

      1) Are there any free hosting services that would be sufficient for this purpose?
      2) What file sizes are typical or appropriate for high quality full screen QTVRs?

      Any other useful information on this topic would be most welcome, as I have not done this before and would like to do it right. I appreciate your help.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Hans Nyberg
      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:40 PM
      Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: HDMI, or 1920 by 1080 or even now 2560 by 1600 - wow

      --- 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

      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
      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.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.