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

Some more tests on Optimal Cubefaces.

Expand Messages
  • Hans Nyberg
    I have made some more tests on the optimal cubeface sizes. http://www.panoramas.dk/cubefaces/ Hans
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I have made some more tests on the optimal cubeface sizes.
      http://www.panoramas.dk/cubefaces/

      Hans
    • Keith Martin
      ... Large pano alert. :-) More to the point, Flash 10 alert... boy, the image dances around a lot where the cubeface joins are! [SIGH] I wish it was safe to
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 31, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Sometime around 31/10/08 (at 21:26 +0000) Hans Nyberg said:

        >http://www.panoramas.dk/cubefaces/

        Large pano alert. :-)

        More to the point, Flash 10 alert... boy, the image dances around a
        lot where the cubeface joins are! [SIGH] I wish it was safe to use,
        but it still has this huge problem.

        k
      • erik leeman
        ... ???? I only see some wobbly patches near the upper edge of my screen when panning quickly, but that could be a hardware (memory) issue unique to my machine
        Message 3 of 24 , Oct 31, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
          > ...snip
          > More to the point, Flash 10 alert... boy, the image dances around a
          > lot where the cubeface joins are! [SIGH] I wish it was safe to use,
          > but it still has this huge problem.
          >
          > k

          ???? I only see some wobbly patches near the upper edge of my screen
          when panning quickly, but that could be a hardware (memory) issue
          unique to my machine (PC). I have Firefox plugin version 10,0,12,36
          installed.

          Other than that I noticed the loading indicators of both windows going
          to the same 4MB+ amount, which would seem to suggest both panos were
          the same size. Is everything working as intended?

          Erik Leeman
        • erik leeman
          ... Reloaded the page once more (third time). Sure enough, something like 4325kB both left and right. Loading times were about equal too.
          Message 4 of 24 , Oct 31, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:

            > Other than that I noticed the loading indicators of both windows going
            > to the same 4MB+ amount, which would seem to suggest both panos were
            > the same size. Is everything working as intended?
            >
            > Erik Leeman
            >

            Reloaded the page once more (third time). Sure enough, something like
            4325kB both left and right. Loading times were about equal too.
          • Hans Nyberg
            ... Sorry you are right, I have exchanged them to CubicConverter movies. I have discovered that Pano2VR seems to have problems with downsizing. The 1904 is
            Message 5 of 24 , Oct 31, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik leeman" <erik.leeman@> wrote:
              >
              > > Other than that I noticed the loading indicators of both windows going
              > > to the same 4MB+ amount, which would seem to suggest both panos were
              > > the same size. Is everything working as intended?
              > >
              > > Erik Leeman
              > >
              >
              > Reloaded the page once more (third time). Sure enough, something like
              > 4325kB both left and right. Loading times were about equal too.
              >
              Sorry you are right, I have exchanged them to CubicConverter movies.

              I have discovered that Pano2VR seems to have problems with downsizing.
              The 1904 is softer than the CubicConverter version.

              Hans
            • erik leeman
              ... I think for a valid comparison you should do the scaling and sharpening in Photoshop, carefully optimizing each set to the highest possible quality
              Message 6 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans Nyberg" <hans@...> wrote:
                > Sorry you are right, I have exchanged them to CubicConverter movies.
                >
                > I have discovered that Pano2VR seems to have problems with downsizing.
                > The 1904 is softer than the CubicConverter version.
                >
                > Hans


                I think for a valid comparison you should do the scaling and
                sharpening in Photoshop, carefully optimizing each set to the highest
                possible quality attainable for that size. Now too much depends on the
                perhaps less fortunate settings and limitations of those VR tools.

                After finding what is technically possible with t.l.c. in Photoshop,
                some experimentation is necessary to see if those VR tools can come
                close to that, and how they need to be set up for the best possible
                results.

                Since I produce only a limited volume of panos I do all my scaling and
                sharpening in Photoshop. For me it is worth the extra time and effort.

                Erik Leeman

                http://www.erikleeman.com/
                http://flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/
              • philipp_koch_als_name_gibts_oft
                Hans, thanks for your efforts to share your findings with us! Hhm, but I must admit I m not sure if I do understand this correctly. Do you mean it s possible
                Message 7 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hans,

                  thanks for your efforts to share your findings with us! Hhm, but I
                  must admit I'm not sure if I do understand this correctly. Do you mean
                  it's possible to shrink the equirectangular image to 70% of its
                  original size and divide the corresponding image width by pi without
                  visible image detail loss? Sorry, maybe this is a dumb question, but I
                  simply could not get the same values when looking at the example on
                  your website.

                  To make it simple: Say, there is an equirectangular image with 1000 x
                  500 px.

                  1000 x 0.7 = 700
                  700 / pi = 222.8169203

                  So, one could shrink the equirectangular image to 700 x 350 px in
                  Photoshop and convert this image to six 222 x 222 px cube faces?

                  Or am I getting something totally wrong here?

                  Thanks in advance,
                  Philipp

                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans Nyberg" <hans@...> wrote:

                  >
                  > I have made some more tests on the optimal cubeface sizes.
                  > http://www.panoramas.dk/cubefaces/
                  >
                  > Hans
                  >
                • Erik Krause
                  ... Nice test. However, we all know that using a large cube face size and not allowing zoom in to 1:1 pixel display is a waste of bandwidth. It is no surprise
                  Message 8 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Am Friday, October 31, 2008 um 21:26 schrieb Hans Nyberg:

                    > I have made some more tests on the optimal cubeface sizes.
                    > http://www.panoramas.dk/cubefaces/

                    Nice test. However, we all know that using a large cube face size and
                    not allowing zoom in to 1:1 pixel display is a waste of bandwidth. It
                    is no surprise that viewing a panorama at a given zoom setting yields
                    the same quality as long as the cubefaces are larger than necessary.

                    Hence this test only shows the interpolator and anti-aliasing quality
                    of the viewer...

                    As for Ken's 70% rule: Your images show impressively that he is
                    absolutely right. However, the reason he gives (bayer interpolation)
                    needs a closer look: While it is true that color information is
                    upsampled this is not necessarily the case for brightness
                    information.

                    It depends on the used interpolation algorithm whether this affects
                    the output resolution or not. This is the reason why you sometimes
                    get a colored moiree if you shoot regular structures that are in the
                    range of sensor pixel density. And it is the reason (among others)
                    why different raw converters give different results.

                    Hence the quality loss if downsampling to 70% might depend on the
                    image content. Evenly bright images with a lot of color contrast
                    might not suffer at all, while almost black and white images might
                    suffer more.

                    All this gets more and more meaningless with digital cameras having a
                    pixel density (in some cases far) above the resolution of the used
                    lenses...

                    best regards

                    --
                    Erik Krause
                    Offenburger Str. 33
                    79108 Freiburg
                  • Erik Krause
                    ... This may be due to the fact that Pano2VR uses a non-sharpening anti- aliasing interpolator. On http://wiki.panotools.org/Anti-aliasing_interpolators the
                    Message 9 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Am Friday, October 31, 2008 um 23:36 schrieb Hans Nyberg:

                      > I have discovered that Pano2VR seems to have problems with downsizing.
                      > The 1904 is softer than the CubicConverter version.

                      This may be due to the fact that Pano2VR uses a non-sharpening anti-
                      aliasing interpolator. On
                      http://wiki.panotools.org/Anti-aliasing_interpolators the Filters
                      with ID 18 and higher are sharpening ones (the deeper the
                      "depression" on both sides of the peak the more).

                      I don't know what kind of interpolator CubicConverter uses, but the
                      result of a not anti-aliased downsize always gives a sharper
                      impression because pixel "jaggies" subjectively look sharper (but
                      increase shimmering in the resulting pano - if the viewer doesn't
                      anti-alias itself).

                      More info on http://wiki.panotools.org/Aliasing

                      best regards
                      --
                      Erik Krause
                      Offenburger Str. 33
                      79108 Freiburg
                    • Hans Nyberg
                      ... Yes and No. You may also do that But If you read my page again you will see that I use the full resolution equirectangular as the source image to convert
                      Message 10 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "philipp_koch_als_name_gibts_oft" <pk@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Hans,
                        >
                        > thanks for your efforts to share your findings with us! Hhm, but I
                        > must admit I'm not sure if I do understand this correctly. Do you mean
                        > it's possible to shrink the equirectangular image to 70% of its
                        > original size and divide the corresponding image width by pi without
                        > visible image detail loss? Sorry, maybe this is a dumb question, but I
                        > simply could not get the same values when looking at the example on
                        > your website.
                        >
                        > To make it simple: Say, there is an equirectangular image with 1000 x
                        > 500 px.
                        >
                        > 1000 x 0.7 = 700
                        > 700 / pi = 222.8169203
                        >
                        > So, one could shrink the equirectangular image to 700 x 350 px in
                        > Photoshop and convert this image to six 222 x 222 px cube faces?
                        >
                        > Or am I getting something totally wrong here?

                        Yes and No. You may also do that
                        But If you read my page again you will see that I use the full resolution equirectangular as
                        the source image to convert directly to the cubefaces. Just ignore any default cubefaces by
                        the converter.
                        In that way you are using all your information for the conversion so that you get full
                        quality in all areas of the cubeface.

                        Of course the 70% rule is only applicable if you are using the max resolution from your
                        camera as it is the interpolation in the camera which gives you a false resolution.

                        In reality you could probably also already in the Raw converter downsize the original
                        images without loosing any details.

                        For example all these Gigapixel images which are so popular are in most cases using
                        panoramas with a resolution which they could easy schrink to 70%

                        Just zoom in on them to the so called full resolution and you see that the quality is often
                        really bad. But of course 10 gigapixels sounds more impressive than 7.

                        Hans
                      • Philipp B. Koch
                        ... Ah, ok. So in the example given above one would take the 1000 x 500 equirectangular and convert it directly to cube faces with 222 x 222... ... I m always
                        Message 11 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hans Nyberg schrieb:
                          > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "philipp_koch_als_name_gibts_oft" <pk@...>
                          > wrote:
                          >
                          >> (...)
                          >>
                          >> To make it simple: Say, there is an equirectangular image with 1000 x
                          >> 500 px.
                          >>
                          >> 1000 x 0.7 = 700
                          >> 700 / pi = 222.8169203
                          >>
                          >> So, one could shrink the equirectangular image to 700 x 350 px in
                          >> Photoshop and convert this image to six 222 x 222 px cube faces?
                          >>
                          >> (...)
                          >>

                          >> Yes and No. You may also do that
                          >> But If you read my page again you will see that I use the full resolution equirectangular as
                          >> the source image to convert directly to the cubefaces. Just ignore any default cubefaces by
                          >> the converter.
                          >> In that way you are using all your information for the conversion so that you get full
                          >> quality in all areas of the cubeface.
                          >>
                          Ah, ok. So in the example given above one would take the 1000 x 500
                          equirectangular and convert it directly to cube faces with 222 x 222...

                          >> Of course the 70% rule is only applicable if you are using the max resolution from your
                          >> camera as it is the interpolation in the camera which gives you a false resolution.
                          >>
                          >> In reality you could probably also already in the Raw converter downsize the original
                          >> images without loosing any details.
                          >>
                          >> (...)
                          I'm always shooting at best resolution (7.4 MP in my case, with Olympus
                          E-330 and Olympus fisheye). I'll have to investigate this with my
                          personal setup.

                          So, again, thanks for letting me know :-)
                        • Hans Nyberg
                          ... CubicConverter uses Bicubic which seems to be called Cubic in wiki. Why not use the Bicubic definition if it is the same. I never heard anyone call it just
                          Message 12 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Krause" <erik.krause@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Am Friday, October 31, 2008 um 23:36 schrieb Hans Nyberg:
                            >
                            > > I have discovered that Pano2VR seems to have problems with downsizing.
                            > > The 1904 is softer than the CubicConverter version.
                            >
                            > This may be due to the fact that Pano2VR uses a non-sharpening anti-
                            > aliasing interpolator. On
                            > http://wiki.panotools.org/Anti-aliasing_interpolators the Filters
                            > with ID 18 and higher are sharpening ones (the deeper the
                            > "depression" on both sides of the peak the more).
                            >
                            > I don't know what kind of interpolator CubicConverter uses, but the
                            > result of a not anti-aliased downsize always gives a sharper
                            > impression because pixel "jaggies" subjectively look sharper (but
                            > increase shimmering in the resulting pano - if the viewer doesn't
                            > anti-alias itself).

                            CubicConverter uses Bicubic which seems to be called Cubic in wiki.
                            Why not use the Bicubic definition if it is the same. I never heard anyone call it just cubic.
                            Photoshop today has 3 Bicubic versions.

                            From what I understand Pano2VR uses Mitchell as default but Mitchell softens the
                            cubefaces slightly compared to CubiConverter. They need 0,4 100% unsharp mask to get
                            back to the same quality if you do an conversion with editing cubefaces and convert back
                            to equirectangular. This does not make sense after reading your comment as Mitchell
                            should have the same effect as Cubic.

                            Lazcos 3 gives normally same quality as CubicConverter but I found that I had to get up
                            to Blackman/sinc Filter to get the same when doing downsizing.

                            Hans
                          • Erik Krause
                            Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 11:33 schrieb ... No. To simplify the calculation you can simply divide by 4.5 (app. pi/0.7) In any case: It might be best to
                            Message 13 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 11:33 schrieb
                              philipp_koch_als_name_gibts_oft:

                              > Sorry, maybe this is a dumb question, but I
                              > simply could not get the same values when looking at the example on
                              > your website.
                              >
                              > To make it simple: Say, there is an equirectangular image with 1000 x
                              > 500 px.
                              >
                              > 1000 x 0.7 = 700
                              > 700 / pi = 222.8169203
                              >
                              > So, one could shrink the equirectangular image to 700 x 350 px in
                              > Photoshop and convert this image to six 222 x 222 px cube faces?
                              >
                              > Or am I getting something totally wrong here?

                              No. To simplify the calculation you can simply divide by 4.5 (app.
                              pi/0.7)

                              In any case: It might be best to not first reduce the equirect and
                              then create cubefaces but use a good anti-aliasing interpolator and
                              create the smaller cubefaces directly from the larger equirect. This
                              saves one interpolation step.

                              BTW.: While photoshop creats nice small JPEGs at good quality it
                              might be no good idea to use it for cubefaces stripes. In any stripe
                              there are at least two joints where the single cubefaces don't fit.
                              At these joints the jpeg compression creates artifacts that are later
                              visible in the resulting panorama. See
                              http://www.photopla.net/wwp0703/stripes.php for details.

                              If I remember correctly Pano2VR and Pano2QTVR create stripes using a
                              different compression scheme near the edges, which avoids these
                              artifacts.

                              best regards
                              --
                              Erik Krause
                              Offenburger Str. 33
                              79108 Freiburg
                            • Hans Nyberg
                              ... An image says more than..... Here is a screenshot with movies made from the 8600x4300 test image. Resized to 1904 cubefaces directly. From left Pano2VR
                              Message 14 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans Nyberg" <hans@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Krause" <erik.krause@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Am Friday, October 31, 2008 um 23:36 schrieb Hans Nyberg:
                                > >
                                > > > I have discovered that Pano2VR seems to have problems with downsizing.
                                > > > The 1904 is softer than the CubicConverter version.
                                > >
                                > > This may be due to the fact that Pano2VR uses a non-sharpening anti-
                                > > aliasing interpolator. On
                                > > http://wiki.panotools.org/Anti-aliasing_interpolators the Filters
                                > > with ID 18 and higher are sharpening ones (the deeper the
                                > > "depression" on both sides of the peak the more).
                                > >
                                > > I don't know what kind of interpolator CubicConverter uses, but the
                                > > result of a not anti-aliased downsize always gives a sharper
                                > > impression because pixel "jaggies" subjectively look sharper (but
                                > > increase shimmering in the resulting pano - if the viewer doesn't
                                > > anti-alias itself).
                                >
                                > CubicConverter uses Bicubic which seems to be called Cubic in wiki.

                                An image says more than.....

                                Here is a screenshot with movies made from the 8600x4300 test image.
                                Resized to 1904 cubefaces directly.
                                From left Pano2VR with different interpolators. Then CubicConverter 1904 and also 1
                                default 2736. Plus the original image in Photoshop at 100%.
                                http://www.panoramas.dk/cubefaces/cubefaces-interpolation.jpg

                                Hans
                              • Philipp B. Koch
                                ... Thanks a lot, that really simple :-) ... I m using Eric Gerds DOSUP (Pano2Faces.bat) for conversion. As far as I know it s using spline64 as interpolator.
                                Message 15 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Erik Krause schrieb:
                                  > To simplify the calculation you can simply divide by 4.5 (app.
                                  > pi/0.7)
                                  >
                                  > In any case: It might be best to not first reduce the equirect and
                                  > then create cubefaces but use a good anti-aliasing interpolator and
                                  > create the smaller cubefaces directly from the larger equirect. This
                                  > saves one interpolation step.
                                  >
                                  Thanks a lot, that really simple :-)

                                  > BTW.: While photoshop creats nice small JPEGs at good quality it
                                  > might be no good idea to use it for cubefaces stripes. In any stripe
                                  > there are at least two joints where the single cubefaces don't fit.
                                  > At these joints the jpeg compression creates artifacts that are later
                                  > visible in the resulting panorama. See
                                  > http://www.photopla.net/wwp0703/stripes.php for details.
                                  >
                                  > If I remember correctly Pano2VR and Pano2QTVR create stripes using a
                                  > different compression scheme near the edges, which avoids these
                                  > artifacts.
                                  >
                                  I'm using Eric Gerds' DOSUP (Pano2Faces.bat) for conversion. As far as I
                                  know it's using spline64 as interpolator. So do you think I could expect
                                  good results when applying the "simplified rule of 70" (e.g. divide
                                  equirectangular image width by 4.5) here? (Good enough to use it as
                                  standard workflow)?

                                  Best regards,
                                  Philipp Koch
                                • Erik Krause
                                  ... I don t know whether it is really the same. However, apparently the algorithm was called cubic in the originating paper:
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 13:17 schrieb Hans Nyberg:

                                    > CubicConverter uses Bicubic which seems to be called Cubic in wiki.
                                    > Why not use the Bicubic definition if it is the same. I never heard
                                    > anyone call it just cubic. Photoshop today has 3 Bicubic versions.

                                    I don't know whether it is really the same. However, apparently the
                                    algorithm was called cubic in the originating paper:
                                    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/wrapper.jsp?arnumber=1163711

                                    > From what I understand Pano2VR uses Mitchell as default but Mitchell softens the
                                    > cubefaces slightly compared to CubiConverter. They need 0,4 100% unsharp mask to get
                                    > back to the same quality if you do an conversion with editing cubefaces and convert back
                                    > to equirectangular. This does not make sense after reading your comment as Mitchell
                                    > should have the same effect as Cubic.
                                    >
                                    > Lazcos 3 gives normally same quality as CubicConverter but I found that I had to get up
                                    > to Blackman/sinc Filter to get the same when doing downsizing.

                                    Interesting. I think Thomas should clarify...

                                    best regards
                                    --
                                    Erik Krause
                                    Offenburger Str. 33
                                    79108 Freiburg
                                  • Sacha Griffin
                                    I think this proves an important point. You can t simply throw away pixels hoping they are bayer artifacts. The top left is so terrible compared to the others.
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I think this proves an important point. You can't simply throw away pixels
                                      hoping they are bayer artifacts.

                                      The top left is so terrible compared to the others. So using a high quality
                                      interpolator is clear. As well as deciding on the final resolution

                                      At least to my eyes there clearly a loss of resolution/clarity at 1904 from
                                      2736.

                                      I think also a contributing factor here, is jpeg compression. At 1904
                                      compression artifacts are obscuring destroying details, and at full
                                      resolution they are less noticeable.





                                      Sacha Griffin

                                      Southern Digital Solutions LLC

                                      http://www.southern-digital.com

                                      http://www.seeit360.net

                                      404-551-4275






                                      An image says more than.....

                                      Here is a screenshot with movies made from the 8600x4300 test image.
                                      Resized to 1904 cubefaces directly.
                                      From left Pano2VR with different interpolators. Then CubicConverter 1904 and
                                      also 1
                                      default 2736. Plus the original image in Photoshop at 100%.
                                      http://www.panoramas.dk/cubefaces/cubefaces-interpolation.jpg

                                      Hans

                                      .


                                      <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=18227848/grpspId=1705006496/msgI
                                      d=24218/stime=1225548125/nc1=3848642/nc2=4763759/nc3=5349282>




                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Keith Martin
                                      ... Exactly, and well pointed out! This is an interesting trade-off that s worth remembering. With very high resolution images, JPEG damage isn t as noticable
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Sometime around 1/11/08 (at 10:59 -0400) Sacha Griffin said:

                                        >I think also a contributing factor here, is jpeg compression. At 1904
                                        >compression artifacts are obscuring destroying details, and at full
                                        >resolution they are less noticeable.

                                        Exactly, and well pointed out!

                                        This is an interesting trade-off that's worth remembering. With very
                                        high resolution images, JPEG damage isn't as noticable simply because
                                        the pixel-level alterations are relatively smaller than with
                                        lower-res images. This is definitely the case in print work, where
                                        high-res can mean *very* high. But it has some bearing on what we do
                                        for panoramas too; in my experience you can frequently use a somewhat
                                        higher compression setting for a higher-res cubeface than for a
                                        lower-res cubeface without ending up with obvious compression damage.

                                        (I don't mean you can make a higher-res cubeface *smaller*, but you
                                        can often get noticably better quality output without dramatically
                                        larger file sizes.)

                                        I think the key phrase here is "your mileage may vary", but I am
                                        reading all posts with great interest in the hope of gleaning further
                                        understanding in this area.

                                        I've also set Pano2VR's default interpolation filder from my previous
                                        choice of Lanczos3 to Blackman/sinc and will run some tests when I
                                        have time.

                                        k
                                      • Erik Krause
                                        ... spline64 isn t an anti-aliasing interpolator hence it s not optimal for downsizing. You can specify different interpolators on the DOSUP command line, but
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 15:03 schrieb Philipp B. Koch:

                                          > I'm using Eric Gerds' DOSUP (Pano2Faces.bat) for conversion. As far as I
                                          > know it's using spline64 as interpolator. So do you think I could expect
                                          > good results when applying the "simplified rule of 70" (e.g. divide
                                          > equirectangular image width by 4.5) here? (Good enough to use it as
                                          > standard workflow)?

                                          spline64 isn't an anti-aliasing interpolator hence it's not optimal
                                          for downsizing. You can specify different interpolators on the DOSUP
                                          command line, but it seems to be limited to the "old" panotools
                                          interpolators.

                                          If you have a more recent panotools version (pano12 version 2.7.10 or
                                          newer) you can use the anti-alaising interpolators: open
                                          pano2faces.bat in notepad (or similar text editor) and locate the
                                          lines (numbers 369 and 370 in the current version)

                                          SET interpolate=i4
                                          SET interp=spline64

                                          Change them to

                                          SET interpolate=i19
                                          SET interp=Mitchell

                                          for a neutral or

                                          SET interpolate=i21
                                          SET interp=Lanczos3

                                          for a sharpening anti-aliasing interpolator. The i-numbers correspond
                                          to the ID in http://wiki.panotools.org/Anti-aliasing_interpolators

                                          best regards

                                          --
                                          Erik Krause
                                          Offenburger Str. 33
                                          79108 Freiburg
                                        • Philipp B. Koch
                                          Thanks a lot, Erik! I ve tried both Lanczos3 and Mitchell with DOSUP like you proposed. The visual difference is surely worth the (much) longer processing time
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Thanks a lot, Erik! I've tried both Lanczos3 and Mitchell with DOSUP
                                            like you proposed. The visual difference is surely worth the (much)
                                            longer processing time it takes compared to spline64...

                                            Best regards,
                                            Philipp Koch


                                            Erik Krause schrieb:
                                            > Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 15:03 schrieb Philipp B. Koch:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >> I'm using Eric Gerds' DOSUP (Pano2Faces.bat) for conversion. As far as I
                                            >> know it's using spline64 as interpolator. So do you think I could expect
                                            >> good results when applying the "simplified rule of 70" (e.g. divide
                                            >> equirectangular image width by 4.5) here? (Good enough to use it as
                                            >> standard workflow)?
                                            >>
                                            >
                                            > spline64 isn't an anti-aliasing interpolator hence it's not optimal
                                            > for downsizing. You can specify different interpolators on the DOSUP
                                            > command line, but it seems to be limited to the "old" panotools
                                            > interpolators.
                                            >
                                            > If you have a more recent panotools version (pano12 version 2.7.10 or
                                            > newer) you can use the anti-alaising interpolators: open
                                            > pano2faces.bat in notepad (or similar text editor) and locate the
                                            > lines (numbers 369 and 370 in the current version)
                                            >
                                            > SET interpolate=i4
                                            > SET interp=spline64
                                            >
                                            > Change them to
                                            >
                                            > SET interpolate=i19
                                            > SET interp=Mitchell
                                            >
                                            > for a neutral or
                                            >
                                            > SET interpolate=i21
                                            > SET interp=Lanczos3
                                            >
                                            > for a sharpening anti-aliasing interpolator. The i-numbers correspond
                                            > to the ID in http://wiki.panotools.org/Anti-aliasing_interpolators
                                            >
                                            > best regards
                                            >
                                            > --
                                            > Erik Krause
                                            > Offenburger Str. 33
                                            > 79108 Freiburg
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • Thomas Rauscher
                                            ... The bi in bicubic comes from the fact that the filter is used 2 times, one time in X and one time in Y direction. If you use such a filter on a CT scan
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Erik Krause wrote, On 01.11.2008 15:20:
                                              > Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 13:17 schrieb Hans Nyberg:
                                              >
                                              >> CubicConverter uses Bicubic which seems to be called Cubic in wiki.
                                              >> Why not use the Bicubic definition if it is the same. I never heard
                                              >> anyone call it just cubic. Photoshop today has 3 Bicubic versions.
                                              >
                                              > I don't know whether it is really the same. However, apparently the
                                              > algorithm was called cubic in the originating paper:
                                              > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/wrapper.jsp?arnumber=1163711

                                              The "bi" in bicubic comes from the fact that the filter is used 2 times,
                                              one time in X and one time in Y direction. If you use such a filter on a
                                              CT scan they are often called "Tricubic". As Panotools and Pano2VR
                                              provide more then one filter the "bi" is kind of redundant as it should
                                              be clear that they are used in both directions. Otherwise the filters
                                              should have been called "Bigaussian", "Bilanczos", "Bimitchell"...

                                              >> From what I understand Pano2VR uses Mitchell as default but Mitchell softens the
                                              >> cubefaces slightly compared to CubiConverter. They need 0,4 100% unsharp mask to get
                                              >> back to the same quality if you do an conversion with editing cubefaces and convert back
                                              >> to equirectangular. This does not make sense after reading your comment as Mitchell
                                              >> should have the same effect as Cubic.
                                              >>
                                              >> Lazcos 3 gives normally same quality as CubicConverter but I found that I had to get up
                                              >> to Blackman/sinc Filter to get the same when doing downsizing.
                                              >
                                              > Interesting. I think Thomas should clarify...

                                              I also use a kernel size of width/4 for the conversion. This is between
                                              the two extremes of width/Pi and width/(Pi*sqtr(2)) (see my previous
                                              post about the cube face sizes) and is a compromise between "too soft"
                                              and aliasing. If you don't mind aliasing you can turn of the "dynamic
                                              kernel" in the preferences and you should get a sharper image.

                                              --
                                              MfG,
                                              Thomas
                                            • Thomas Rauscher
                                              ... The reason for these artifacts is chroma subsampling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling . In Pano2VR and Pano2QTVR the subsampling is turned
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Erik Krause wrote, On 01.11.2008 14:52 Uhr:

                                                > BTW.: While photoshop creats nice small JPEGs at good quality it
                                                > might be no good idea to use it for cubefaces stripes. In any stripe
                                                > there are at least two joints where the single cubefaces don't fit.
                                                > At these joints the jpeg compression creates artifacts that are later
                                                > visible in the resulting panorama. See
                                                > http://www.photopla.net/wwp0703/stripes.php for details.
                                                >
                                                > If I remember correctly Pano2VR and Pano2QTVR create stripes using a
                                                > different compression scheme near the edges, which avoids these
                                                > artifacts.

                                                The reason for these artifacts is chroma subsampling
                                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling .
                                                In Pano2VR and Pano2QTVR the subsampling is turned off for stripes.
                                                Please note that the tile size must be a multiple of 16 to make this work.

                                                In Photoshop different levels of subsampling are used depending of the
                                                quality setting. To be on the safe side with CS2 you need to use at
                                                least Quality 7 in "Save as..." and Quality 51 in "Save for Web". For
                                                more information you may also have a look at:
                                                http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/chroma-subsampling.html

                                                --
                                                MfG,
                                                Thomas
                                              • Erik Krause
                                                ... How much do you downsample? I did some tests some time ago and found no big difference for a 4000x2000 to cubefaces 1200 remapping tasks. -
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 17:55 schrieb Philipp B. Koch:

                                                  > Thanks a lot, Erik! I've tried both Lanczos3 and Mitchell with DOSUP
                                                  > like you proposed. The visual difference is surely worth the (much)
                                                  > longer processing time it takes compared to spline64...

                                                  How much do you downsample? I did some tests some time ago and found
                                                  no big difference for a 4000x2000 to cubefaces 1200 remapping tasks.
                                                  -> http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/41713#msg41713
                                                  I stopped testing, since the old fixed kernel size interpolators and
                                                  the anti-alaising ones are not comparable. The kernel size (and hence
                                                  the execution time) highly depends on whether downsampling or
                                                  upsampling, and they increase for downsampling:
                                                  http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/41703#msg41703

                                                  best regards
                                                  --
                                                  Erik Krause
                                                  Offenburger Str. 33
                                                  79108 Freiburg
                                                • Philipp B. Koch
                                                  ... I ve made some tests with an equirectangular 4742 x 2371, downsampling it to 1052 cubes (=~ / 4.5) with spline64, Mitchell and Lanczos3. I did not count
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Nov 2, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Erik Krause schrieb:
                                                    > Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 17:55 schrieb Philipp B. Koch:
                                                    >
                                                    >> Thanks a lot, Erik! I've tried both Lanczos3 and Mitchell with DOSUP
                                                    >> like you proposed. The visual difference is surely worth the (much)
                                                    >> longer processing time it takes compared to spline64...
                                                    >>
                                                    > How much do you downsample? I did some tests some time ago and found
                                                    > no big difference for a 4000x2000 to cubefaces 1200 remapping tasks.
                                                    > -> http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/41713#msg41713
                                                    > I stopped testing, since the old fixed kernel size interpolators and
                                                    > the anti-alaising ones are not comparable. The kernel size (and hence
                                                    > the execution time) highly depends on whether downsampling or
                                                    > upsampling, and they increase for downsampling:
                                                    > http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/41703#msg41703
                                                    I've made some tests with an equirectangular 4742 x 2371, downsampling
                                                    it to 1052 cubes (=~ / 4.5) with spline64, Mitchell and Lanczos3.
                                                    I did not count the time for each task, but both Mitchell and Lanczos3
                                                    took well three times as long as spline64, I'd estimate.

                                                    Regards, Philipp
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.