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

Re: New Panoramas for critique

Expand Messages
  • Mahmood Hamidi
    ... Indeed Martin, Actually, I checked mh360 first but you had been there first, then I just swapt the the initials and 360. I may start using an alternative
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Hrdlicka"
      <martin.hrdlicka@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Mahmood Hamidi"
      > <mahmood_hamidi@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I've uploaded a couple of new panoramas, all feedbacks/critiques to
      > > improve the panoramas or/and the site itself are welcome.
      > >
      > > www.360mh.com/
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > > Mahmood
      > >
      > Hi Mahmood,
      > this is fun that you have very similar name of your domain as mine and
      > both take up interest in virtual panoramas.
      > My domain www.mh360.com ( old pages) consists of first characters of
      > my name too.
      > I wish you good luck for pano-shooting.
      > Martin Hrdlicka :-))
      > www.mh360.com
      > www.panorama360.cz
      > www.virtualczech.cz
      >

      Indeed Martin,
      Actually, I checked mh360 first but you had been there first, then I
      just swapt the the initials and 360. I may start using an alternative
      domain name soon though.

      Regards,
      MH
    • Mahmood Hamidi
      Hi again Carel, I have uploaded a new pano in the Nacka Strand serie, its name is Nacka Strand (04) . In this one I have followed your advise, no sharpening
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi again Carel,

        I have uploaded a new pano in the "Nacka Strand" serie, its name is
        "Nacka Strand (04)".
        In this one I have followed your advise, no sharpening on sky or water.
        How does the shimmering look on your computer with this panorama moving?

        Deval VR:
        http://www.360mh.com/ns04_dv.html

        QTVR:
        http://www.360mh.com/ns04.html

        Regarding the size, it got smaller than the others in the serie.
        N.S. 01: 3062 KB
        N.S. 02: 2675 KB
        N.S. 03: 2309 KB
        N.S. 04: 2154 KB

        Regards,
        Mahmood

        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Carel <cs@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Hi Mahmood,
        >
        > I think you files will be much smaller if you restrict sharpening to
        areas
        > that will really benefit from it. Viewing the panos from a pc
        without video
        > card, I see a lot of "shimmering" (which is usually caused by
        sharpening) on
        > the water and ground. Your file size will be greatly reduced if you
        leave
        > those areas unsharpened. I also always leave the sky unsharpened.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Carel Struycken
        >
        > --
        > View this message in context:
        http://www.nabble.com/New-Panoramas-for-critique-tf4364550.html#a12441913
        > Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
        >
      • erik leeman
        Hi Mahmood Hamidi, Deval Nacka Strand has less aliasing shimmers on my screen than the QTVR one, and in both it is most visible in the boats and some of the
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Mahmood Hamidi,

          Deval Nacka Strand has less aliasing 'shimmers' on my screen than the
          QTVR one, and in both it is most visible in the boats and some of the
          trees. Unless a viewer is capable of (hardware supported) anti-
          aliasing it will always be there if there is any sharply defined
          detail in a moving image. Make murky, low-res VR's and it's gone, and
          so will be al detail and image quality. Let's hope viewing technology
          will catch up with high quality content soon.
          May I suggest an adjustment of your FOV settings?
          With VR's like these I think it would be better to use these:
          max FOV = 80
          min FOV = 45
          initial FOV = 60
          Zooming out as far as is possible now serves absolutely no purpose
          (in my mind at least) and zooming in all the way only reveals ugly
          compression artefacts, not detail. The initial FOV of 60 makes the
          image a little more 'quiet' regarding aliasing noise without limiting
          the view too much.
          Other than that I think the image is a bit 'greyish' overall. I
          certainly don't like oversaturated images, but this looks a bit too
          flat to me. Do you use a calibrated monitor? If you don't maybe you
          should consider buying the necessary gear, it really can make a huge
          difference!

          Regards,

          erik leeman

          (www.erikleeman.com)
        • jann_lipka
          Mahmood, Sorry I was not clear about power cables Here comes a screen shot ( QTVR versions ) - comparison of NK Pano of yours with a similar pano crop of
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Mahmood,
            Sorry I was not clear about "power cables "

            Here comes a screen shot ( QTVR versions ) - comparison
            of NK Pano of yours with a similar
            pano crop of my own .mov file .

            http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/Jann_Lipka/Bild236-1.jpg



            Keep the good work coming .

            regards
          • Mahmood Hamidi
            Hi Erik, Thank you for your response. I suspect that you have looke on Nacka Strand (4) , but might be wrong. There are 3 others in that serie which I suspect
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Erik,

              Thank you for your response.
              I suspect that you have looke on "Nacka Strand (4)", but might be
              wrong. There are 3 others in that serie which I suspect show more
              shimmerings in water that (4) as no sharpening was applied to the
              water in that one.
              Also, regarding the saturation, I agree that this last nr 4 was the
              greyest of all and therefore increased the it a little bit, how does
              it look like now?
              Or do you think that the others also suffer of the same flatness?

              Mahmood

              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Mahmood Hamidi,
              >
              > Deval Nacka Strand has less aliasing 'shimmers' on my screen than the
              > QTVR one, and in both it is most visible in the boats and some of the
              > trees. Unless a viewer is capable of (hardware supported) anti-
              > aliasing it will always be there if there is any sharply defined
              > detail in a moving image. Make murky, low-res VR's and it's gone, and
              > so will be al detail and image quality. Let's hope viewing technology
              > will catch up with high quality content soon.
              > May I suggest an adjustment of your FOV settings?
              > With VR's like these I think it would be better to use these:
              > max FOV = 80
              > min FOV = 45
              > initial FOV = 60
              > Zooming out as far as is possible now serves absolutely no purpose
              > (in my mind at least) and zooming in all the way only reveals ugly
              > compression artefacts, not detail. The initial FOV of 60 makes the
              > image a little more 'quiet' regarding aliasing noise without limiting
              > the view too much.
              > Other than that I think the image is a bit 'greyish' overall. I
              > certainly don't like oversaturated images, but this looks a bit too
              > flat to me. Do you use a calibrated monitor? If you don't maybe you
              > should consider buying the necessary gear, it really can make a huge
              > difference!
              >
              > Regards,
              >
              > erik leeman
              >
              > (www.erikleeman.com)
              >
            • erik leeman
              Hi Mahmood, Please be very careful with increasing saturation of a finished pano, especially if it is only 8 bits in colourdepth! You ll get ugly posterization
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Mahmood,

                Please be very careful with increasing saturation of a finished pano,
                especially if it is only 8 bits in colourdepth! You'll get ugly
                posterization (did I spell that correctly?) in clear skies and other
                relatively featureless areas if you overdo it just the slightest bit!
                It is much better to make corrected RAW-conversions (I really hope you
                work with RAW and 16-bit TIFFs) and restitch using the script you
                already have.
                I'll have a look at the others and PM you, OK?

                Regards,

                erik leeman

                (www.erikleeman.com)
              • Mahmood Hamidi
                ... Well, I corrected the saturation on my almost finished pano. It was 16-bit tiff, extracted from RAW though, all the way to the stiched pano. Mahmood
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:

                  > It is much better to make corrected RAW-conversions (I really hope you
                  > work with RAW and 16-bit TIFFs) and restitch using the script you
                  > already have.

                  Well, I corrected the saturation on my "almost finished" pano.
                  It was 16-bit tiff, extracted from RAW though, all the way to the
                  stiched pano.

                  Mahmood
                • Carel
                  ... Yes, it works as intended. The shimmering is not my main concern. it is just an indicator. File size SHOULD be a big concern, because broadband speed
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Rookie2 wrote:
                    >
                    > .............
                    > How does the shimmering look on your computer with this panorama moving?
                    >
                    > Deval VR:
                    > http://www.360mh.com/ns04_dv.html
                    >
                    > QTVR:
                    > http://www.360mh.com/ns04.html
                    >
                    > Regarding the size, it got smaller than the others in the serie.
                    > N.S. 01: 3062 KB
                    > N.S. 02: 2675 KB
                    > N.S. 03: 2309 KB
                    > N.S. 04: 2154 KB
                    >
                    > Regards,
                    > Mahmood
                    >
                    >

                    Yes, it works as intended. The shimmering is not my main concern. it is just
                    an indicator. File size SHOULD be a big concern, because broadband speed
                    varies considerably from country to country and broadband speed is much
                    slower between continents. I therefore usually also compress the tiles
                    separately, compressing much more for the nadir unless there is something of
                    interest to see there. Usually my compression is: Pano2QTvr quality setting:
                    60 for Zenith (watch for banding in blue sky), 70 for four around and 40 for
                    nadir. I also sharpen on a separate layer and then mask out all the
                    unimportant parts.

                    Carel Struycken

                    --
                    View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/New-Panoramas-for-critique-tf4364550.html#a12455350
                    Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.