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

Re: File Format-

Expand Messages
  • bohonus
    Don t know what to tell you Hans. I created this .jp2 image (posted earlier) http://www.bohonus.com/temp/File_687.pano_95.jp2 G5 2ghz Single dual core Mac with
    Message 1 of 97 , Jun 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Don't know what to tell you Hans.

      I created this .jp2 image (posted earlier)

      http://www.bohonus.com/temp/File_687.pano_95.jp2

      G5 2ghz Single dual core Mac with 4.5 GB memory
      Graphic Converter 5.6.2
      Original Image was 500MB
      Compressed using GraphicConverter's Quality setting "95"
      Final image is about 30MB and looks very good.

      "compression tests" comparing the two formats has been going on for years and the consensus reached has been the same in that the end results are superior than regular
      JPEG. There are scores of documents online discussing these things. Check em out :)

      I might also add that JPEG2000 allows for different areas of the image to be compressed
      differently using alpha masks. Different areas of an image can also have different levels of
      resolution as well. Though in creating the above file, I did not employ any of those
      techniques. Though whether or not Graphic Converter made any of those choices
      "automatically" is unknown to me.




      > I have tested Graphic Converter also. It is much worse than CS3
      > It could not at all handle my 105 mb test image,
      >
      > It was impossible to drag the sliders for compression,
      >
      > This is on my 2.0 dualcore G5 with 8GB Ram,
      > To be able to save it I had to first reduce the size to a 25mb image and calculate the
      > sliders for a similar compression as my JPG.
      > The sliders than stayed in place when I opened my large image.
      >
      > Here is some crops showing the artifacts you get with JPG2000
      > http://www.panoramas.dk/test/TestJPG2000.jpg
      >
      > Look how the bricks in the wall are destroyed and all the details in the road are blurred.
      > The CS3 version was actually better but it had some weird artifact in the sky like tiling.
      >
      > It reminds me about the old Cinepack codec used back in the first years of QTVR.
      > http://www.virtualdenmark.dk/qtvr/codec/codec.html
    • Fulvio Senore
      Many thanks to all those who took the time to test the pano. I suppose than now I have some useful info. Loading in Windows computers is usually very fast, so
      Message 97 of 97 , Jul 2 1:18 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Many thanks to all those who took the time to test the pano.
        I suppose than now I have some useful info.

        Loading in Windows computers is usually very fast, so I suppose that the
        slow loading is caused by the internet connection. Unless java on Mac is
        hopeless, of course.

        At the moment there is no point in having a larger pano, since the
        current implementation of java has not enough memory available to store
        a larger image.

        I hope that I will be able to prepare something in the next months.

        Fulvio Senore


        Uri Cogan ha scritto:
        > Fulvio Senore wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        >> So I am curious. Here is an old sample of a rather large java pano:
        >> http://www.fsoft.it/panorama/PTViewer/PTVTest/Prova5000.html
        >> <http://www.fsoft.it/panorama/PTViewer/PTVTest/Prova5000.html>
        >> May anybody test it with a Mac, just to report if it is fast enough?
        >> I am confident that, on modern computers, the speed could be easily
        >> doubled.
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > It would be interesting to see a full-screen Java pano. Your sample Took
        > 25 seconds to load fully - this probably depends on the connection speed
        > rather than on Java itself. panning and zooming were quite smooth.
        >
        > Mac Pro Intel dual processor 2 Ghz, Mac OS 10.5.3, Safari browser.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.