Re: New Panoramas for critique
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 .
Keep the good work coming .
- 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?
--- 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
> 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 (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
I'll have a look at the others and PM you, OK?
- --- "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
> It is much better to make corrected RAW-conversions (I really hope youWell, I corrected the saturation on my "almost finished" pano.
> work with RAW and 16-bit TIFFs) and restitch using the script you
> already have.
It was 16-bit tiff, extracted from RAW though, all the way to the
- Rookie2 wrote:
>Yes, it works as intended. The shimmering is not my main concern. it is just
> How does the shimmering look on your computer with this panorama moving?
> Deval VR:
> 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
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
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.