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

Re: New Panoramas for critique

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.